So you got stuck....now what?

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
The 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.

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!

The former is also Tiger Hillarp Persson's approach and the latter was played by Ray Keene and named the Pterodactyl if black then plays Qa5. Nowt new in chess it seems.

Gp's point is very valid, keep tension on the board until the resolution is favorable for you.

This means piece exchanges, pawns, and most importantly endgames.

Exchanging for simplification in anything but an already clearly won game is a great way to lose a game.

Originally posted by tomtom232
Not 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.

As I said: "'changing off your only defender is not wise". That's just what you've described there.

Richard

Originally posted by greenpawn34
The needless exchange "because I did not know what to do".
Is another comonn blunder.

Possibly, but it is rarely denounced nearly as harshly as needless pawn moves. There has to be a reason for that.

As I said, up ^ there on page 1, the pawn rule should go for exchanges as well, but I've rarely seen it stated as such. So, why not?

Richard