Originally posted by greenpawn34To further this... sometimes if you see something that needs doing and you find that you HAVE to move a pawn to get it done think again. Sometimes you have to regroup your pieces and move them backwards... oftentimes you see the masters with pieces littered on their first rank all on the move to greener pastures.
Hi CJ.
Of course it is a rule of thumb. But one you should heed.
You will need pawn moves to prise open a centre, hit a piece that is defending
another piece etc...carry out a pawn storm v a castled position.
These are aggressive pawn moves. Decisions back up with plausible motifs.
It's the lazy "what harm will it do." choice that is often the ...[text shortened]... o moves the good player
would rather not make because they know the damage is irrepairable.
I always start with the pawn structure. Always.
Instead of focusing on the "opening" try a position search mask in CB or whatever database you are using as your reference. Study minor piece placements and pawn breaks/ changes in the pawn structure.
If you are in a position with absolutely no reference than rejoice, odds are your opponent is most likely as well. Make an assessment of space, development and weaknesses (the Russians would say quality I suppose) - often the best plan in those situations is to improve you worst minor piece. Whatever you do, play with a plan, even a bad one. Never start making moves aimlessly.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12466
Originally posted by vzografosOnce you've made that first wrong pawn push, yes, I presume so. But if your pawn structure is sound, an exchange - even if less than advantageous - should still not be as damaging as blowing your pawn structure. (On average, of course. 'Changing off your kingside's only defender is... not wise.)
Interesting. If anything balanced piece exchanges will probably emphasise pawn mistakes even more
Richard
Originally posted by Shallow BlueNot true. For example a fianchetto structure (with the dark square bishop say) is not weak if you trade off your knight for their dark squared bishop you are doing well but if you swap off your dark square bishop now the structure is weak. Exchanges are almost equally vital as pawn structure.
Once you've made that first wrong pawn push, yes, I presume so. But if your pawn structure is sound, an exchange - even if less than advantageous - should still not be as damaging as blowing your pawn structure. (On average, of course. 'Changing off your kingside's only defender is... not wise.)
Richard
Correct.
The needless exchange "because I did not know what to do".
Is another comonn blunder.
Black plays Bxf3 without any prompting or follow up.
After the obvious Qxf3 they are 'stuck' again.
Another is releasing the tension (starting the exchanges in the centre.)
because they fear if they don't their opponent will and gain an advantage,
or they get lost in the maze of: You take, I recapture, you take, I recapture,
you take, I recapture....
The rule here is try to be last one who captures back in the centre.
After all the exchanges you will be left with the piece in the centre
of the board.
So with all things being equal you want him to start the exchanges.
Of course you can be forced to start off the exchanges.
But that is one of the aims in chess.
Getting your opponent to play moves he does not too.
Basically any "lazy" move is most likely bad... chess is a game of thought ergo you have to think about your moves. If you're stuck find some ideas and strive for the one that seems best ex. Try to gain the two bishops, create a weakness in your opponents camp (isolated or backwards pawns etc), gain control of a central square, improve your worst placed piece, or just regroup your pieces.
Originally posted by greenpawn34Watch out for boners! Thanks GP 🙂
Hi CJ.
Of course it is a rule of thumb. But one you should heed.
You will need pawn moves to prise open a centre, hit a piece that is defending
another piece etc...carry out a pawn storm v a castled position.
These are aggressive pawn moves. Decisions back up with plausible motifs.
It's the lazy "what harm will it do." choice that is often the ...[text shortened]... o moves the good player
would rather not make because they know the damage is irrepairable.
Originally posted by greenpawn34I am almost finished reading GM Nigel Davies' Starting Out:The Modern, and your post is practically the thesis of the book.
With no specific position posted all I offer is rules of thumb.
Russian Proverb.
"Give a weak player a good position at move 10
and he will destroy it with pawn moves by move 15."
If a weaker players does not know what to do. 'Stuck'.
You generally find a pawn move is selected.
The resulting weakness often proves critical.
ROT for good p ...[text shortened]... should give all middle game pawn moves very careful consideration.
(then move a piece.) 😉
All throughout the book, Davies seems to almost revel in white pawn moves, often remarking something to the effect of "I love it when white moves pawns forward. It is very committal, in that they can't move backwards, and we can exploit the weakness left behind".
