11448 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
There is no reason to "prepare" ...e5: it's quite playable directly. Factly, it's a good move, if Black does not want more than a draw.
Yes, I see it is good as a sacrifice, but *most* people would prefer to avoid the sacrifice I think...
I wouldn't call it a sac, more like a transition into an equal endgame.
If people prefer not sacrificing pawns, then they should definitely not play the King's Indian, at the very first place.
White might have a tiny edge in this endgame, but it's really difficult to make something out of it. Engines suggest a few improvements for both sides, but it's not sure at all that their suggestions are worth something real.
Yes but sacs in the KID are typically geared towards an attack, not towards a draw...
The Averbakh variation endgame, which is analysed up to move 55 or so, is a fairly typical pawn down endgame for Black... and this is just one case out of many in the king's indian in which black sacrifices something to get a level position.
I'm sure there are people who want an equal endgame with the KID, but I believe that most want an attack.
In the FPA, Black can practically force a draw with the Na6, e5 lines.
Since I'm too lazy to post the analysis, just go here:
In hindsight, the name was a BIT too exagerrated.
Isnt it better to prepare it by Na6, to go into the gambit lines?
Depends on your preference. Both have similar endgames where White has a miniscule edge.
I read a Fischer game somewhere where Bobby Fischer cracked it. The strategy involving a broad line of pawns is a flawed one, as any sharp player can crack it. It's much better going for a small center and developing naturally.
No kidding? And the proof of this (besides your unverified OPINION) is located where? For starters, lets see the alleged Fischer game. In everyone else's universe, The KID Four Pawns Attack is sound, if not necessarily the best option available for White
It may be technically sound, but it isn't optimal as it's too ambitious. I prefer restricting black's options with Bf4/h3/Nf3 setups.
Ummm, sorry to burst your bubble, but Letelier- Fischer is not a four pawns attack.
At what point in that game do you think Fischer saw the mate?
I always thought Nf6 before d6 was not a good move. Lesson learned.
PFren is right, 5.e5 Ne8 6.f4 is not a "Four Pawns Attack", but it is a four pawns attack in the King's Indian. Technically, this is E70, an anti-book move. The Four Pawns Attack is E76-E79 according to ECO.
Pfren, while technically, this is not a "Four Pawns Attack", it is a four pawns attack against the King's Indian. This is mostly just a cheeky gambit played by Black that white does best to ignore. White's most common response is just to get on with playing the King's Indian line he or she wanted to play in the first place. 5.f4 leads to the Four Pawn Attack without the weakening e5 push. But the most common move is 5.Nf3, transposing to classical King's Indian lines.
White's mistake wasn't really 6.f4, but 5.e5?! Having said that, Karpov played this line as white in a simul in 2004.
If White had played 5.f4 d6 6.e5?! would you have said it wasn't a Four Pawns attack, or would you have simply said that White had misplayed the Four Pawns Attack?
Even though this wasn't technically a "Four Pawn Attack", Scorpion was right both that there were four pawns in white's center early in the King's Indian and that Fischer demolished the pawn center with a timely and instructive counter-attack.
Really with the FPA, it creates an overextended center that is a ridiculous amount of fun to tear down if you know how.
So is it a good variation or not? Or is there an argument both ways?
Both ways... White CAN get a huge space advantage, but he has to be careful to not overextend and let his center get destroyed.
I have played both sides of the FPA with mixed results . As black I certainly don't fear it and as white I will sometimes use it when a win is absolutely necessary .
Hmmm... I rarely play this defense now, but it was definitely my favorite when I began chess. As for the Four Pawn Attack, I never saw it much. When I did, though, I had mixed results. I noticed that players who DNA handle the aggressiveness in the position for White can use this attack very effectively.
However, other players I have matched often overextend with the pawns and fall into several traps you can set for a player who does overextend. Sometimes the aggressiveness can add too much pressure and force White into making a mistake. Aside from that, though, this attack is very formidable against the KID.
by sertas a few minutes ago
Fritz 13 help
by ShyamGopal1 a few minutes ago
tactics and composing
by unjustice 2 minutes ago
Why isn't Bishop vs Knight considered to be a material imbalance?
by Irontiger 3 minutes ago
Any good Benko Gambit books?
by ploucroux 11 minutes ago
5/22/2013 - Good Night to the Enemy
by ToniFeloni 12 minutes ago
Help kids learn chess and play with Friends and Family
by FUN_with_CHESS 17 minutes ago
Is it possible that there are psychic chess masters
by landwehr 20 minutes ago
Is Chess a 'Creative' Activity?
by landwehr 23 minutes ago
New Comment that Won't Go Away
by RedSoxpawn 24 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com