It was great to see Nimzo poke his head in the door again, anyhow, Nimzo made this rather interesting comment with regard to practical play,
'but have no idea how to deal with the "uneducated" player who plays c6 and then c5 followed by other aggressive pawn moves i.e. h5 etc... '
Why do chess players play this way and what is the antidote? What is more i do not think that it is restricted to uneducated players. Consider the following from Karpovs, my best games, page 126
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis is a very strange game. 7.bxc3? White accepts three pawn islands with no perceivable counter play. If nothing else black can just engineer a trade of Queens and have an unlosable ending. Against someone like Karpov you might as well resign right there.
It was great to see Nimzo poke his head in the door again, anyhow, Nimzo made this rather interesting comment with regard to practical play,
'but have no idea how to deal with the "uneducated" player who plays c6 and then c5 followed by other aggressive pawn moves i.e. h5 etc... '
Why do chess players play this way and what is the antidote? Wh ...[text shortened]... the center, was he unaware of these principles? hardly. so why did he neglect them? } 0-1[/pgn]
7.dxc3 ..Qxd1 8.Kxd1 might lose the right to castle, but it at least maintains whites structure. With the Queens off the board castling becomes less important anyway.
Originally posted by Marinkatombyou know Marinkatomb i was following another game, a Kasparov game, let me show it to you, for it was amazing in my mind, look at the way Kasparovs pawns end up, they are a total mess, yet it seems that he stands better, game was simul against Argentinian team.
This is a very strange game. 7.bxc3? White accepts three pawn islands with no perceivable counter play. If nothing else black can just engineer a trade of Queens and have an unlosable ending. Against someone like Karpov you might as well resign right there.
7.dxc3 ..Qxd1 8.Kxd1 might lose the right to castle, but it at least maintains whites structure. With the Queens off the board castling becomes less important anyway.
1. first point is that while something may be a theoretical weakness, in truth it may not be weak at all, this I understand.
2. second point is that i find this game disturbing, i love my pawns, my whole concept of chess is built around pawns and here Kasparov dismisses everything that I understand as a lie!
why despite Kasparovs pawns does he stand better? This i do not understand.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieA weak pawn is not weak if you can trade it off, which Kasparov does on move 16. The weakened K-side pawn structure was repaired by Kasparov's opponent (trading N for B). In both cases, a file was opened which Kasparov was able to control with rooks.
I think i just worked it out. Its a case of having good pieces instead of good pawns, because the pawns are not worth so much. Black has good pawns but bad pierces, white has bad pawns but awesome pieces and therefore stands better. Is it not the case?
Originally posted by moonbussure i understand this, its good! even so, black has absolutely no pawn weaknesses in comparison and yet white stands much better
A weak pawn is not weak if you can trade it off, which Kasparov does on move 16. The weakened K-side pawn structure was repaired by Kasparov's opponent (trading N for B). In both cases, a file was opened which Kasparov was able to control with rooks.
Principles are just there to help us make good moves in the absence of any concrete reason to play a certain way. The stronger the player, the more he, or she, is able to recognize advantages of different forms (space, initiative, piece activity, pawn structure, king safety, etc.) and weigh them accordingly. Since the 'safe' way of playing (accumulating one or two of those advantages while not conceding any disadvantages) so often ends up drawn at the GM level, they are obligated to take risks - unbalance the position - to win.
A similar example is this Fischer - Euwe game. White has a god-awful pawn structure, but black's stunted development proves to be the more important disadvantage.
Originally posted by SwissGambitlook at that, unbelievable, everything i have been told about pawn structures and pawn islands and pawns being the soul of chess is a lie! Activity is everything in chess, nothing else ,matters!
Principles are just there to help us make good moves in the absence of any concrete reason to play a certain way. The stronger the player, the more he, or she, is able to recognize advantages of different forms (space, initiative, piece activity, pawn structure, king safety, etc.) and weigh them accordingly. Since the 'safe' way of playing (accumulating ...[text shortened]... 5 30. Bb8 Rc8 31. a6 Rxc3 32. Rb5+ Kc4 33. Rb7 Bd4 34. Rc7+ Kd3 35. Rxc3+ Kxc3 36. Be5 1-0[/pgn]
- Joined
- 09 Aug 01
- Moves
- 54191
I am enjoying an excellent book on the middle game, Techniques of Positional Chess by Bronznik and Terekhin. Book covers 45 middle game motifs, including one section on just pushing the rook pawn forward. So shoving the rook pawn is a sign of a beginner or a sign of a deep thinker.
