|
|
| |||||||
| From | Message | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 Can some KNIGHT moves lead to losing your edge in development and attack?Also, there's potential bishop attacks on the knights from any distance, which may be OK if there's an an immediate exchange of bishop for knight. However, sometimes the bishop may just sit there, and you may have engaged another piece, such as your same color bishop, to keep guard, so that you don't end up with a double pawn if and when the opposing bishop takes your knight. So that bishop doesn't get developed, it just sits there, playing defence. At the same time the opposing knight manages to tie up two of my pieces.This could also happen on the initial c3 or f3 site. I find that I spend too much time trying to keep my knights safe from attack or potential attacks that may never even happen, lose moves, and, the initiative in the process, and end up playing a mostly defensive game, unless some offensive opportunity happens to open up. I'm sure that there are other factors at play, besides the knight situation, that cause me to end up mostly in defensive mode, but I feel that my knight handling or mishandling is a major part of the problem. The only offensive success I have had with knights so far, is in in setting up OUTPOSTS with pawn support in opposing territory, at locations where opposing pawns where not a threat. I would be very interested in getting any comments, advice, critique on this subject. My main overall objective is to improve my ability to attack and have less emphasis on defence. I'm probably missing some key issues here. If so, let me know. THANKS, LES |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
wrecking_ball 16-Jul-14, 14:27 |
I'll get back to you guys on this subject,probably on the weekend.Very busy at the moment.In the meantime,others can respond as they see fit.Take care for now. |
||||||
|
knights on the rim Good luck with your chess! RF |
||||||
|
Have noticed that knights tend to be more agile and versatile in some closed games. But not many games I get into are that closed. There must some way of incorporating them into an offensive in an open game, rather letting them sit there and be sitting ducks for opposing pawns. That's another aspect too. When you move the knights to c3 or f3 not only are they are exposed to opposing pawns but they are blocking your own pawns. Maybe that's part of the answer, get some of your pawns out there first to match, toe to toe,those of the opponents, of course leaving the kings pawns untouched. Then you have sort of a layer of friendly pawns in front of the knights when you move them out. I noticed someone I played fairly often, usually had that protective pawn layer in front of his knights, and it seemed to work for him. Of course that serves the knights well, because they can at anytime, when the opportunity arises, leap over that protective layer to do their job, without being harassed by opposing pawns and/or bishops in the meantime. Take care, LES |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Sometimes though the rim is merely a pathway to a better square, in other words only the first step in a 2 step move get to a better square. LES |
||||||
|
In a closed position, knights usually are strong than bishops (which favour open positions). This is a generalisation and every position is different, but its a good rule of thumb. That doesn't mean you must play closed in order to get the best of the knights - it just highlights that when you enter a closed position, your knights need to become the key players. You hit the nail on the head in your first post - your outposts are successful when there are no enemy pawns to threaten the knight. What you want to look for is what Jeremy Silman calls a hole (in his book reassess your chess which I recommend highly) which is basically a square in the opponents half of the board where they are no pawns to challenge it (either they have been removed from the board or developed further up the board so can no longer defend the square). This is why early pawn storms can be a bad idea as you open up holes in your position for the enemy to post knights. |
||||||
|
I agree that knights have good offensive capabilities, but they are not very good at defending themselves against close proximity attacks from pawns or bishops, except by jumping to another square, which you have to make sure is always available, and which doesn't have some defensive weaknesses of its own. So there has to either be an escape route or a protector assigned to a knight on an exposed square, or capability of exchanging pieces at the same level or maybe slightly better if you're giving up your knight for a bishop. This seems to me to tie up material (e.g.,opponent's bishop vs your knight under attack+its protector) and possibly hamper development, and setting up for offensive purposes. Also, the opponent's bishop may sit there endlessly while he goes about other business. Good deal for him! All the best, LES |
||||||
|
tough_customer 17-Jul-14, 11:45 |
Deleted by tough_customer on 17-Jul-14, 13:44.
