02 May 06
Originally posted by mlu9It certainly can be worth the attack on the other player. I couldn't show you any fabulous examples from my games (maybe you could ask Jusah for some games he's one against GMs), but here is one from recently which I quite enjoyed.
So, sorry I don't have a diagram for you, but how important is pawn structure? Would anyone say that weakening pawn structure is worth the attack on the other player? What are your thoughts on this? And I'm sure it must depend on the situation I suppose.
~mlu9
Game 2032535
03 May 06
Originally posted by mlu9Its just one of a many factors that you should take ito account. You
So, sorry I don't have a diagram for you, but how important is pawn structure? Would anyone say that weakening pawn structure is worth the attack on the other player? What are your thoughts on this? And I'm sure it must depend on the situation I suppose.
~mlu9
have to look at the position and determine whether in that particular instance the attack is worth the weakening of the pawn structure. If it works it works, if it doesn't it MAY hurt you later on.
I know that's vague but its impossible to give a yes or no answer, although Tal might have said yes and Petrosian no...
03 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by Knightloreactually, I like the way you worded that; I do suppose that it really is a judgement call that depends on a player's style. Thanks for that perception.
Its just one of a many factors that you should take ito account. You
have to look at the position and determine whether in that particular instance the attack is worth the weakening of the pawn structure. If it works it works, if it doesn't it MAY hurt you later on.
I know that's vague but its impossible to give a yes or no answer, although Tal might have said yes and Petrosian no...
And I would like to add that I believe a developed and strong stucture is somewhat vital for an indirect defense; pawns should not be as easily disregarded as they are. They are the key to an endgame in many cases.
~mlu9
03 May 06
I'd say its worth destroying for a check-mate or a worthy piece advantage which you can carry into the endgame... but other than that its not usually worth it, you can put your own pieces at risk by doing so and as long as your opponent can hold out, a good pawn structure is very important in the endgame...
06 May 06
Originally posted by ChessJesterThank you; I fully agree.
I'd say its worth destroying for a check-mate or a worthy piece advantage which you can carry into the endgame... but other than that its not usually worth it, you can put your own pieces at risk by doing so and as long as your opponent can hold out, a good pawn structure is very important in the endgame...
06 May 06
Originally posted by mlu9A pawn is usually considered having 1 point of value.
Would anyone say that weakening pawn structure is worth the attack on the other player?
But two pawns helping each other, like b3 and c4, is worth more than 2 points. And two pawns, isolated and on the same rank, like b2 and b3, with no other piece defending them is worth less than 2 points.
If you agree to this we also agree that a good and sound pawn structure also has it value in points.
Now - if you trade a good pawn structure in order to achieve some other benefit of your position than it better be better than the pawn configuration. So the exchange ends up with a better number of points.
This is exactly what Fritz and the other chess engines do - the calculate a position, including the value of pieces, and their position and so on, in points, and decide of that what to do.
So the answer to your original question is, and to all other questions alike – If the position is better after a particular move than before, then it is a good move, else it is not.