Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old April 23rd 06, 01:16 PM posted to alt.chess
tjb tjb is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2006
Posts: 11
Default Backward Pawns

In the following diagram, designed to be viewed with a fixed-width font,
'o' characters represent White pawns, and 'x' characters represent Black
pawns:

---------------------------------
8 | | | | | | | | |
|---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---|
7 | | | | x | x | x | x | x |
|---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---|
6 | | x | | | | | | |
|---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---|
5 | x | | | o | | | | |
|---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---|
4 | | | | | o | | | |
|---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---|
3 | | | | | | | | |
|---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---|
2 | o | o | o | | | | o | o |
|---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---|
1 | | | | | | | | |
---------------------------------
a b c d e f g h

My question is: Is White's e4 pawn a backward pawn? As far as understand,
e4 _isn't_ a backward pawn, simply because it could be advanced to a square
supported by another pawn. However, that doesn't seem quite right in this
case.
  #2   Report Post  
Old April 24th 06, 09:09 PM posted to alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2006
Posts: 5
Default Backward Pawns

tjb wrote:
In the following diagram, designed to be viewed with a fixed-width font,
'o' characters represent White pawns, and 'x' characters represent Black
pawns:

---------------------------------
8 | | | | | | | | |
|---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---|
7 | | | | x | x | x | x | x |
|---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---|
6 | | x | | | | | | |
|---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---|
5 | x | | | o | | | | |
|---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---|
4 | | | | | o | | | |
|---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---|
3 | | | | | | | | |
|---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---|
2 | o | o | o | | | | o | o |
|---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---|
1 | | | | | | | | |
---------------------------------
a b c d e f g h

My question is: Is White's e4 pawn a backward pawn? As far as understand,
e4 _isn't_ a backward pawn, simply because it could be advanced to a square
supported by another pawn. However, that doesn't seem quite right in this
case.



As I understand the term, it is a backward pawn at the
moment but not necessarily forever.
--
dg
  #3   Report Post  
Old April 24th 06, 09:16 PM posted to alt.chess
tjb tjb is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2006
Posts: 11
Default Backward Pawns

dgpdx wrote:

My question is: Is White's e4 pawn a backward pawn? As far as understand,
e4 _isn't_ a backward pawn, simply because it could be advanced to a square
supported by another pawn. However, that doesn't seem quite right in this
case.


As I understand the term, it is a backward pawn at the
moment but not necessarily forever.


Could I ask what the basis for that is?
  #4   Report Post  
Old April 26th 06, 09:06 AM posted to alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2006
Posts: 5
Default Backward Pawns

tjb wrote:
dgpdx wrote:


My question is: Is White's e4 pawn a backward pawn? As far as understand,
e4 _isn't_ a backward pawn, simply because it could be advanced to a square
supported by another pawn. However, that doesn't seem quite right in this
case.


As I understand the term, it is a backward pawn at the
moment but not necessarily forever.



Could I ask what the basis for that is?


Certainly. It's my understanding of the term "backward pawn"
based on books and articles I've read and what others have
told me.
--
dg
  #5   Report Post  
Old April 26th 06, 03:22 PM posted to alt.chess
tjb tjb is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2006
Posts: 11
Default Backward Pawns

dgpdx wrote:

As I understand the term, it is a backward pawn at the
moment but not necessarily forever.


Could I ask what the basis for that is?


Certainly. It's my understanding of the term "backward pawn"
based on books and articles I've read and what others have
told me.


I meant, what is the reason for it being a backward pawn.


  #6   Report Post  
Old April 27th 06, 12:45 AM posted to alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2006
Posts: 5
Default Backward Pawns

tjb wrote:

dgpdx wrote:


As I understand the term, it is a backward pawn at the
moment but not necessarily forever.

Could I ask what the basis for that is?


Certainly. It's my understanding of the term "backward pawn"
based on books and articles I've read and what others have
told me.



I meant, what is the reason for it being a backward pawn.


Because it can't be supported by another pawn at its current
square, thus it may become a vulnerable target. A backward
pawn creates a hole in front of it that can be occupied by
an enemy piece which can then never be driven away by a pawn
of your own.