Originally posted by tonytiger41I suspect that flank attacks in general should only work when you have enough control of the center, otherwise ones opponent should and could counter attack in the center, at least thats my understanding at present. My great dictum is,
I am enjoying an excellent book on the middle game, Techniques of Positional Chess by Bronznik and Terekhin. Book covers 45 middle game motifs, including one section on just pushing the rook pawn forward. So shoving the rook pawn is a sign of a beginner or a sign of a deep thinker.
if we can play in the center we should play in the center!
I also am reading a great book, Test your positional play, Robert Bellini and Pietro Ponzetto, but i am savoring it like real slow, i wanna suck up the goodness! before i do the exercises and find out that I am a total patzer, as if i didn't know that already!
The Sokolov - Karpov game ('the strange game' ).
The bare score of a game never reveals the full picture you need to dig.
It was the World Candidate Final. The winner played a WC match with Kasparov.
This was the 11th game. and the score going into this game was
Karpov 3 wins Sokolov no wins with 7 draws.
In Games 1-9 Sokolov's 5 White's faced 5 Caro Kanns from Kaprov, all ended in a draw.
(When Karpov had White Sokolov played nothing but the Queen's Indian.)
Caution was thrown overboard, this Caro Kann was going to be different.
It was twist or bust play from an out of form Sokolov.
Something...anything....(8.h4) had to be tried to upset the cosy set up
that Karpov was employing v his 1.e4.
A younger Karpov may have been put off. Look at his few losses before
the Kasparov matches and the 2nd Korchnoi match.
He did fall foul a few times to dog's dinner positions.
It failed. It was bound to fail, Karpov was playing some wonderful Chess.
Sokolov was, as I said, off form.
Originally posted by greenpawn34A superb point. GM Lars Bo Hansen makes the argument that the two factors neglected when people discuss strategic chess are people and the environmental factors.
The Sokolov - Karpov game ('the strange game' ).
The bare score of a game never reveals the full picture you need to dig.
It was the World Candidate Final. The winner played a WC match with Kasparov.
This was the 11th game. and the score going into this game was
Karpov 3 wins Sokolov no wins with 7 draws.
In Games 1-9 Sokolov's 5 White's face ...[text shortened]... t was bound to fail, Karpov was playing some wonderful Chess.
Sokolov was, as I said, off form.
He argues that, competitively speaking, it is a mistake to evaluate a position strategically without taking into consideration the players (not just styles, but current health, mental state, etc) and the environmental factors (is it a match, a team tournament, etc).
The conditions under which a game is played, and the state of the players at the time it is played, are hugely relevant factors- and also a huge part of what makes them interesting.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWell said, as it is truly nice to hear respected voices in the forum again.
It was great to see Nimzo poke his head in the door again, anyhow, Nimzo made this rather interesting comment with regard to practical play,
'but have no idea how to deal with the "uneducated" player who plays c6 and then c5 followed by other aggressive pawn moves i.e. h5 etc... '
At the risk of putting words in someone else's mouth, I think it is important to note that he put 'uneducated' in quotation marks.
Sometimes chess book-learning gets in the way of common sense, and many moves of superficially sophisticated play are destroyed by a simple tactic.
As John Nunn says, "Never play positionally when mate is available."
Originally posted by greenpawn34such an interesting point dear GB and of course you are correct, never the less neglect the principles of the center and Caissa will find you and punish you! and so she should! Everyone who starts a flank attack without proper presence in the center and gets away with it is a criminal and must be brought to justice! i call on chess players everywhere, don't let them get away with it! if you do, they will do it again and again! 😛
The Sokolov - Karpov game ('the strange game' ).
The bare score of a game never reveals the full picture you need to dig.
It was the World Candidate Final. The winner played a WC match with Kasparov.
This was the 11th game. and the score going into this game was
Karpov 3 wins Sokolov no wins with 7 draws.
In Games 1-9 Sokolov's 5 White's face ...[text shortened]... t was bound to fail, Karpov was playing some wonderful Chess.
Sokolov was, as I said, off form.
Originally posted by Paul Leggettthis is the epitome of many 'educated', chess players, their learning and knowledge is much greater than their results, because theory is one thing and praxis quite another.
Well said, as it is truly nice to hear respected voices in the forum again.
At the risk of putting words in someone else's mouth, I think it is important to note that he put 'uneducated' in quotation marks.
Sometimes chess book-learning gets in the way of common sense, and many moves of superficially sophisticated play are destroyed by a simple tactic.
As John Nunn says, "Never play positionally when mate is available."