Sometimes such writing is just a writer trying to sell his thesis, but in the case of this book, the writing is much more personal. Davies played the Modern almost exclusively on his journey to the GM title, and he uses a large number of his own games in the book.
When a GM is annotating his own games for you, including what he did and did not consider during a game, and what changes he made to his thinking after the game, it almost turns the book into what seems like a personalized lesson.
He has really driven home to me the point about weakening pawn moves- I knew that already in an academic sense, but this is the first time I've read it from someone as though they are preaching the gospel, so to speak, so it has become much more meaningful.
Great book, highly recommended.
Hi Paul
Never read the book, but loose pawn moves and the holes they leave behind
as reasons for losing have been known for over 100 years.
If one opening is geared up to take advantage of ambitious pawn moves
then it is The Modern/Pirc. Davies (and Keene) used it to great effect.
Any book by a good player using their games and thought process is bound
to be instructive.
I know what he means about 'loving to see White pawn moves."
The more they move the happier I am when playing the Pirc/Modern.
I use to regret my opening choice when facing just the e-pawn and d-pawn.
1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nc3 d6 4. Nf3 Nf6 5. Be2
I've got to create complications against that and dig him out.
"C'mon Mush, we are here to play Chess, you are not going to beat me
with that stuff. Attack me..."
Later on I'd gamble with a trick shot, lose and feel cheated.
(next time a Latvian....)
Originally posted by greenpawn34Same with me. I played the Pirc a long time (part of the John Nunn-influenced generation here), and the Classical was depressing to play against sometimes.
Hi Paul
Never read the book, but loose pawn moves and the holes they leave behind
as reasons for losing have been known for over 100 years.
If one opening is geared up to take advantage of ambitious pawn moves
then it is The Modern/Pirc. Davies (and Keene) used it to great effect.
Any book by a good player using their games and thought process ...[text shortened]...
Later on I'd gamble with a trick shot, lose and feel cheated.
(next time a Latvian....)
As an aside, I also have an old copy of Keene and Botterill's The Modern Defense in hardback and in descriptive notation. They were ahead of their time...except for the descriptive part!
Originally posted by vzografosThere are some good advices in this thread - flip the board, look at the quality of the pieces, don't exchange for the sake of exchanging.
Stuck here refers to the position not your ELO rating. That's a subject for another future thread 🙂
So, imagine this scenario. Most likely it is relevant to lower-middle rating players.
You start a game with someone with higher rating, play a few lines from an opening you might have memorised or found on the web. You don't really know the long term ...[text shortened]... er everyone gets stuck. Thus is still might be useful to discuss how others deal with this.
One idea that is beginning to sink in for me, after watching Maurice Ashley's "The secret to chess" - - is to simply look at which squares the opponent left unguarded after his last move. This can produce some rather interesting ideas.
Also, his "What grandmasters don't see" DVDs are quite interesting.
Originally posted by greenpawn341. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nc3 d6 4. Nf3 a6 can upset white's plan for a dull boring game.
Hi Paul
Never read the book, but loose pawn moves and the holes they leave behind
as reasons for losing have been known for over 100 years.
If one opening is geared up to take advantage of ambitious pawn moves
then it is The Modern/Pirc. Davies (and Keene) used it to great effect.
Any book by a good player using their games and thought process ...[text shortened]...
Later on I'd gamble with a trick shot, lose and feel cheated.
(next time a Latvian....)
Even better for chucking a spanner in the works is 1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nc3 c5. I play this quite often and it seems that many people are completely oblivious to the idea of transposition.
Originally posted by DiophantusThe former is GM Davies' approach, while the latter is Charlie Storey's "Sniper" approach. I have his book, too, but I haven't started it yet.
1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nc3 d6 4. Nf3 a6 can upset white's plan for a dull boring game.
Even better for chucking a spanner in the works is 1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nc3 c5. I play this quite often and it seems that many people are completely oblivious to the idea of transposition.
I became interested in his approach after playing through some Accelerated Dragon games in Andrew Greet's book.
It seems one thing in chess leads to another, and they all transpose to king and pawn vs king or some other ending in the end!