If this happens deep in your territory, it usually results
in a lost game. Not only is the enemy piece right there in
your face, your own backward pawn restricts the movement of
your pieces. Think of a defensive player in football pushing
a blocker into his own running back ;-)
--
dg


  #7   Report Post  
Old April 27th 06, 01:03 AM posted to alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2006
Posts: 5
Default Backward Pawns

dgpdx wrote:

tjb wrote:

dgpdx wrote:


As I understand the term, it is a backward pawn at the moment but
not necessarily forever.


Could I ask what the basis for that is?


Certainly. It's my understanding of the term "backward pawn" based on
books and articles I've read and what others have told me.




I meant, what is the reason for it being a backward pawn.



Because it can't be supported by another pawn at its current square,
thus it may become a vulnerable target. A backward pawn creates a hole
in front of it that can be occupied by an enemy piece which can then
never be driven away by a pawn of your own.

If this happens deep in your territory, it usually results in a lost
game. Not only is the enemy piece right there in your face, your own
backward pawn restricts the movement of your pieces. Think of a
defensive player in football pushing a blocker into his own running back
;-)
--
dg



Sorry, that's American football. I should have specified
that in an international group.
--
dg
  #8   Report Post  
Old April 27th 06, 02:46 AM posted to alt.chess
tjb tjb is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2006
Posts: 11
Default Backward Pawns

dgpdx wrote:

I meant, what is the reason for it being a backward pawn.


Because it can't be supported by another pawn at its current
square, thus it may become a vulnerable target. [K]


Here's my problem. This contradicts what's stated in my book, Play Winning
Chess by Yasser Seirawan. A diagram with the following pawn structure is
shown (where 'x' is a black pawn and 'o' is a white pawn):

---------------------------------
8 | | | | | | | | |
|---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---|
7 | | x | | | | x | | |
|---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---|
6 | x | | | x | | | | x |
|---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---|
5 | | | | | x | | x | |
|---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---|
4 | o | | | | o | | | |
|---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---|
3 | | | o | | | o | | |
|---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---|
2 | | o | | | | | o | o |
|---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---|
1 | | | | | | | | |
---------------------------------
a b c d e f g h

It is stated that Black has two backward pawns: on d6 and f7. The pawns on
h6 and b7 are claimed not to be backward "because they can safely advance".
The one on h6 not being backward goes against your definition. And
Wikipedia's definition agrees with yours.

I'm not sure which to believe.
  #9   Report Post  
Old April 29th 06, 05:00 AM posted to alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2006
Posts: 5
Default Backward Pawns

tjb wrote:

dgpdx wrote:


I meant, what is the reason for it being a backward pawn.


Because it can't be supported by another pawn at its current
square, thus it may become a vulnerable target. [K]



Here's my problem. This contradicts what's stated in my book, Play Winning
Chess by Yasser Seirawan. A diagram with the following pawn structure is
shown (where 'x' is a black pawn and 'o' is a white pawn):

---------------------------------
8 | | | | | | | | |
|---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---|
7 | | x | | | | x | | |
|---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---|
6 | x | | | x | | | | x |
|---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---|
5 | | | | | x | | x | |
|---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---|
4 | o | | | | o | | | |
|---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---|
3 | | | o | | | o | | |
|---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---|
2 | | o | | | | | o | o |
|---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---|
1 | | | | | | | | |
---------------------------------
a b c d e f g h

It is stated that Black has two backward pawns: on d6 and f7. The pawns on
h6 and b7 are claimed not to be backward "because they can safely advance".
The one on h6 not being backward goes against your definition. And
Wikipedia's definition agrees with yours.

I'm not sure which to believe.


I guess you just have to pick one...
--
dg
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Chess256, by Mats Winther Mats Winther rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 0 May 25th 06 11:12 AM
Sacrifice of minor piece for two pawns to gain a passed pawn and positional advantage? J.L.W.S. The Special One rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 10 December 24th 05 03:57 PM
ruy lopez exchange variation ironmarshal rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 63 December 4th 05 05:58 PM
Pawns Call King a Rook Members of the Internet Chess Server rebel against fees by Brad Stone Matt Nemmers rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 2 October 29th 05 02:53 AM
Please check this out Richard rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 9 October 25th 05 05:48 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:39 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017