Originally posted by hamworldI don't think your bias for Bd3 is irrational- at least no more than my bias against parting with my light squared bishop for a knight.
I'm not gonna post anything. Wait I just did. 😛
I never said 5. Bd3 is better than 5. Na3 The problem is, having to play Na3 in that position. Why should White have to defend so early? Hell, why should he play the Stonewall anyway? "I prefer 5. Nd3"
"5 Bd3 Nxd3 6 cxd3 gives White a worse position than after 5 Na3." Er, I could use an explanation here ...[text shortened]... e that doesn't help/hurt anyone with a 1400 level of tactical understanding.
In this particular case, the resulting doubled d-pawns control important central squares, and a future e3-e4 becomes a possibility.
In either case, I think black is dynamically equal, but there is still a game to play, and I can certainly see someone being comfortable with the white central pawn roller after your 5. Bd3 Nxd3 6. cxd3.
It's also a little humorous to me how a conversation and chain of thoughts which would progress in seconds at the club takes days on the internet!
Originally posted by greenpawn34I think this quote alone is worth the price of admission.
[b]
Meanwhile White has holes in his position (1.d4 and 2.f4 - yuk!) which at the
moment can be only exploited by Knights....Not Rooks.
His agile Knight is worth more than a lumbering Rook.
If a position is a job, then our pieces are the tools in our toolbox, and a proper assessment of the job will tell us which tools we need, and how they should be used.
The idea is abstract, but very valuable, in that an understanding of the position makes it easier for one to generate plans and find moves. It provides focus, and clarifies the thinking process.
It is so easy to get caught up in the superficial value of pieces, when the real value of a piece is determined by its effectiveness in any given position.
Such chess arbitrage is how better players negotiate board positions and come out winning.
Thanks for everyone's input I've found it really helpful.
Some things from my point of view:
I was trying to play the stone wall but did not fully understand how to play it so I just kinda played it my way
I will continue to play the knight on the rim in a situation like the one in my game with dewi until I find something far better
When I was playing that game with Dewi I was still in the 10 min mindset as I used to play many of these style games and not think long before I moved but now I do and have got considerably better in my opinion. anyone who wants to challenge me and offer any analysis I would be very grateful, Thanks!
Originally posted by jackwilsDon't, he'll batter you 🙂.
Thanks for everyone's input I've found it really helpful.
Some things from my point of view:
I was trying to play the stone wall but did not fully understand how to play it so I just kinda played it my way
I will continue to play the knight on the rim in a situation like the one in my game with dewi until I find something far better
When I was p ...[text shortened]... ion. anyone who wants to challenge me and offer any analysis I would be very grateful, Thanks!
Jack was around my house last night, and slaughtered me in one of our two games! And had me on the rack in the other.
Originally posted by Paul LeggettIt takes so long on the internet because people are doing other things inbetween posts, not just on the internet but, like going to the grocery store.
I don't think your bias for Bd3 is irrational- at least no more than my bias against parting with my light squared bishop for a knight.
In this particular case, the resulting doubled d-pawns control important central squares, and a future e3-e4 becomes a possibility.
In either case, I think black is dynamically equal, but there is still a game to ...[text shortened]... and chain of thoughts which would progress in seconds at the club takes days on the internet!