Capablanca vs Janokowsky St Petersburg 1914

Very nice game. Capa has a very clean game. Doubled pawn on e file?
Interesting. SO doubled pawns is not always a bad thing?

http://www.youtube.com/swf/cps.swf?v... l=1&border=0

On Nov 1, 12:40 pm, Rob wrote:
Capablanca vs Janokowsky St Petersburg 1914

Very nice game. Capa has a very clean game. Doubled pawn on e file?
Interesting. SO doubled pawns is not always a bad thing?

I don't know any competent chess authority who says a doubled pawn
is *always* bad. In this case White's doubled e-pawn is not especially
weak, Black has no way to capitalize on it, the e3-pawn improves
White's central control by covering d4 and f4, and the open f-file is
good for White.
A doubled pawn is disadvantageous mainly when it is weak and subject
to attack, for example White's c4-pawn in some lines of the Nimzo-
Indian, or when it interferes with mobility as with White's c2/c3/d4
formation in the Winawer French, when any white traffic to the a- or b-
files has to squeeze through c1.
The doubled c-pawn Black incurs in the Exchange Ruy is
disdvantageous not because the pawn is weak (it's not). The problem is
that it nullifies the endgame advantage usually conferred by a
queenside majority, which Black usually gets in the Exchange Ruy after
the white d-pawn is exchanged on d4 for Black's e-pawn. Even though
Black then has a 4-to-3 queenside majority, the doubled c-pawn makes
it impossible to force a passed pawn in the endgame. Therefore it is
White who has the active pawn majority, 4-to-3 on the kingside, and
thus the better endgame prospects.
However, Black has compensation in the form of the bishop pair, so
White is not always able to reach the favorable endgame.
The doubled pawn seems to be one of the more misunderstood chess
concepts among average players. I recall analyzing a game with a
teenage kid some years ago, and at one point he seriously proposed
putting a white knight en prise on c6, where it could be captured by
either Black's b- or d-pawn. "Why would you want to give up your
knight like that?" I asked. "Don't you think it's worth it, to double
his pawns?" he replied with a straight face.

http://www.youtube.com/swf/cps.swf?v...&eurl=&iurl=ht...

On Nov 1, 12:47 pm, Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Nov 1, 12:40 pm, Rob wrote:

Capablanca vs Janokowsky St Petersburg 1914

Very nice game. Capa has a very clean game. Doubled pawn on e file?
Interesting. SO doubled pawns is not always a bad thing?

I don't know any competent chess authority who says a doubled pawn
is *always* bad. In this case White's doubled e-pawn is not especially
weak, Black has no way to capitalize on it, the e3-pawn improves
White's central control by covering d4 and f4, and the open f-file is
good for White.
A doubled pawn is disadvantageous mainly when it is weak and subject
to attack, for example White's c4-pawn in some lines of the Nimzo-
Indian, or when it interferes with mobility as with White's c2/c3/d4
formation in the Winawer French, when any white traffic to the a- or b-
files has to squeeze through c1.
The doubled c-pawn Black incurs in the Exchange Ruy is
disdvantageous not because the pawn is weak (it's not). The problem is
that it nullifies the endgame advantage usually conferred by a
queenside majority, which Black usually gets in the Exchange Ruy after
the white d-pawn is exchanged on d4 for Black's e-pawn. Even though
Black then has a 4-to-3 queenside majority, the doubled c-pawn makes
it impossible to force a passed pawn in the endgame. Therefore it is
White who has the active pawn majority, 4-to-3 on the kingside, and
thus the better endgame prospects.
However, Black has compensation in the form of the bishop pair, so
White is not always able to reach the favorable endgame.
The doubled pawn seems to be one of the more misunderstood chess
concepts among average players. I recall analyzing a game with a
teenage kid some years ago, and at one point he seriously proposed
putting a white knight en prise on c6, where it could be captured by
either Black's b- or d-pawn. "Why would you want to give up your
knight like that?" I asked. "Don't you think it's worth it, to double
his pawns?" he replied with a straight face.



http://www.youtube.com/swf/cps.swf?v...l=&iurl=ht...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It is an interesting concept to learn how to evaluate the value of
doubled pawns in differing positions. I think showing how it is not
necessarily a bad thing should encourage developing players to look
beyond the learners adages of "doubled pawns=bad; mave knights before
bishops, ect"
Good Points

On Nov 1, 2:22 pm, Rob wrote:
On Nov 1, 12:47 pm, Taylor Kingston wrote:





On Nov 1, 12:40 pm, Rob wrote:

Capablanca vs Janokowsky St Petersburg 1914

Very nice game. Capa has a very clean game. Doubled pawn on e file?
Interesting. SO doubled pawns is not always a bad thing?

