Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 19 Mar '09 08:22 / 2 edits
    Hi, in the following position, Purdy in his book, the search for chess perfection, under the section planning, lists this game, in evaluating the position, he gives blacks weaknesses as the two doubled b pawns, which are immobile and likely to become fixed nuisances and whites a pawn. Can someone please explain why whites a pawn is weak? is it because it stands on a semi open file, or that it needs a piece to protect it - regards in advance Robbie.


  2. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Gonzalo de Córdoba
    19 Mar '09 20:01 / 1 edit
    The White Rook is stuck defending it. If it advances, then the doubled bPs can be used to attack it, solving the problem of doubled Pawns (though the White Bishops make this difficult). It cannot take the bP because it's Pinned to the Rook, which is not connected to the other Rook yet (though castling fixes that). White's white square Bishop cannot defend it because of the Black P on d5, which is not under attack. The Knight that usually puts pressure on that Pawn has been traded off.
  3. 19 Mar '09 21:59
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    The White Rook is stuck defending it. If it advances, then the doubled bPs can be used to attack it, solving the problem of doubled Pawns (though the White Bishops make this difficult). It cannot take the bP because it's Pinned to the Rook, which is not connected to the other Rook yet (though castling fixes that). White's white square Bishop cannot ...[text shortened]... is not under attack. The Knight that usually puts pressure on that Pawn has been traded off.
    brilliant, some sense at last!
  4. 19 Mar '09 22:29
    I really can't add much. In the old books, this position (and concept) of allowing the doubled pawns was highly praised by annotators (for its originality).

    Years later, I would pick up a copy of The Road To Chess Improvement (a tough read that won book of the year) by Yermolinsky. If I remember correctly, he says the whole plan was bad for Capablanca. He shows some analysis where Janowski could have obtained the better position and made the whole thing look foolish (if I remember correctly). He also mentions the (dubious?) sacrifice of a pawn made by Capablanca against Nimzovich (the predecessor to the Benko Gambit).

    I will go dig out my copy and refresh myself if you are interested.
  5. 19 Mar '09 22:41 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by paulbuchmanfromfics
    I really can't add much. In the old books, this position (and concept) of allowing the doubled pawns was highly praised by annotators (for its originality).

    Years later, I would pick up a copy of The Road To Chess Improvement (a tough read that won book of the year) by Yermolinsky. If I remember correctly, he says the whole plan was bad fo ...[text shortened]... to the Benko Gambit).

    I will go dig out my copy and refresh myself if you are interested.
    you know my learned friend, speaking with beetle as I do, he has taught me the importance of clarity, and it really annoys me no end when there is ambiguity in my mind, so if you could shed any light on these three games that I posted, I will be eternally grateful and remember it next time I am giving you a whupping!

    Purdy himself shows how Janowski could have put a spanner in Capas plans with Bb5 i think. Actually Purdy uses it to show how one must evaluate the position every move.
  6. 20 Mar '09 00:20 / 1 edit
    I dug my copy out. I can't find the Nimzovich-Capablanca game. Only the Janowski-Capablanca game is in the Yermolinsky book. Maybe the other one is in the Watson book (Dynamic Chess Strategy: Advances Since Nimzovich). I'll do a little research and reply tomorrow.

    It has been a while !!!

    The correct title is Secrets Of Modern Chess Strategy By Watson.

    ... More Info Later
  7. 20 Mar '09 17:08
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    Hi, in the following position, Purdy in his book, the search for chess perfection, under the section planning, lists this game, in evaluating the position, he gives blacks weaknesses as the two doubled b pawns, which are immobile and likely to become fixed nuisances and whites a pawn. Can someone please explain why whites a pawn is weak? is it beca ...[text shortened]... ds in advance Robbie.


    [fen]r3kb1r/1p1bpppp/1pn5/3p4/3P4/4PN2/PP1BBPPP/R3K2R w - - 0 1[/fen]
    There are a few notes about the opening but not much about this position in my book !

    It even mentions 21.e5 (?) and gives 21.exf5 exf5 22.f4 (and Nf3 ... Ne5).

    As to your question about the position after 11.Be2, I think Purdy calls the a pawn weak because:

    ??? Uh Oh

    It is on an open file. If Capa were to pile his pieces on it, white would have to play a3. In doing this, Na5 and perhaps Ba4 would exploit the new hole created on b3. Capa would just get some better squares for his pieces. If after Na5 white captures, the bxa5 recapture(maybe) would fix all his weak pawns.

    In addition, there is also the plan of b5 and b4 by black once white commits his pawn to a3.

    Basically, he targets the pawn and forces it to advance (else white stays on the defensive a long time). Then, he reaps the rewards of the pawns new home (pin on a file, weakness of b3 and c4, lever for b4 push by black, etc).

    I hope this makes a little sense.