03 May '08 23:45>
I am reading "Logical chess move by move" and it explains repeatedly that after castling, moving any of the 3 pawns away from the king is a major weakness and should be avoided. Now obviously depending on the situation there are exceptions. My question is: At what point is it considered unnecessary to protect the king with those pawns?
If it's down to all pawns and maybe a minor piece on each side then in most situations I suppose you would be using your king as a weapon.
What if you each still have a bishop, knight, and rook? I suppose that you would still want to keep protection in this case. But, where do you draw the line?
I understand this is a difficult question and every case is different.
In summary this is a 2 part question:
A-When do you activate those pawns as weapons?
B-When do you activate your king as a weapon?
Obviously I have my own ideas about this but I would appreciate it if I could gain any knowledge from those more experienced then myself.
If it's down to all pawns and maybe a minor piece on each side then in most situations I suppose you would be using your king as a weapon.
What if you each still have a bishop, knight, and rook? I suppose that you would still want to keep protection in this case. But, where do you draw the line?
I understand this is a difficult question and every case is different.
In summary this is a 2 part question:
A-When do you activate those pawns as weapons?
B-When do you activate your king as a weapon?
Obviously I have my own ideas about this but I would appreciate it if I could gain any knowledge from those more experienced then myself.