I don't know any competent chess authority who says a doubled pawn
is *always* bad. In this case White's doubled e-pawn is not especially
weak, Black has no way to capitalize on it, the e3-pawn improves
White's central control by covering d4 and f4, and the open f-file is
good for White.
A doubled pawn is disadvantageous mainly when it is weak and subject
to attack, for example White's c4-pawn in some lines of the Nimzo-
Indian, or when it interferes with mobility as with White's c2/c3/d4
formation in the Winawer French, when any white traffic to the a- or b-
files has to squeeze through c1.
The doubled c-pawn Black incurs in the Exchange Ruy is
disdvantageous not because the pawn is weak (it's not). The problem is
that it nullifies the endgame advantage usually conferred by a
queenside majority, which Black usually gets in the Exchange Ruy after
the white d-pawn is exchanged on d4 for Black's e-pawn. Even though
Black then has a 4-to-3 queenside majority, the doubled c-pawn makes
it impossible to force a passed pawn in the endgame. Therefore it is
White who has the active pawn majority, 4-to-3 on the kingside, and
thus the better endgame prospects.
However, Black has compensation in the form of the bishop pair, so
White is not always able to reach the favorable endgame.
The doubled pawn seems to be one of the more misunderstood chess
concepts among average players. I recall analyzing a game with a
teenage kid some years ago, and at one point he seriously proposed
putting a white knight en prise on c6, where it could be captured by
either Black's b- or d-pawn. "Why would you want to give up your
knight like that?" I asked. "Don't you think it's worth it, to double
his pawns?" he replied with a straight face.

http://www.youtube.com/swf/cps.swf?v...iurl=ht...Hide quoted text -

It is an interesting concept to learn how to evaluate the value of
doubled pawns in differing positions. I think showing how it is not
necessarily a bad thing should encourage developing players to look
beyond the learners adages of "doubled pawns=bad; mave knights before
bishops, ect"
Good Points

Another position in which a doubled pawn is advantageous is this
ending:

W: Kc4, pawns b3, b4;
B: Kc6.

Without the pawn on b3, this would be a draw no matter who is on
move. However, with it there, White has a winning tempo when he needs
it most, e.g. 1. b5+ Kb6 2. Kb4 Kb7 3. Kc5 Kc7 4. b6+ Kb7 5. Kb5 Kb8
6. Kc6 Kc8 7. b7+ Kb8 8.b4! and wins.

On the other hand, doubled pawns often *are* bad. For example, a
game of mine from 1995 started 1. Nf3 g6 2. g3 Bg7 3. Bg2 Nc6 4. d4 d5
5.c4 Nf6 6. Nc3 O-O 7. O-O Bg4?! 8. Ne5 Be6? 9. cxd5 Nxd5 10. Nxc6
bxc6 11.Ne4!, and Black is saddled with an isolated doubled pawn on an
open file, probably the weakest of all pawn weaknesses. I had a
strategically won game already, and winnning was the proverbial
"matter of technique."

Taylor Kingston wrote:
The doubled pawn seems to be one of the more misunderstood chess
concepts among average players. I recall analyzing a game with a
teenage kid some years ago, and at one point he seriously proposed
putting a white knight en prise on c6, where it could be captured by
either Black's b- or d-pawn. "Why would you want to give up your
knight like that?" I asked. "Don't you think it's worth it, to double
his pawns?" he replied with a straight face.

This kind of thing seems to be quite common. Heisman wrote one of his
novice nook columns about positional things like that and how material
(almost) always trumps positional concerns.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Simple Sadistic Dish (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a fine ceramic dish but it wants to
hurt you and it has no moving parts!

"Taylor Kingston" wrote in message
oups.com...


Another position in which a doubled pawn is advantageous is this
ending:

W: Kc4, pawns b3, b4;
B: Kc6.

Without the pawn on b3, this would be a draw no matter who is on
move. However, with it there, White has a winning tempo when he needs
it most, e.g. 1. b5+ Kb6 2. Kb4 Kb7 3. Kc5 Kc7 4. b6+ Kb7 5. Kb5 Kb8
6. Kc6 Kc8 7. b7+ Kb8 8.b4! and wins.

This example is misleading. Here the doubled pawn is an *extra* pawn. Give
Black a pawn, and White will generally not win even though a pawn up.

Interestingly, if Black has a pawn that is not en prise, there is only one
square on the board where the Black pawn can be, and White still wins.

On Nov 1, 8:35 pm, "David Kane" wrote:

Another position in which a doubled pawn is advantageous is this
ending:

W: Kc4, pawns b3, b4;
B: Kc6.

Without the pawn on b3, this would be a draw no matter who is on
move. However, with it there, White has a winning tempo when he needs
it most, e.g. 1. b5+ Kb6 2. Kb4 Kb7 3. Kc5 Kc7 4. b6+ Kb7 5. Kb5 Kb8
6. Kc6 Kc8 7. b7+ Kb8 8.b4! and wins.

This example is misleading. Here the doubled pawn is an *extra* pawn.

Indeed, the fact that White's extra pawn is or is not
doubled is irrelevant; White wins because of the fact
that he has a tempo, a move he can throw away when
needed to avoid a stalemate and/or gain the opposition.


But much commentary here has surrounded the idea
of GM Capablanca's doubled e-pawns not being weak,
while ignoring what we saw in the game: that his
opponent's doubled pawns /were/. When White
played R-b1, he was threatening to put a freeze on
Blacks entire Queen side pawn mass, and this threat
was ignored. Since GM Capablanca was obviously
using Rybka or Fritz in selecting his moves, this was
a strategic blunder from which there was no coming
back. (Hey, Larry Evans is not the only one who can
"detect" this kind of stuff!)


-- help bot