|
||||||
|
Thanks for the Jeremy Silman recommendation. I'd also like to have a look at his, THE AMATEUR MIND to see if also casts some light on the matters under discussionn Yes, premature pawn storms certainly help in the setting up of Knight outposts. All the best , LES |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
wrecking_ball 17-Jul-14, 22:13 |
Those "horsey"things!They can make you or break you! Well,yes,is the answer to that.But why it is occurring in lesplay's game has to be personally looked at on a game to game basis.I have not yet looked into his game's,but will make a few general comments here. Some conclusive facts to remember about your Knight(s): A general rule of thumb(but not in every case)is: The "goodness" or badness" of a knight is measured by how many squares it can reach, whether or not the opposition controls it. The knight on f3 is "good." It can move its theoretical maximum of eight squares. A knight on one of the corner squares, h1, is "bad." It can move only two squares. A knight on e2 would have only six theoretical moves, not as good as being on f3, unless there were some other, strategic reason (like supporting a knight under attack on c3.) Additional,more detailed but general Knight facts: 1.) 1st or 2nd rank is generally defensive 2.) 3rd rank or 4th rank is theoretically "normal", and can be used defensively & aggresively. 3.) 5th rank is considered superior to a bishop 4.) 6th rank is the most devastating and might force your opponent to sacrifice an exchange to get rid of it. 5.) 7th rank is not as good as those on the 6th 6.) 8th rank...the Knight basically needs to get out of the rank If your pieces can't occupy the center, the next best thing is that they be within striking distance -- that they can get there as quickly as possible. Every time you make a move, you should consider its impact on the center. Mobility: This diagram illustrates the importance of a piece in the center. A Knight in the extended center, like the Black Knight on f6, can move to eight squares. A Knight in the corner, like the White Knight on a1, can move to only two squares. Additional Knight strategic thoughts with this basic link: www.expert-chess-strategies.com And as mentioned above.....placing your Knight on a WEAK "hole"created by your opponent(that does not have any attacking pawn capability)...and especially if that hole is on or near the center of the board,is a very,VERY powerful weapon and can be used as a solid launching point of aggressive attack in your games. Also,positional planning that involves "connecting"your Knights is much more powerful in many circumstances that simply allowing the Knight to be captured(by a Bishop for example). Why?Because if the opponent decides to capture your centralized Knight or one positioned in that hole created by your opponent,then you can immediately REPLACE that Knight with your "other" Knight and MAINTAIN the initiative and pressure! And simply think ahead!If you see ahead of time that placing that Knight deep into your opponents territory will have a high probability of a pawn attack which in turn will make you retreat,rather than advance with an additional offensive attack,then it may very well not be worth doing it.Why?Loss of tempo,loss of initiative and allowing your opponent to gain the former two I just mentioned! Sometimes a "delay"in Knight moves is something I would advise(even if it goes a bit against developmental theory),and in the meantime seek out developmental weakness from your opponent(like that hole) or edge file Knight moves (by your opponent).In the case of an edge file Knight placement,that is your alert siren!Meaning,begin to spring your Knight(s) into action.Why?Because in many circumstances(not all but many)...your opponent will have a depreciated point value with that Knight.So,by initiating YOUR Knight(s)at that MOMENT that are NOT on an edge file and have a full 3 point value(not 2.5 as opposed to your opponents) you have created a strong potential winning initiative on your side that can last the rest of the game to mate. More on this later by me,but that's all the time I have for now! WB |
||||||
|
wrecking_ball 17-Jul-14, 23:41 |
I have walked around an OTB game set up,so many times(even when playing a game on GK)and have looked at the position from both sides,that I have burned a trench into my floor!Ha,ha! So setting up a real 3D approach is simply another "tool"to make and develop your mind into truly understanding a tactical or long term strategic ploy in your games,observing weakness and more. Try it,and after some time you may gain better results.Too time consuming your thinking?Well,that is what separates the novice from the more serious player.Its called... taking and making "more of an effort"!! And reading books from Silman and video's from Polgar is a very fine thing to do.But comprehending and initiating what you read are two different things! |
||||||
|
Discussion with TODD He said he doesn't mind if I refer to our discussion to bring up another point. One important issue he raised was what replaces the knight non-move when it is decided unwise to move it? What other pieces or pawns might be developed, or further developed, in lieu of moving the knight? For example, moving a rook on the back rank to cover a partially open file, especially when facing the opponent' queen. Not a very dramatic move, but nevertheless,key. Also, a pawn or bishop could be moved instead of the knight as part of development. Or a conservative move with the queen might be appropriate. Also, if a knight is moved and then has to be moved back because the square was't safe, that's 2 moves lost where other pieces could have been developed. I think I've explained the gist of his point(s). LES |
