chess strategy

Chess Strategy

Tag and you will find!
Nutty name, real interests
[ Sign up | Log in | Guest ] (beta)
wanstronian ♡ 15 ( +1 | -1 )
Value of preventing castling What value would you put on the prevention of castling by forcing the King to move early? Would you forfeit a piece to achieve this and if so, which one?
tyekanyk ♡ 24 ( +1 | -1 )
Hmm... It depends alot on the kind of threats you can produce, and if the kind is truly exposed, otherwise it may not pay off, beacause although he may have ssome ealy coordination problems, but after that's done with the material will start to tell.
ionadowman ♡ 21 ( +1 | -1 )
Preventing castling... Generally speaking it's not worth a whole piece. You need a lot of compensation in terms of space and time, e.g. the K well exposed.
But try it out with someone. The Jerome Gambit runs 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Bc5 3.Bxf7+
Worth a try do you think?
chuckventimiglia ♡ 18 ( +1 | -1 )
If the Queens are off the.... board castling can be a detriment. The
King becomes a fighting piece and should be
positioned for that purpose for the end
game. Castling can put the king in a backward
position for end game play.
velvetvelour ♡ 165 ( +1 | -1 )
In an open position with a fluid center preventing castling is indeed worthwhile, often worth the sacrifice of a pawn or two, as it is in certain lines of the Evan's Gambit, King's Gambit, and other double K-pawn gambits. Possibly even a piece could be invested depending on the position (you usually need a lead in development/initiative with a follow through of palpable, difficult to defend threats for the piece, i.e. the Muzio Gambit, certain positions where one sacs a bishop for pawns on h3/g4 over a castled king). It teaches one, if nothing else, on how to keep the pressure on via necessity, otherwise your advantage with fizzle and one will simply be left with a material deficeit.

In a closed position, though, the nature of things changes considerably. If the center is locked and pawn exchanges are unlikely, a King is often safer in the center (as it is in variations of the French Defence and certain ones of the Sicilian, Benoni, and other defences of a closed nature) then scuttling it over on a wing, because the second player knows "where your king lives," and can often start a decisive build up of material w/a pawn rush to come crash the house.

When the queens are off the board, often early in the game heading for a queenless middlegame, the peril of a centralized king becomes much less and you often want it in the center where it can better keep an eye on things and become favorably activated.

As an aside, the Jerome Gambit is garbage and shouldn't be played. It also arises out of: 1) e4 e5 2) Nf3 Nc6 3) Bc4 Bc5 4) BxP KxB 5) NxP NxN 6) Qh5+. There are far sounder sacrificial lines in chess to start a king-hunt without resorting to such desperados.
ionadowman ♡ 79 ( +1 | -1 )
Kings in the centre... Velvetvelour sums up pretty nicely occasions in which a K in the centre can be a liability, and when it can be a hazard. As for her gratuitous remarks in respect of the Jerome Gambit...well, she's right, broadly speaking. It ought to lose for White, with best play, but I think there is value in discovering things for oneself, hence my suggestion about trying it. I wouldn't play it in a team game, but perhaps you can use some of your other games as 'training' games in which you discuss opening ideas. Perhaps someone will accept a challenge to play a pair of games, one White, one Black, with this, or some other fixed opening agreed beforehand. You need not have your rating riding on such games...
Anyway, just an idea...
spugmyers ♡ 78 ( +1 | -1 )
According to Heisman... This reminds me of a "Novice Nook" article by Dan Heisman.


He says:

"In IM Larry Kaufman’s excellent Chess Life article on isolated pawns, he stated that the single worst positional disadvantage was doubled isolated pawns on a semi-open file. Such a ruined pair of pawns was worth, on the average, only slightly more than one pawn – they had lost almost a full pawn in value. This is an interesting observation which allows us to draw an important and practical “powerful” conclusion:

The single highest valued positional factor is worth slightly less than the least valued tactical factor (a pawn)."
More: Chess
bonsai ♡ 35 ( +1 | -1 )
Mmmh, maybe that's not even too wrong for a single isolated factor, but we all know these occasional cases where one can have purely positional compensation (i.e. not a situation where you clearly win due to a sacrifice or can clearly get your material back anyway) for more than a pawn (sicilian exchange sacrifices on c3 being a typical case).
ionadowman ♡ 9 ( +1 | -1 )
Kings in the centre... I wonder why I typed 'hazard' instead of 'asset'??
Brain in a sling, obviously...
fudeematt ♡ 35 ( +1 | -1 )
Yes, the Jerome Gambit is dubious at best. But 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 dxe4
4. Nxe4 Nd7?! 5. Ng5!? Ngf6 6. Bd3 e6 7. N1f3 h6?! 8. Nxe6!? is worth a try and can give white a powerful attack, e.g. 8... Qe7 9.0-0 fxe6 (9... Qxe6? Re1)
10. Bg6+ Kd8 11. Bf4 b5 12. a4!? Bb7 13. Re1 Nd5 14. Bg3 Kc8 15. axb5 cxb5
16. Qd3 Bc6 17. Bf5! exf5 18. Rxe7 Bxe7 19. c4! 1-0 Deep Blue-Kasparov 1997
or 8... Qe7 9. 0-0 fxe6 10. Bg6+ Kd8 11. c4 Qd6 12. Qe2 Qc7 13. Rd1 Bd6 14. Ne5 Rf8 15. Bf4 Bxe5 16. dxe5 Ng8 17. Bg3 Qb6 18. Qg4 c5 19. Rd6! Qxb2?! 20. Rad1 Kc7 21. Qxe6 Ndf6 22. Rd7+! 1-0, Leko-Bakhtazde, 1995