To all those who say develop your pieces
22 Dec '12 20:486 editsFound this interesting, maybe you will too.
Klyavin v Zhdanov, Latvian Championship, 1961
The tendency to pronounce White confidently in the lead is based on his advantage
in development and the weakness of Black's queenside and center. However,
development is a value that varies in significance with the openness of a position. In
the Morphy era of 1.e4 e5 games, development took on great importance because
every position was crosscut by open lines. But in the diagram we have a closed
position with no open files and several stifled diagonals.
Both players, in fact, must redevelop their pieces on new squares because their
original development doesn't jell with the middlegame pawn structure. Black, who is
about to redevelop his dark-squared bishop by moving it from a blocked line at g7 to
an excellent vista at f8, stands quite well in terms of development!
More important is the nature of the weaknesses on both sides of the board. Black
has "holes" on his weakened black squares such as d6, c5, f6, and b6. They are
weak because they've lost all or part of their pawn protection. Remember that we
defined defense in the Introduction as the protection of weaknesses. With the closed
nature of the position and the misplacement of the White minor pieces, these
weaknesses are unexploitable.
True, if he could just get the White dark-squared bishop to d6, or open the e-file or
somehow bring a knight to c5, White would have a terrific game. But as it is, many
moves must be made before White will be able to exploit the obvious weaknesses.
Now look at the game from Black's chair. White has made no pawn weaknesses on
the queenside where his king is housed, and none of his central or kingside squares
is beyond pawn protection. His pieces appear well placed. But actually White's
queenside is easily attackable by way of N-d7-b6-c4 and the recapture with the
b-pawn if the knight is taken on c4. In the meanwhile White has to take several
preparatory steps to make his minor pieces work. He needs f4 and g4 in preparation
for f5 before he can release the pent-up, potential energy of his pieces.
Now, does this seem fair to White who ostensibly hasn't made a single mistake while
Back has been losing time and retreating his pieces behind weaknesses? But White
has made a mistake, a bad one: 10.0-0-0??. If he had castled kingside and begun to
exploit the queenside with a2-a4, the shoe would be on the other foot. This simple
difference - plus the series of mindless attacking moves that followed - is what cost
White the game.
source:http://www.chess.com/article/view/quotthe-art-of-defense-in-chessquot-by-andrew-soltis
Klyavin v Zhdanov, Latvian Championship, 1961
The tendency to pronounce White confidently in the lead is based on his advantage
in development and the weakness of Black's queenside and center. However,
development is a value that varies in significance with the openness of a position. In
the Morphy era of 1.e4 e5 games, development took on great importance because
every position was crosscut by open lines. But in the diagram we have a closed
position with no open files and several stifled diagonals.
Both players, in fact, must redevelop their pieces on new squares because their
original development doesn't jell with the middlegame pawn structure. Black, who is
about to redevelop his dark-squared bishop by moving it from a blocked line at g7 to
an excellent vista at f8, stands quite well in terms of development!
More important is the nature of the weaknesses on both sides of the board. Black
has "holes" on his weakened black squares such as d6, c5, f6, and b6. They are
weak because they've lost all or part of their pawn protection. Remember that we
defined defense in the Introduction as the protection of weaknesses. With the closed
nature of the position and the misplacement of the White minor pieces, these
weaknesses are unexploitable.
True, if he could just get the White dark-squared bishop to d6, or open the e-file or
somehow bring a knight to c5, White would have a terrific game. But as it is, many
moves must be made before White will be able to exploit the obvious weaknesses.
Now look at the game from Black's chair. White has made no pawn weaknesses on
the queenside where his king is housed, and none of his central or kingside squares
is beyond pawn protection. His pieces appear well placed. But actually White's
queenside is easily attackable by way of N-d7-b6-c4 and the recapture with the
b-pawn if the knight is taken on c4. In the meanwhile White has to take several
preparatory steps to make his minor pieces work. He needs f4 and g4 in preparation
for f5 before he can release the pent-up, potential energy of his pieces.
Now, does this seem fair to White who ostensibly hasn't made a single mistake while
Back has been losing time and retreating his pieces behind weaknesses? But White
has made a mistake, a bad one: 10.0-0-0??. If he had castled kingside and begun to
exploit the queenside with a2-a4, the shoe would be on the other foot. This simple
difference - plus the series of mindless attacking moves that followed - is what cost
White the game.
source:http://www.chess.com/article/view/quotthe-art-of-defense-in-chessquot-by-andrew-soltis
Back to Top