Originally Posted by help bot

On Mar 22, 7:45 pm, Albert wrote:

In Reuben Fine's 'The Ideas Behind Chess Openings' page 7 he wrote:

'OPENINGS WITH 1 P-K4, P-K4

Both White's and Black's initial moves are perfectly natural and
normal: both assist development and affect vital central squares.
As long as Black can retain symmetry, White can lay no claim to an
advantage. Consequently the task is to compel the defender to give up
his strong center positions, in other words to abandon his P at K4.
White can achieve this aim only by playing P-Q4.'

Why?

GM Fine was mistaken, for not only did he
err in claiming White has no advantage in
having /the first move/, but he seems to have
forgotten all about p-f4-- an alternative way to
attack e5 pawn.

A subtlety often overlooked is that there is
no such thing as perfect "symmetry", as one
side or the other always has the right as well
as the obligation to move something.

Here, he also seems to reject so-called
hyper-modern strategy altogether, in favor of
classical.


'If Black then replies with PXP he will be left with a pawn at Q3
(eventually)...'

Why?

Here GM Fine is assuming that Black either
a) has already played ...d6 earlier, to defend
his e-pawn, or b) Black cannot safely get in
the pawn advance ...d5. and must therefore
advance the pawn one square in order to
develop his QB "normally", which is to say,
not fianchettoed nor hyper-fianchettoed.


The thing to remember when reading such
authors is that, despite their often dogmatic
approach, there are a lot of instructive /ideas/
intermixed. A player who knows nothing
whatever about the openings can gleam a
lot from even the stubbornest dogmatists,
then later refine it to better fit with reality.

If you don't want to have to deal with all the
dogmatic commentary and mis-statements,
just go with a book by one of the many
modern writers, like say, Yasser Seirawan.
(Okay, I'm showing my age here; ...by say,
GM Nakamura.)


-- help bot