tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post2441992319652388636..comments2024-03-28T01:17:43.262+01:00Comments on Temposchlucker: Battle of the pawnsTemposchluckerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07977208394417444785noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-20732972469625391482007-12-18T21:30:00.000+01:002007-12-18T21:30:00.000+01:00WW,What happens in the studyroom is of course quit...WW,<BR/>What happens in the studyroom is of course quite different to what happens behind the board. Here I formulate my uncrystallized thoughts in an attempt to find a new angle of attack to approach the game. If these thoughts will have any use remains to be seen. I have to start somewhere.Temposchluckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07977208394417444785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-52147125639625874822007-12-18T17:55:00.000+01:002007-12-18T17:55:00.000+01:00If we differ all that much in thinking I'm not so ...<I>If we differ all that much in thinking I'm not so sure. But we certainly differ in the way we communicate.</I><BR/><BR/>I think we would tend to make the same moves in most situations and for many of the same reasons. But we would communicate our thoughts about the moves differently. For starters, you would use more words than me ... :-)<BR/><BR/>In the counting problems you did recently, as a feature of the position changed you would insist that "it is still the same" and I would insist "it was all different." I think I know what you meant (the principle) and I think you know what I meant (the specifics) but we approached it from different directions.<BR/><BR/>Or, like my insistence that all moves are tactical versus your talk of positional moves.<BR/><BR/>What does it all mean? I have no idea, therefore, I suspect that you have a theory. :)Glenn Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06098720545929557126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-37844844600907172652007-12-18T17:26:00.000+01:002007-12-18T17:26:00.000+01:00well, when I accept a gambit, I think the material...well, when I accept a gambit, I think the material is worth more than the 'improvement in relative piece activity', OR, that I can catch up before endgame.<BR/><BR/>reading your last two posts, I've also realized how differently we think about chess. you seem to always seek general rules or rule system, where as I almost invariably disregard generalisations. I <I>need</I> to see a concrete variation, or I feel like I'm just randomly shuffling pieces around, even if their 'relative activity' increased. for me, generalisations are a tool I use for <I>communicating</I> ideas, but never the basis I use to choose my moves with.<BR/><BR/>I don't think either way is better or worse, they're just different. but because of the difference, I always have a thing against general statements like the one about pawn moves & piece activity, which is just an alien way of thinking for me. I can easily think of pawn storms where pieces are irrelevant, or you can even throw away pieces because the pawns are unstoppable.<BR/><BR/>in a way, to me, a general statement is always incorrect, unless you can justify it in the position at hand. :)wormwoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03660805360182226665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-68837901126512778612007-12-18T15:36:00.000+01:002007-12-18T15:36:00.000+01:00Glen,It amazes me how differently we think about a...Glen,<BR/><I>It amazes me how differently we think about and communicate about chess<BR/><BR/></I>Maybe that's why you have a higher rating:) If we differ all that much in thinking I'm not so sure. But we certainly differ in the way we communicate. Personally I would never accept a gambit with the endgame in mind. But since people do accept my gambits, I can think of no other reason than that THEY have the endgame in mind. Why would they otherwise help me to improve my relative piece activity?Temposchluckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07977208394417444785noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-50984436715346991512007-12-18T13:49:00.000+01:002007-12-18T13:49:00.000+01:00Or, in drunknknite's line, what is the purpose of ...Or, in drunknknite's line, what is the purpose of 3. ...a6?<BR/><BR/>This modest and unassuming pawn move is a deep and profound move which took centuries to appreciate.<BR/><BR/><I>Accepting the pawn is done with the endgame in mind</I> <BR/>It amazes me how differently we think about and communicate about chess. If I have an extra pawn in the opening it affects my play now, in the opening....Glenn Wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06098720545929557126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10713928.post-11394954772661371512007-12-18T00:43:00.000+01:002007-12-18T00:43:00.000+01:00I have a couple new suggestions.First, now do this...I have a couple new suggestions.<BR/><BR/>First, now do this for Black's responses to 1.e4. What are the differences between e5, c5, d5, e6, c6, d6, g6, and the non-pawn move Nf6 (b6 and Nc6 also if you want)? Hint: Do not only consider the first move, but the resulting middlegame positions.<BR/><BR/>Second, in your opening repertoire look for awkward looking pawn moves and find the reasoning behind them. A big eye-opener for me was in the Ruy Lopez after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 0-0 8.c3 d6 9.h3!? At first it looks as though the purpose of this move is simply to prevent Bg4, however this move is more subtle than that as it allows the N on f3 to use h2 to get out of the way of the f pawn and initiate kingside action. This will help you learn about your openings and pawn moves at the same time.<BR/><BR/>Good work and good luck.drunknknitehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12677566022482837548noreply@blogger.com