||||||
|
wrecking_ball 18-Jul-14, 21:05 |
"Also, if a knight is moved and then has to be moved back because the square was't safe, that's 2 moves lost where other pieces could have been developed." And as I eluded to in my post above,the idea is to NOT move your Knight to an unsafe square initially,so that you would not be forced to move back and lose tempo.Observations of your opponents pawns and more must be done prior to moving that Knight,else do not move it.As to which piece to move instead,that varies with the opening,the game in general,what part of the game and if the game is open or closed. In general,as mentioned in this thread and elsewhere,the pieces to move would be those pieces that would place the most efficient control of the d4,d5 and e4 and e5 squares in the center of the board,either by placement on those squares with your Knights,pawns or Bishop or by long range control like a fianchetto Bishop(on b2 and/or g2 with the white) will also generally be a good idea for placing pressure on the center of the board.Castling in 10 moves or less is generally a good idea as well,but you probably know that. So the question of which piece to move instead of the Knight varies on a game to game basis and/or how your opponent responds.There is no specific pattern or solid formula to follow each and every time.Irregular games are one example where the "guideline rules"in theory do not necessarily follow the same move procedures that a Ruy Lopez game or a Sicilian game plan would follow. |
||||||
|
re the move not made... I think two other important factors play in to this scenario. 1. They don't know the general guideline of "move every piece once before moving one piece a second time" (unless there is an opportunity or threat). And 2. an alternate move is hard for them to see as being good (and they don't know the related guiding principle WB mentions re control of the central squares, ...or at least are not sure how to apply that principle). Now item 1 is a guideline to drive home the point to get all your pieces into the game (and also to make your initial move of a piece a good one). But it is not set in stone and the two-move police will not ticket you if you, on occasion, move a knight twice before moving a bishop or rook a first time (though they may be thinking about it). And of course, WB demonstrates all the time that knowledge of deeper theory makes it safe to not follow general guidelines that beginner and intermediate level players should follow. Anyway, I like this guideline and it contributes to me not sending a knight into danger and finding a move for one of my other pieces. Item 2 I think is important and interesting. Here are two positions from a friend's games. In this first diagram, she played 5.Nd5. My feeling is that on a very unscientific level, and without the guiding concepts discussed above (control the center and get all pieces into the game), partly due to not studying and partly due to lack of experience (my friend is super busy all the time), and because the knight move is somehow easier to see or is somehow more appealing than an alternate move, the knight gets moved. Now sure, the pawn on d3 is annoying and she probably didn't use the opening database well. Reagardless, playing Be2 would have been fine here, as would moving the other bishop. You can see where several moves can be made that will get the king tucked away and the rooks into play before one has to think about moving a knight again. As played, 5.Nd5 contributed to slower development and game her doubled pawns on the d-file by move 8 (while she remained uncastled and her rooks unmoved). I emphasize that I think that, "psychologically," the knight move "looked" interesting or exciting or correct while the bishop moves "did not look" good or were even invisible, ...well, inner psychology COMBINED with lack of guiding concepts and lack of experience applying them. In this second diagram, similar factors were at play. Take a second to try to find a good move. What did you choose? I almost certainly would have played 14.Rfe1, aiming a rook toward my opponent's queen and king. I have no idea what WB would play but know it would probably be the best choice. Now, moving a rook one square is not dramatic. A knight on the other hand has flair. Does this really influence a player. I'm saying yes, I think it does. You need guiding principles and experience to make the less exciting "looking" move, a move based on solid concepts (point rook at queen and king on semi-open file), win out over the flashy knight (all style and no substance ). Of course the knight has substance. But he has to be carefully deployed not let run loose. So, the move played? 14.Na4. Yes, "grim." But the point I'm trying to make is not that this knight is now in a bad spot and that the move perhaps shouldn't have been made (led to non-awful doubled-pawns on the c-file and my friend did win this game). It is what went into (or didn't go into) NOT choosing a different move? Maybe the played move is not really that bad. She was attacking the pawn on b6, good. The move loosened black's pawns and may have contributed to the win (64 move game btw). But ask the questions, did she consider moving a rook and if not why not? Oh, my friend won the first game as well. The doubled pawns became undoubled by move 10 and the game lasted 23 moves. BUT, her opponent was rated 1025 (she 1177). She might not have won vs someone rated 1300, perhaps traceable to that early second knight move. It was a gift by the opponent that the pawns undoubled. A point of this post: learning concepts (from books or blogs or coaches or mentors etc) will often replace uncertainty with guiding principles that will help you choose a good move. WB, Shamash, darknite, thereaper, wreck_tangle, others, please criticize, correct, or add to any of these comments. |
