I've tried something new recently which seems unsound but has worked well. The idea is both players castle on the king side and I put a minor piece (usually a bishop) on h3 or f3, for white, h6 or f6 for black, and bait my opponent into trading for that piece. Then I take with the g pawn, blowing a hole in my castle.
Now common sense says this is unsound. I have exposed my king and doubled my pawns. That's all wrong. But I quickly shift my king to h1 (white) or h8 (black) and move my rook to g1 (white) or g8 (black).
Now my rook is aimed at my opponent's king and I have the makings of a strong attack. If my back rank is clear, I can lift the rook on g and double with the other rook. The doubled-pawn can march forward and maybe my queen and other pieces can be brought to bear as well.
I can't believe I'm the first to try this and I am sure a good opponent can defeat the tactic. But I'm three for three with it. Is there something to this?
Anyone know more about this tactic?
Originally posted by ParShooterYou aren't the first. One of the most important things in a mating attack is an open file.
I've tried something new recently which seems unsound but has worked well. The idea is both players castle on the king side and I put a minor piece (usually a bishop) on h3 or f3, for white, h6 or f6 for black, and bait my opponent into trading for that piece. Then I take with the g pawn, blowing a hole in my castle.
Now common sense says this is unso ...[text shortened]... hree for three with it. Is there something to this?
Anyone know more about this tactic?
Originally posted by ParShooterI tried that before. It's never worked for me.
I've tried something new recently which seems unsound but has worked well. The idea is both players castle on the king side and I put a minor piece (usually a bishop) on h3 or f3, for white, h6 or f6 for black, and bait my opponent into trading for that piece. Then I take with the g pawn, blowing a hole in my castle.
Now common sense says this is unso ...[text shortened]... hree for three with it. Is there something to this?
Anyone know more about this tactic?
I ended up using this technique to get back into a game after I blundered and lost a rook for a bishop.
This is the position that got me into trouble. I just played 18...Qe7.
My queen and rook are on the same diagonal but I wasn't worried about it since my knight was preventing white's bishop from going to b4. However I overlooked the fact that my knight was under attack. White quickly removed the guard of the b4 square and I lost the exchange.
Then I got to this position. Black to play.
My first instinct was to move the f6 bishop out of harm's way because I was down the exchange and felt simplifying only helped white's position. Then I decided perhaps I had some good attacking chances if I allowed the exchange and moved my rook over to the open g file. The lack of defenders around white's castled position and having my rook, bishop and queen aimed at white's king aided my decision.
- 8
- a
- 7
- b
- 6
- c
- 5
- d
- 4
- e
- 3
- f
- 2
- g
- 1
- h
| 1. | e4 | c6 |
|---|---|---|
| 2. | d4 | d5 |
| 3. | Nb1c3 | dxe4 |
| 4. | Nc3xe4 | Ng8f6 |
| 5. | Ne4g3 | c5 |
| 6. | Ng1f3 | Nb8c6 |
| 7. | c3 | e6 |
| 8. | Bf1e2 | Bf8e7 |
| 9. | O-O | cxd4 |
| 10. | Nf3xd4 | Nc6xd4 |
| 11. | cxd4 | O-O |
| 12. | h3 | b6 |
| 13. | Be2f3 | Nf6d5 |
| 14. | Rf1e1 | Bc8b7 |
| 15. | Bc1d2 | Ra8c8 |
| 16. | Ra1c1 | Qd8d7 |
| 17. | a3 | Be7f6 |
| 18. | Bd2c3 | Qd7e7 |
| 19. | Bf3xd5 | Bb7xd5 |
| 20. | Bc3b4 | Qe7b7 |
| 21. | Bb4xf8 | Rc8xf8 |
| 22. | Ng3h5 | Kg8h8 |
| 23. | Nh5xf6 | gxf6 |
| 24. | f3 | Rf8g8 |
| 25. | Re1e3 | Rg8g6 |
| 26. | Rc1c3 | Qb7b8 |
| 27. | Qd1e1 | Qb8f4 |
| 28. | Rc3c8 | Kh8g7 |
| 29. | Qe1c3 | Qf4g3 |
| 30. | Qc3d2 | Qg3xh3 |
| 31. | Rc8c3 |
White offered the draw and I accepted. It was a tournament game and a draw was all I needed. Kind of an interesting Caro-Kann. I think I had the better of it unitl my mistake.
Originally posted by ParShooterI hate to be predicatable, but like every tactic and every strategy, it depends upon the specifics of the position.
I've tried something new recently which seems unsound but has worked well. The idea is both players castle on the king side and I put a minor piece (usually a bishop) on h3 or f3, for white, h6 or f6 for black, and bait my opponent into trading for that piece. Then I take with the g pawn, blowing a hole in my castle.
Now common sense says this is unso ...[text shortened]... hree for three with it. Is there something to this?
Anyone know more about this tactic?
Only the player with the lead in development should open lines. If ones development / position allows such as strategy, then of course it can have merit.
In the particular circumstances you outline, you have to be pretty sure you can make the benefits of a g-file attack outweight the weakness in your position. Doubled pawns per se are not the achillies heel some novice players generalise them to be, but they do create weaknesses. If you move your g-pawn, you leave big holes on f3 and h3. If the enemy can lodge a bishop, knight, or even a queen on these squares, you may be in trouble. Likewise you open (in particular) the long diagonal on the board. If you can take control of this, great. If your opponent can, yet another weakness is exposed.
I would imagine that more often than not it is a bad idea to rip open the centre of a castled position when still in the middlegame, but chess is the marvellous game it is precisely because every 'rule' has its many exceptions.
Hi Parshooter.
It's a judghement call. you (and you are gaining experince with this idea)
judge wether or not this ploy is OK.
If you are ahead in development and am 99% sure your attack
gets in first, then why not?
Good chess though, it shows you can think away from the rules of thumb
but be aware that the ROT have been established through experience.
For every 3 wins there are most likely 30 losses.
(I see from previous post you lost one. The good news is you will
learn more from that one game you did your 3 wins).
So we swap 'dodgy' attacking ideas.
I like to sac my h-pawn in fianchetto's to get an attack going.
Basic position.
1...h6 2.Bxh6 Kh7.
3.Bxg7 Kxg7 and Rh8
Centre has to be fixed for this flank attack to have any chance.
Originally posted by greenpawn34That seems to be the consensus so I guess my feeling that the tactic was generally unsound was, itself, unsound. It is sound, depending on other things, and I have not discovered something "new in chess."
Hi Parshooter.
It's a judghement call. you (and you are gaining experince with this idea)
judge wether or not this ploy is OK.
If you are ahead in development and am 99% sure your attack
gets in first, then why not?
Good chess though, it shows you can think away from the rules of thumb
but be aware that the ROT have been established through ...[text shortened]... 8/3Q1PPP/6K1 w - -[/fen]
Centre has to be fixed for this flank attack to have any chance.
Thanks to all contributors.