whats the best approach to playing games with castling opposite sides? i always seem to get myself in trouble in these games and i lose more of them then i win.
what i notice is they open up the files on the side my king is up. or advance their pawns better then i advance mine. i guess my knowledge of which pawn to push is a bit faulty.
any tips would be appreciated!
it depends on the opening. Almost always one player say white will be attacking blacks kingside while black is attacking whites queenside. The hard concept about these openings is to get some balls when playing to be honest. You have to just go for it and not worry if you get mated. Typically the first side to strike will win but not always. Also there are some sacrafices that may be made in order to not lose. Say they take a piece on your kingside, but your almost about to break his queenside. Recapturing on your kingside may not be as good as going for the gusto. Also you have to often use pieces to break open your opponents position. But like I said it depends on the opening.
Originally posted by Arraki try to get to an opposite side castling position in my games, as its clearly the funnest and more attackish. a good read about it is lev alburts attacking the king book, tells you general rules i hadnt heard about before
whats the best approach to playing games with castling opposite sides? i always seem to get myself in trouble in these games and i lose more of them then i win.
what i notice is they open up the files on the side my king is up. or advance their pawns better then i advance mine. i guess my knowledge of which pawn to push is a bit faulty.
any tips would be appreciated!
Originally posted by SquelchbelchDefinately- here is a game with the same strategy, but a different outcome. In these games, initiative is worth more that anything else.
Option 1. is best.
[pgn][Event "June 2008 Grouped Random III"]
[Site "http://www.playtheimmortalgame.com"]
[Date "2008.10.23"]
[EndDate "2008.11.27"]
[Round "2"]
[White "noxidjkram"]
[Black "Squelchbelch"]
[WhiteRating "1442"]
[BlackRating "1673"]
[WhiteELO "1442"]
[BlackELO "1673"]
[Result "0-1"]
[GameId "5578554"]
1. c4 e5 2. Nb1c3 Ng8 ...[text shortened]... 17. Kc1b2 axb5
18. cxb5 Ra8a4 19. Rd1a1 Rf8a8 20. c4 Qe7a7 0-1[/pgn]
I played this game on ICC a while back, and its one of my favorite opposite sides castling games.
Originally posted by KnightStalker47attacking the opposite wing can be seen as a form of (active) defence. And I don't see how "a positional move which puts a grinding stop to your opponents attack" doesn't fall under 'defence'.
You have 3 options.
1.Attack the opposite wing.
2.Defence.
3.A positional move which puts a grinding stop to your opponents attack.
Originally posted by schakuhrSo, according to Schakuhr there are 3 options:
attacking the opposite wing can be seen as a form of (active) defence. And I don't see how "a positional move which puts a grinding stop to your opponents attack" doesn't fall under 'defence'.
1)defence
2)defence
3)defence
Well, now we know : )
Originally posted by streetfighterI think there are more kinds of defence, so it would be
So, according to Schakuhr there are 3 options:
1)defence
2)defence
3)defence
Well, now we know : )
1) defence
2) defence
3) defence
4) defence
5) defence
6) defence
7) defence
But my point was that a reply to an attack is always some kind of defence, and hence a more detailed description of what constitutes 'defence' according to KnightStalker is needed.
Originally posted by schakuhrWell, OK, but I think it was fairly obvious what he meant! Your opponent attacks your king and you have enough resources in that area of the board to defend against the attack.
I think there are more kinds of defence, so it would be
1) defence
2) defence
3) defence
4) defence
5) defence
6) defence
7) defence
But my point was that a reply to an attack is always some kind of defence, and hence a more detailed description of what constitutes 'defence' according to KnightStalker is needed.
The other forms of defence are really counter-attack, be it on the opposite wing or in the centre which aim to either deflect your opponent from carrying through his attack or to break through first yourself against his king.
The positional defence (and I'll have to look for a good example) would be something like completely blocking the diagonal of his bishop, without which his attack couldn't progress!?
My own preference would always be the counter-attack against his king if at all possible, but of course it all depends on the particular position : )
Originally posted by streetfighterI suppose it is obvious at that. The original poster's question led me to dig up Vukovic' Art of Attack and I checked the chapter on defence to see if there was anything to help Arrak with his problem. Vukovic gives lots of different forms of 'defence' so I looked at it from that perspective.
Well, OK, but I think it was fairly obvious what he meant! Your opponent attacks your king and you have enough resources in that area of the board to defend against the attack.
The other forms of defence are really counter-attack, be it on the opposite wing or in the centre which aim to either deflect your opponent from carrying through his attack ...[text shortened]... ainst his king if at all possible, but of course it all depends on the particular position : )
- Joined
- 12 Nov 06
- Moves
- 74414
I found an example of a positional move which prevents attacking chances, in Aron Nimzowitsch's book, My system.
Nimzowitsch - N.N (Riga 1910)
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 d6 5.Nc3 Nf6 6.Be2 Be7 7.Be3 Bd7 8.Qd2 a6? 9.f3 0-0 10.0-0-0 b5
From this position 11.g4 would be the "attacking move".
Nd5 is the positional move.
Edit: It's interesting how many people in this thread believe that attacking on the opposite wing is the best/only way to go.
While I was flipping through My system(looking for an example) and Aron states that the idea of "one player castles short, the other long and each starts a pawn storm against the opposing king and who ever throws the first punch wins" is simply the wrong psycological attitude.
Also the difference between a defencive move and a positional move is a positional move restrains an attack and a defencive move simply defends the squares being attacked.