||||||
|
wrecking_ball 19-Jul-14, 11:18 |
Actually,in that first diagram above,making the 5.Nd5 move is not bad at all...with proper development it would have been fine.Remember the chat about finding a "hole" that your opponent creates that cannot be immediately attacked by pawns or other pieces?So a Knight placed on d5 would have been a relatively powerful outpost. Take for example,the moves here with BEST master followup play from black: 5.Nd5,Nce7 Black here would be trying to rid the solid/powerful Knight placement of white Knight in that hole. From this juncture,there are many white moves,all which would equalize the game fairly well: 6.d4 6.c4 6.Nxe7 But backing up a moment,there is a MUCH better move than 5.Nd5.Do you see it? 5.d4! Why?Again,in thinking of the terms of central development and control,pawn chain disabling by creating either a disconnected black pawn or even gaining a black pawn would proceed as follows: 5.....Nxd4 6.Nxd4,exd4 7.Qxd4! Now,this does not "gain" a pawn but leaves white with much better development and control,weakens blacks file area due to his e5 pawn vanishing,while maintaining a "good"file on whites side with that e4 pawn,whites dark squared Bishop has much more freedom and whites Knight is ahead in tempo,whereas blacks Knight still needs to be developed.And in addition,it will take black a few more moves to castle,whereas white only needs to move one of his two Bishops.All this from a simple 5.d4 move and no other move!See?Sure,as above,Nd5 would have been acceptable for equality(with proper play),but "delay"and holding back that white Knight move must be regulated by initially looking over the critical areas of the center first,and seeking weakness.Many times in 1000-1200 play,the pawn structure can be breached as in the d4 move I just illustrated. After move #7 with 7.Qxd4,take a look at the position: Now,if black,moves instead....5.d4,exd4 Then: 6.Nxd4,Nxd4 7.Qxd4 and you will find that the position mirrors the above diagram of mine. Now,onto the second diagram and second game of Todds: As to the move 14.Rfe1(aiming at the opponents Q).Not bad,but not best,shall I say!Why? Because there is still too much interference with that e3 Bishop and e2 pawn to cause much of a threat for many more possible moves,where blacks Q will probably move out of that e file anyway.Thus it is in the classification of a weaker/wasted move due to draining the initiative a bit,and whereas the BETTER edgefile Knight move of Na4(placing immediate pressure on that b6 pawn for capture with whites f5 Bishop scoping blacks d7 Knight defending that b6 pawn)is much better for the initiative and development.And again,as in the first game,blacks e pawn has vanished and leaves black in developmental jeopardy in most endgame situations(looking far ahead). So with 14.Na4 and again,with best master play,we have: 14.Na4,Ra7(defending that black Knight on d7) 15.c4,(intending to weaken blacks central pawn structure by creating an open file central weakness on the d file as well).Including the fact,that now whites Knight cannot be attacked by blacks b6 pawn without putting that a5 black pawn in trouble against whites Q. 15.....Qf7(again black trying to minimize control and attack in the central d file) 16.Qc2,(reinforcing that c4 pawn) 16...Ne7(to reinforce blacks d5 pawn with additional side notes of the possibility of white moving Bxg7,displacing blacks Q away from central pressure and/or blacks h7 pawn recapturing whites Bishop but leaving an open weaker 3rd file). 17.Bxd7,Rxd7 18.Nxb6! Now winning that b6 pawn and placing blacks d7 Rook in check whilst allowing whites b6 Knight to escape when threatened again by blacks Rook and whites Knight can retreat safely back into its edge file a4 position with no loss of tempo but a pawn to boot. The game,if continued with best play would be: 18....Ra7,Bd2 attacking that a5 pawn. Diagram position after 18.....Bd2: So,in my humble opinion and as a summary,the best move WAS 14.Na4 NOT Rfe1.And with the above moves played,you will notice in the diagram....blacks f7 dark squared Bishop is still way behind in development and is hemmed in.....plus there is a big weakness on blacks side?What weakness?Many!But notice that black has avoided the development theory of castling early.It is move #18 above and Black has still not castled and has that hemmed in Bishop to boot!And notice the disconnected black a5 pawn. Not sure if all of this will help someone like lesplay at a 1205 rating,but moving a Knight to an edge file prevails over general theory of NOT doing such a move,IF the pawn structure of your opponent is flawed or weak.Then placing pressure on that structure is recommended.BUT ONLY if you have an ESCAPE square to retreat your Knight to.In this game,white indeed did. And if you count up all the piece point values in totality(excluding Queens),white is "up" a 2 pawn value in this game.98% of my opponents would have resigned in that diagram above with a 2 pawn value down and no immediate mate in sight. |
