Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old July 5th 03, 09:56 PM
Roman M. Parparov
 
Posts: n/a
Default pawn attacks by uncastled side against castled?

Charles Blair wrote:
Many books show disasters befalling uncastled kings. A few
(more advanced?) show cases in which the side that has not castled
launches a successful pawn attack against the side that has.
A well-known example is Dubois vs Steinitz, with a very similar
variation given as Knorre vs Chigorin. A probably more obscure
example is Liburski vs Soultanbieff, given as game #2 in Chernev's
LOGICAL CHESS.

Can anyone suggest a reference offering detailed guidance as to
when such an attack should be tried? It seems difficult to calculate
such a thing in advance.


There is a very good rule:

1) The centre must be closed, even better - locked.
2) The castling position which is being attacked would be
scarcely defended and bringing reserves would be difficult.
3) The pawns on the attack would be winning time by scaring
enemy's pieces away.

--
Roman M. Parparov - NASA EOSDIS project node at TAU technical manager.
Email: http://www.nasa.proj.ac.il
Phone/Fax: +972-(0)3-6405205 (work), +972-(0)64-669-189 (home)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The economy depends about as much on economists as the weather does on
weather forecasters.
-- Jean-Paul Kauffmann
  #2   Report Post  
Old July 6th 03, 05:27 PM
Charles Blair
 
Posts: n/a
Default pawn attacks by uncastled side against castled?

"Roman M. Parparov" writes:

Charles Blair wrote:

Can anyone suggest a reference offering detailed guidance as to
when such an attack should be tried? It seems difficult to calculate
such a thing in advance.


There is a very good rule:


1) The centre must be closed, even better - locked.
2) The castling position which is being attacked would be
scarcely defended and bringing reserves would be difficult.
3) The pawns on the attack would be winning time by scaring
enemy's pieces away.


Thank you very much!
  #3   Report Post  
Old July 8th 03, 02:35 PM
Joshua B. Lilly
 
Posts: n/a
Default pawn attacks by uncastled side against castled?

According to 'Napier`s Amenities and Background of Chess-Play':

"Once I asked Pillsbury whether he used any formula for castling. He said
his rule was absolute and vital: castle because you will or must; but not
because you can."

Players like Steinitz and Seirawan have played games where non-castled King
moves in the centre ended up winning or holding brilliantly. Studying some
of their games would probably be useful in learning more about attacks
against uncastled Kings.



"LeModernCaveman" wrote in message
news:[email protected]

Not castling is useful in openings where castling won't do much to improve

your
king safety, or where castling to one side of the board makes you too much

of a
target.

Closed or semi-open positions are where this happens most often.



Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
newbie analisis question Michael C. Shultz rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 19 January 29th 04 06:09 AM
Kaspy vs X3D Fritz PGN NetSock rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 4 December 16th 03 01:07 PM
Always stuck after the opening... Alexander Fischer rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 17 September 5th 03 05:52 PM
Sick of players who INSIST on playing *BOOK* openings Scott rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 13 July 17th 03 10:26 PM
Sick of players who INSIST on playing *BOOK* openings Scott rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 20 July 17th 03 08:52 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:56 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017