I have found that while moving a king toward the front line still seems completely unorthodox to me, it is NOT ineffective at all.
I am still self taught, so I don't plan on tackling a strategy like this any time soon.
Can those of you who are chess scholars explain why this is so effective?
(I will look for a good example.)
I don't have an example at hand, but the king is a chess PIECE along with all of the other pieces.
As long as moving the king off your back rank doesn't expose it to mating attacks, or checks that are tactically damaging to you, then you may use it as another attacking piece.
As a general rule, you want to use the king as an attacking piece only in the endgame. So if the queens and a couple of other pieces have been traded off get your king out! A good rule of thumb is that if you are in an endgame, look to trade off the rest of your pieces if your king is more active than your opponents.
In a k&p v k&p game the more active king will normally win.
Originally posted by nihilismorEffective how? An example would definitely help.
I have found that while moving a king toward the front line still seems completely unorthodox to me, it is NOT ineffective at all.
I am still self taught, so I don't plan on tackling a strategy like this any time soon.
Can those of you who are chess scholars explain why this is so effective?
(I will look for a good example.)
I have a book I tried to read but found way over my head. It is King Power in Chess, and in it goes throug how to use the king for defence of attacking pieces. And the like. I radn into trouble with this as I was getting into situations where my king would be supporting a piece on instant then have that piece pinned to the king a move latter. I am doing no justice for the book but I did realize that the king can play an active role in a game.
Originally posted by JonathanB of LondonPetrosian with a nice king march against Fischer.
The king as an attacking piece ...
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1124533
I defy you to find a better example!
have found that while moving a king toward the front line still seems completely unorthodox to me, it is NOT ineffective at all.
I am still self taught, so I don't plan on tackling a strategy like this any time soon.
Can those of you who are chess scholars explain why this is so effective?
It is always risky to try this, because if the king is closer to the center and your opponent's pieces his attacking (sacrificial) possibilities are amplified. the Short-Timman game and Fischer-Petrosian game both have the player with the king march completely dominating the position. I would definitely say that's a prerequisite.
Two fantastic games back to back there.
The concept of using the King to shepherd home the pawns with
with the major* pieces still on the board is sheer brilliance.
And consider who was White. Petrosian at his peak.
And my hero, Tarrasch, showing us how to use a King.
In Reinfeld's book on Tarrasch (his best book) he preface's the
above game with this study by Troitzky.
White to play and win.
Fred does not give the year of Troitzky composed study.
The game was played in Vienna 1922 and won a brillo prize.
The study was composed in.....? (Swiss Gambit - please).
Tarrasch's wonderful instructive play, Reinfeld's ( & Tarrasch's) notes,
make Tarrasch's Best Games in my opinion, one of the finest
collection of best games ever written.
*The Queen and Rook are often referred to as the Major pieces.
The Bishop and Knight, the Minor pieces.
Originally posted by greenpawn341895? Not sure, I have seen it given as several similar positions, the following looking the most plausible as the one composed by Troitzky:
Two fantastic games back to back there.
The concept of using the King to shepherd home the pawns with
with the major* pieces still on the board is sheer brilliance.
And consider who was White. Petrosian at his peak.
And my hero, Tarrasch, showing us how to use a King.
In Reinfeld's book on Tarrasch (his best book) he preface's the
above game wi Rook are often referred to as the Major pieces.
The Bishop and Knight, the Minor pieces.
SwissGambit will probably know more.
Originally posted by greenpawn34Now thats beautiful.
Two fantastic games back to back there.
The concept of using the King to shepherd home the pawns with
with the major* pieces still on the board is sheer brilliance.
And consider who was White. Petrosian at his peak.
And my hero, Tarrasch, showing us how to use a King.
In Reinfeld's book on Tarrasch (his best book) he preface's the
above game wi ...[text shortened]... Rook are often referred to as the Major pieces.
The Bishop and Knight, the Minor pieces.
Originally posted by heinzkatThis is the correct position. My source gives the year 1895.
1895? Not sure, I have seen it given as several similar positions, the following looking the most plausible as the one composed by Troitzky:
[fen]5k2/4p2p/6P1/3K4/8/4B3/8/8 w - -[/fen]
SwissGambit will probably know more.
Originally posted by JonathanB of London
The king as an attacking piece ...
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1124533
I defy you to find a better example!
The usual quoted game for King marches is Alekhine-Yates, 1922, but this example is more impressive, because all the heavy pieces are still on the board.