||||||
|
interesting. that fits with my comment <<<"move every piece once before moving one piece a second time" (unless there is an opportunity or threat).>>> This particular opportunity I didn't recognize. And I think recognizing it is advanced (knowing this IS a case where moving twice, and to the edge to boot, is recommended). as always great deeper analysis by WB. I believe my point still survives, ...that if there is NOT an opportunity, then moving an unmoved piece is generally (or at least often) better than moving an already moved piece a second time. of course, we all hope to recognize opportunities. and as I mentioned, I was not concerned with the knight on the edge (though I do find WB's analysis interesting and excellent and appreciate it very much). And I did comment that <<<Maybe the played move is not really that bad. She was attacking the pawn on b6, good. The move loosened black's pawns and may have contributed to the win>>> This is partly a separate point than the one I was trying to make, ...a separate point having to do with deep expert analysis of a position as well as deep general knowledge such as knowing well in subtle positions when to go against "general" theory. The point I was trying to make concerns the tendency of some players to want (for let's say "emotional" rather than concept-based reasons) to move a knight a second time to where it is quickly pushed back (or where it is otherwise not the best move), combined with a related tendency to for the reasons stated not "see" or even look for alternate moves. interesting discussion touching on understanding or not understanding positions and principles at all levels of the game. |
||||||
|
To develop or to re-develop? |
||||||
|
pawns before or blocked by knights... I can't comment fully now. And WB, shamash and other masters and experts can do a better job anyway. But this made me think that lesplay might like the English opening and Sicilian defense. As I've said elsewhere, in an thread on openings, I like the Bremen variation of the English very much. Here's a typical position after 5.Nf3 This ties in with using opening databases. Now WB has shared insight into the top opening books. But between using no opening book at all and using the cutting edge, regularly updated, subscription, opening book, there are simple opening books such as those on gk gameknot.com and on 365chess.com and on www.chessgames.com While these might not stand up to high level play, they are useful tools at least for initial exposure and do include games by many masters. I'm bringing them up here for a specific reason, to point out to lesplay and other interested club members that the English opening is one of the top 5 most successful openings www.365chess.com. notice here that e4, d4, Nf3, c4 and g3 are all close to each other as being best for white. also see en.wikipedia.org piling on further, lesplay also asked about knights on c3 and f3 being pinned. Hopefully the masters will comment a bit on how to deal with this: allow the pin? prevent it? why or why not? what to do if the knight is pinned (tie up a bishop or other piece? push the bishop away? allow doubled pawns? etc...) |
||||||
|
wrecking_ball 19-Jul-14, 16:45 |
"5.Nd5 contributed to slower development and game her doubled pawns on the d-file by move 8 (while she remained uncastled and her rooks unmoved). I emphasize that I think that, "psychologically," the knight move "looked"......" and... "So, the move played? 14.Na4. Yes, "grim." But the point I'm trying to make is not that this knight is now in a bad spot and that the move perhaps shouldn't have been made (led to non-awful doubled-pawns on the c-file and my friend did win this game)." and... " I was not concerned with the knight on the edge (though I do find WB's analysis interesting and excellent and appreciate it very much)." With Todd's comments there does seem to be a highlighted "concern",relative to opinion and comments,good or bad regarding the Knight moves as stated...."grim"(but not "necessarily" grim).So I had to emphasize that the edge file Knight move above was not only great,but did indeed contribute to the game being won.This was directed at lesplay and others,not Todd for general conceptional info. Let me add that that 5.Nd5 in the other game actually DID NOT contribute to slower development as Todd mentioned,but shall I say "equal"development! 5.d4 would have exceeded initiative and development much better,however. Just a few extrapolated notes. As to "pins" with Knights on c3 and f3.This is mainly a misconception to the lesser rated players.In the opening, those Knights are technically not "pinned".And as a general guideline,as I have stated previously somewhere in another club post,doubled pawns in the opening have only a tiny fractional disadvantage,or NO DISADVANTAGE AT ALL...(even doubled edge pawns) as you will see in many Ruy Lopez games,Irregular Sodium games and Trompowsky games like....1.d4,Nf6 2.Bg5,d5 3.Bxf6,exf6.Here,blacks pawns are doubled on the f file.When you go deeper.....4.e3,Be6 5.Nf3,Bd6 6.Be2,0-0 7.0-0 you will see or find out that BLACK,not white actually has a positional edge,even with those doubled pawns of black!!!Any decent computer program will prove this.Check it now and see for yourself for positive proof.So what pin?I see no pin at all!