minority attack

i use to believe that minority attacks were hard to come by. this is my first ever. i was stuck and didn't know what to do then i looked at the board closer and said what the hell lets try it and it worked great!

http://www.redhotpawn.com/core/playchess.php?gameid=2344420

heres the link. if there are any higher rated players could you comment on my play but dont comment on what i should do in the game later on its still in progress.

Originally posted by kmac27
i use to believe that minority attacks were hard to come by. this is my first ever. i was stuck and didn't know what to do then i looked at the board closer and said what the hell lets try it and it worked great!

http://www.redhotpawn.com/core/playchess.php?gameid=2344420

heres the link. if there are any higher rated players could you comment on my play but dont comment on what i should do in the game later on its still in progress.

Game 2344420

Game in progress

That wasnt a minority attack

isn't a minority attack where you use some of your pawns to attack the opponents pawns when they have less than the side you are attacking? if not could you explain what it is then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_terminology

Without commenting on the game, I would say that that did fit the definition of a minority attack as far as I understand it. A minority of pawns (usually 2) attacking a majority of pawns (usually 3) for the purpose of inducing a weakness in the majority. Some people think of it as being exclusively the white a+b pawns supported by rooks and a knight against the black a,b,c pawns, usually stemming from a Q-pawn opening where white-s c-pawn has been effectively traded for blacks e-pawn (via cxd,exd). This narrow view is what is typically taught to illustrate the concept, and is themetic is some openings, but the concept can certainly have broader applications.

Originally posted by BLReid
purpose of inducing a weakness in the majority.

Did he do that? No all he has done was swap a pair of pawns. He didnt even use the pawns to do most of the work

Originally posted by Caro Kann
Did he do that? No all he has done was swap a pair of pawns. He didnt even use the pawns to do most of the work

It's the idea behind the pawn advance that is the key, not the outcome of the moves played.

And by the way, yes he did do that. Review the game. He played bxc, and white responded bxc. This left white with an isolated pawn on c3, whch was inadequately defended and snapped up immediately by the black Knight. A clear and succesful example of a minority attack if I ever saw one. The end result of the attack was that black ended up with a healthy k-side pawn majority, and on the queenside everything is even (as far as pawns go). No comments on what to do with it all though, cause it's still going.

I only recall seeing one game on the minority attack and all I can remeber were the a and b pawn for black running down the board. a6,b5,a5,b4,a4 etc... That's the attack part.

So, is this a minority attack? I didn't create a weakness, just won the pawn .
Game 2312180

According to Jeremy Silman's glossary:
Minority Attack: A plan based on the use of two or more pawns (the minority) to act as battering rams against the opponent’s three or more pawns (the majority) in order to create a weakness in the opposing camp.
Here is the most common opening sequence by which a minority attack is reached: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7 5.cxd5 exd5 6.Nf3 0-0 7.e3 c6 8.Bd3 Nbd7 9.Qc2 Re8 10.0-0 Nf8 11.Bxf6 Bxf6 12.b4 Be7 13.b5 Bd6 14.bxc6 bxc6. White has carried out his minority attack and has left Black with a weak pawn on c6 and a weak square on c5. After a further Rfc1, Rab1 and Na4 White will have great pressure against Black’s queenside. This plan is very important to understand, and situations for its use are constantly arising.

Funny how in his example the attack was carried out with one pawn, not the two in his definition. Well I think he means that the a pawn can be, though not necessarily, used as further support if black does something like ..a6 to hold the b pawn up. So the a pawn is part of the plan!
Of course the same is true for the kingside.

As for "creating a weakness", Is this just stated assuming the best defense scenario for the attacked side. If the attacker forces the win of a pawn due to poor defense, is it still a minority attack? I think so.

usually you will win a pawn with a successful minority attack. it leaves their pawns unprotected and able to pick up easily by piling pieces onto them.