The occupation of the notorious 4 in the center of those 64 squares give you the utmost maneuverability and the better position to create onslaughts against your opponent.
Why then do I frequently come across (and most of the time wipe out) opponents who toss their knights and bishops and sometimes even queens upon that front line to do battle against my already fortified pawns?
Originally posted by nihilismor The occupation of the notorious 4 in the center of those 64 squares give you the utmost maneuverability and the better position to create onslaughts against your opponent.
Why then do I frequently come across (and most of the time wipe out) opponents who toss their knights and bishops and sometimes even queens upon that front line to do battle against my already fortified pawns?
Perhaps because they have yet to discover this nugget of chesswisdom?
because there are two concepts, philosophies if you like, one that says i occupy the center with my pawns, fortify it and it is strong, and another which says yes you own the center and occupy it but its not as strong as you make out, infact its a liability having to defend all those pawns and i can prove it by undermining it!
Yes. There is classical theory which states to own the center with a strong pawn structure. There is another which states, own the center indirectly with pieces, not committing your pawns early in the game.
One seeks to claim early dominance in the center, and to use that to stage a winning attack. The other seeks to allow that claim and to undermine it in the middle game, leaving those pawns vulnerable to attack.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie because there are two concepts, philosophies if you like, one that says i occupy the center with my pawns, fortify it and it is strong, and another which says yes you own the center and occupy it but its not as strong as you make out, infact its a liability having to defend all those pawns and i can prove it by undermining it!
RC dude there 's a third concept too, teached first time by Alekhine, and it is related with the dynamism of the chessmen; point here is that the potential of the Black pieces on their initial squares increases by just watching white pawn moves.
Originally posted by black beetle RC dude there 's a third concept too, teached first time by Alekhine, and it is related with the dynamism of the chessmen; point here is that the potential of the Black pieces on their initial squares increases by just watching white pawn moves.
wow, this is amazing idea, i have come across this in a very limited sense in the French defense where the black queen is very powerful left to sit on d8, although i do not know if this is a case in point.
here is a rather poor example from my most recent game showing the idea of trying to undermine the center, notice how black(me), lets white have the center and then tries to prove that this is a liability
Originally posted by robbie carrobie here is a rather poor example from my most recent game showing the idea of trying to undermine the center, notice how black(me), lets white have the center and then tries to prove that this is a liability
In this game the White has not a clue and his strategy (development!) is poor, so his tactics fails. The point is that the White forwarded his bishop to c4, and regarding this idea Sozin shows why and how the White does it (against a Sicilian the rapid f2-f4 breaks the hedgehog formation of the black central pawns, while if ...e5 the bishop on c4 becomes very strong due to the hole on d5). A strong Sozin for the Black is Robatsch-Fisher 0-1 Havana 1965, while for the White a good game is Minic-Van der Weide 1-0 Amsterdam 1971.
An example of a "Black pieces on their initial squares accumulating potential" strategy, as Alekhine understood it, is Alekhine Defence.
The battle for the 4 center squares.
29 Sep '08 07:37
Back to Top