(not in most circumstances anyway,especially in an opening.)Do not forget that trading Bishops in an opening game is generally unwise.And you know why,right?Bishops have a theoretical higher value in the yet open game.Remember my Sodium Attack game?Were those Knights "pinned"?No.Did the doubling of those pawns in the Sodium Attack game on the edge files give me any significant disadvantage?No.It opened up files,which compensated for the slight edge file pawn fractional disadvantage.Check my other posts on the Sodium for proof of this. So,there are pins,then their are true pins where the Knight cannot be moved at all without losing it.In the opening,I rarely,if ever,will classify a Knight on c3 or f3 as "pinned". |
||||||
|
well, I did mean relative to other options for white, my thinking being that if white is not hindering their own development than they should be giving black a run for their money. don't think I would have recognized d4 as being best though. Probably would have been hung up on the fact that she had already played d3 (instead of an initial d4) and that this was sort of a built in feature of my friend's style (a non-optimal second or third move). hard for me to shift between a game between players in the 1100s and a game with best play. was pretty committed to being "in the head" of the 1100 player, with a focus on how to find moves at that point part way through the opening when things are crowded and where I've noticed some players have trouble deciding on moves and sometimes resort to bad knight moves. I'd like to look at a position where there is NO good knight move so that alternatives can be considered. will try to find a good diagram. but if anyone else has one, please post. I think looking at a game where the knights stay put for a while and then are eventually put to good use would be useful. |
||||||
|
re pins... this is the  game where white's dsb drove me a little insane. it was a year and a half ago, my 1762 to his 2078. so maybe I would have approached things differently, not that I like my chances vs a nearly 2100 rated player more, now. I recall wishing I hadn't played 7...c5 and maybe that I never should played 3....Bb4, feeling from move 6 onward that it would have been nice to have MY dsb on e7.
|
||||||
|
"Novice Nook" column with the stolen rooks Sunil: (Scoops both the player's rooks off the board and deposits them in his pocket) Student: "Hey, you just took my rooks!" Sunil: "Well, you were not using them. You had chances, but instead repeatedly moved the pieces you already had developed." Student: "Give them back and I will use them!" Sunil (Wisely): "I will – but not until your next game." This may be where I first read Heisman's loose guideline to not move a piece twice until you move all pieces once. Again, and as Shamash and WB point out, and as Heisman points out ("...unless there is a tactic..."), this is not set in stone. but it can help with decision making and with the mobilization of all of your pieces in the opening. |
||||||
|
"Pins", "Doubled Pawns", and "Rims" I also don't think that doubled pawns are a big deal. As a matter of fact I have found them to be of some merit in protecting an open file in certain instances. As far as knights on the rim are concerned, I have sometimes used the rim as a launching pad, or intermediate step, to reach a better square for both defensive and offensive purposes. Have also used it to ward off or threaten potential attackers. Most of the time I avoid it, but there are those exceptions. |
||||||
|
wrecking_ball 19-Jul-14, 19:20 |
In my stat chart above,under...."Additional,more detailed but general Knight facts": There are many open and hidden values to that chart.It can make you direct your Knight in a statistical sense off of a rank or maintain its location on a specific rank based upon that GM study done years ago.That chart has a strong lesson within itself an should not be taken lightly or forgotten.You may come to a position and ask yourself..."what is the statistical true value"with that Knight on the 5th rank,since it is generally superior to a Bishop.This may possibly encourage you to exchange your opponents Bishop for your Bishop,while having a superior Knight in pawn value strength on the 5th rank.Yes,I know,a bit complex and foggy,but in time the puzzle pieces do come together! |
||||||
|
Unfortunately, I can't identify which game that was, but maybe that pronounced pawn battle near the start might be identifiable with certain openings and defense, and might ring a bell for somebody? |
||||||
|
wrecking_ball 19-Jul-14, 20:17 |
As to more complex pawn battles,I have observed that in 3 types of opening defenses more than any others.I shall list them in no specific order: 1.Caro-Kann Defense,which masses many pawn storms towards one another,phalanx formations and is not always easy for white to assail blacks pawn formations correctly. 2.Kings Gambit,accepted or declined has many complex pawn formations appear,especially on the King side.Since it is not played extensively in corresp play,the pawn formations can easily confuse the unprepared. 3.The anti-meran of the semi-slav,,attacks,counterattacks with pawn and major piece cooordinations.Quite a complex game at times. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
| |||||||
