I even went on Trisha show for I have this irrational fear of filed pawns - I try to avoid them at any cost (would think sometimes even to the extent of worsening my position) unless my piece is at stake.
Are there any circumstances or good examples where it actually can be beneficial and advantageous ? I know I try to generalise here, just thought there might be some exceptions to the rule, if there is one, that is, like some certain openings/end games.
p.s.
thanks, kmac27, had a quick look at Pawn Structure Chess by Andrew Soltis, it was good but I think I needed something more intermediate than this, him being an IM, he takes the bull by the horns from the very first pages of the book and throws Caro-Slav and Maroczy Unbound at you
In the bronstein-larsen variation of the caro kan, black doubles his f pawns, but in doing so takes away the e5 square from white, which in the normal caro kan is a strong outpost for a white knight. Also he gets nice quick development, so there are some advantages and disadvantages to doubling the pawns.
In Euwe and Kramer's The Middlegame, volume 2, the authors have this to say about Mikhail Botvinnik:
'Botvinnik was not only unafraid of an isolated d-pawn; he quite frequently was prepared to accept doubled or even tripled pawns' (p.237)
The example they give:
According to the text, the compensation he sought for accepting the doubled pawns was the possibility of occupying d5 later in the game.
I like doubled pawns when the doubling opens up a file for my rook, I find this especially good when there is castling on oposing flanks. When playing black, against e4, I like to castle queenside, and if there is a pin on my knight on f3 I like to remove it by playing 1. a3 Bxf3 2.bxf3, and then take control of the semi-open file and advance the pawn on f3 to disrupt the center. I guess it is a rather risky strategy, I haven't tested it much yet but it has given me 2 wins already.
let me add that doubled pawns are only a weakness if the opponent can profit from it
Orien is correct - doubled pawns are only a weakness if they can be attacked.
EG. a double pawn on an open file is such a weakeness.
I'll add, don't let a minor detail about double pawns affect you so.
It's the placing of your pieces that matter. If you are inactive then
a doubled pawn in your postion can become a target.
Try to use what cards you have been dealt. A doubled pawn means
you have a file for your Rook and doubled 'c' and 'f' pawns cover a
lot of central squares and can be used as excellent centre busters.
Recap: Don't get all gloomy just 'cos you have a doubled pawn.
Don't think the game is won just because you have inflicted
doubled pawns on your opponent.
Rather than give an example of some GM game look at Orien's
2nd game in Thread 114363. He could have avoided
doubled f-pawns but used the open g-file to good effect and f6-f5
also played a prominent part in the attack.
You can bet in that game White never thought;
"Oh Goody, a doubled f-pawn - Now I win."
Originally posted by greenpawn34indeed, GP34, you've deducted perfectly there, didn't mention that in my original post but that's how I sometimes do think- that by forcing my opponent into a double (triple is the best !) pawn position I've obtained some advantage. Obviously, sometimes it does ring true, but I seem to see this as a rule.
Don't think the game is won just because you have inflicted
doubled pawns on your opponent.
The post that was quoted here has been removedCouldn't you wait until the game was over before you showed (off) this game?
Haven't you thought about what would happen if someone gave you the move that would win the game? If you used the move then you would be cheated, if you don't then you perhaps lost it?
You should have waited until the game is over.
Blackamp has beaten me to the point - yes, indeed, there is a big positional difference between isolated doubled pawns and doubled pawns as part of a unified pawn bloc. The former are almost always weak, except in special circumstances; the latter can be strong, especially when controlling central squares. Furthermore, isolated doubles in front of the castled K weaken one's position more than isolated doubles elsewhere, for easily understood reasons
The key to understanding the structural qualities of doubled pawns is never to treat them in isolation from other features. Isolated doubles will remain a long-term and arguably terminal weakness unless one's position contains compensating dynamic features. In this case, one concedes the structural weakness as a trade-off for some clear benefit - say, two Bs or a N outpost.
Isolated doubles in an ending generally remain weak, mainly because they are relatively immobile; and also because they are not mutually reinforcing of course. Even doubles in a pawn block can be troublesome because the bloc can lack dynamism. Plenty of endings get drawn even though one side is a pawn ahead because that pawn is doubled.
Conclusion? Doubled pawns should be conceded only with care. Where they are likely to remain a long-term feature of one's position, with no early prospect of undoubling, strategy needs to be directed to exploiting squares and piece-play in the spaces opened by the doubled pawn structure
here is a game from RHP, two excellent players both 2000+ , black beetle and Ulysses 72. it is of interest because white, accepts tripled isolated pawns on the c file, why, to get rid of his conception that tripled pawns are in anyway a liability and in his own words, ' because I wanted to see how it really works and how it feels when you are saddled with a triple (soon to become double) pawn formation; for, as you are well aware, every “truth” is relative and related to the position.'
beetle goes on, "Ulysses left the Semi-Slav and entered a Marshall Gambit, and at that time I decided to push him to trade his Bishop with my Horsey on c3, knowing that the area b4/b5/b6/d6/d5 is controlled by the White; thanks to this fact I could forward there a piece of mine forcing the Black to a passive defence whilst concentrating the accumulated power of my other pieces elsewhere, since after Rb1 and Rd1 the White would control the b and d files.
The time I choose this strategy the position was equal, and I choose that specific advantage in order to keep my intentions unclear to Ulysses, in order to cause not a change to the dynamic ratio of the position, and because I wanted to see how it really works and how it feels when you are saddled with a triple (soon to become double) pawn formation; for, as you are well aware, every “truth” is relative and related to the position.
And my plan was simple: I would keep the pair of Bishops, I would hold the centre with minimum force and I would attack specific weaknesses at the black camp at here and there them flanks."
Here is a position from the Three Knight's Game, which I enjoy playing as Black. It's nothing fancy:
Experience shows that the White player's moves are motivated by the belief that filed pawns are always bad. Take a look at the position on the board, though. The center is still strong!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieVery nice game! Instructive too! Thanks for the post.
here is a game from RHP, two excellent players both 2000+ , black beetle and Ulysses 72. it is of interest because white, accepts tripled isolated pawns on the c file, why, to get rid of his conception that tripled pawns are in anyway a liability and in his own words, ' because I wanted to see how it really works and how it feels when you are saddle ...[text shortened]... cific weaknesses at the black camp at here and there them flanks."
Originally posted by atticus2thanks for all the comments and feedback provided..
...<zip zap>...Conclusion? Doubled pawns should be conceded only with care. Where they are likely to remain a long-term feature of one's position, with no early prospect of undoubling, strategy needs to be directed to exploiting squares and piece-play in the spaces opened by the doubled pawn structure