9795 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!
Oh, but I said "weigh the pieces" didn't I.Well if you want to be rigorous, of course just evaluate the position... the pieces are just part of the evaluation.But I also have a habit of looking at all my opponent's pieces and putting them on a scale in my mind so to speak. The more active they are the "heavier" they are. If I'm falling behind in this overall weight, I tend to avoid contact between the armies and work on improving my position. If I'm getting well ahead I'll look for sacrifices. Specifically sacrificing to activate my worst pieces or sacrifice to exchange off their best pieces. Opening, middlegame, endgame, I think this is always useful.IMO strong players obsess over piece activity. I feel like you almost have to be paranoid about it :) The downside to this habit is sometimes I miss tactics if I'm feeling underweight (so to speak). Very often tactics come from active pieces, but sometimes forcing sequences seem to appear from nowhere.Anyway, if I'm having trouble deciding on an exchange like the OP mentions, and I've evaluated the positions and thought about it and I'm still unsure, I do this weighing thing sort of like a blunder check. Using the future position, all your non-pawns go on one end of the scale, and all my non-pawns on the other side. That's what I meant by the using the term weighing.
Thanks for your help so far.
There are a few games in the past that I did with sucesseful and terribles outcomes, due to this topic. There are things in chess that are clear cut: "don't do this, because it's bad" but the trade of the king side fianchetto bishop for the rook is very unclear, sometimes is awesome, sometimes it can be your doom. Even in some few master games I saw this happening!
In the Leningrad it's usually a terrible idea, the queen will likely recapture on a1 leaving you with terribly weak squares around the king while bishops have open lines wheras the rooks don't.
if your queen is on g7 (which it normally isn't)
then you're ok, if your queen is guarding those squares. but then again, it always depends on the position *sight another generic answer*
It is almost always correct to trade your fianchetto bishop for a rook on a1.
There are exceptions as with any chess rule.
there are very few times when i would trade, all of these are red flags.
1. their rook is undeveloped
2. they have their queen and bishop of same color and you will castle on the side where the bishop was
also the bishop has amazing scope and is worth more than a rook, maybe even a queen
maybe even a queen? LOL
Yeah what nonsense.
No I meant white's queen will recapture on a1. If 20...Bxa1 then 21.Qxa1 for example. The queen usually goes to e8 in the Leningrad to support an e5 push and white prevents such a push. Or the push comes anyway, white captures en passant, and some minor pieces take on e6.
That's it! That is the kind of position that I had in mind when I started to write here. Thanks for posting it.
As you said: in optimal moves, this should be a draw. I also engine check this particular position and it is equal (0.00 with stockfish depth 27).
But what about playing this positions with our normal human moves? That's the thing that I trully don't know. For instance, sometimes the engine recomended to had played 2 squares the center pawn of the castled king. Sure, it would be a good move, the optimal. But we are humans, and we don't play that good. And in those positions we don't play like that. Right?
yeah, but you just memorize engine moves so you don't need to play that well, just need a good memory.
Would you expect a mathematician to make a better chess player than an artist?
by Ellie47 2 minutes ago
Any ways to get better?
by jambyvedar 9 minutes ago
Who is the best chess player of the whole chess history?
by tkbunny 12 minutes ago
Free Master lecture series (Melbourne Chess Club)
by Melbourne_Chess_Club 17 minutes ago
by HilarioFJunior 17 minutes ago
Games at minimun...
by CP6033 20 minutes ago
by macer75 21 minutes ago
2/1/2015 - Mate in 2
by Sun4Ray 21 minutes ago
Chess for Oldtimers --- Good Idea !
by cabadenwurt 30 minutes ago
Is Ivanchuk a genius?
by macer75 34 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2015 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!