Which of the central squares are more important - d4,d5,e4 or e5 ?  As a point of reference, let's say the player is playing White. Can you explain why.

All are importants but in some positions some are more importants,depend of openings,of positions.

Depends on the opening, d5 in a sicilian (black wants to play a timely pawn to d5 in most sicilians, white tries to stop it, for example by putting a piece of his own in d5) and e5 in a french defense, because if black captures this pawn, then he has both d and e pawns and white non (in the poisoned pawn variation for example). white usually wants to play d4 sometime in the ruy lopez, and e4 in a nimzo-indian. this is all i can think of right now, hope it helps

I read somewhere ( I kick myself nowadays because I can't remember where ) that Fischer always work to win one of these squares ( don't remember which ) and once he gets it, the game is virtually over because he projects from there ( an outpost ? ). But this is certainly beyond the opening, can anyone elaborate further ?

Logically, those central squares closest to the opponent's castled king ( depending on which side he is castled ) are more important than the other two. But I haven't focused on the fight for these squares. I always thought the central squares are just good to keep until development is complete and thereafter they are not useful. But obviously, that's not really true - and I think I will be a better player if I can just understand why.

 

That depends if you playing so-called light square game or black square game - which basically means what squares you are trying to dominate. So, if you place pawns on d4 & e5 - light squares (increasing the value for light sq bishop) become more important since black squares are being occupied by pawns.

www.thechessworld.com

Yury wrote:

That depends if you playing so-called light square game or black square game - which basically means what squares you are trying to dominate. So, if you place pawns on d4 & e5 - light squares (increasing the value for light sq bishop) become more important since black squares are being occupied by pawns.

www.thechessworld.com

---

 This is the first time I have heard of dark- and light-squared games...it does make a lot of sense. I will look further into this. Thanks for the tip, Yury.

Like the eternal question posed by all chess players "What is going to be my plan ?" , how do I know what type of square games I am going to play on the onset as the game is also determined by the opponent ?

Bodhidharma take a look at this Slav Defense Exchange variation example.  After  move  9  position is  somewhat  symmetrical.  White  has its central  pawns  placed  on dark squares d4 and e3. Black has its pawns positioned on light squares e6 and d5. From the white's point of view it would be great to get rid of black's light sq bishop since black's influence  e4 square is strong. At the same time White has major influence on e5 square:

d4 pawn, f4 bishop and f3 knight - they all aim on e4!  The main idea is, it is absolutely does not matter what kind of game you're playing: light squared or dark squared as long as you understand that you got to eliminate your opponents opposite color bishop, saving yours (in perfect case). That is basic idea of positional play when you are taking control of key squares (diagonal) you need to exchange the protecting bishop to increase your influence.

Similar idea is to exchange your opponent's fiencetto bishop to weaken the key diagonals a-h or h-a. I'm sure you know that.    

I hope it's not too confusing.

 www.TheChessWorld.com

Bodhidharma wrote:

I read somewhere ( I kick myself nowadays because I can't remember where ) that Fischer always work to win one of these squares ( don't remember which ) and once he gets it, the game is virtually over because he projects from there ( an outpost ? ). But this is certainly beyond the opening, can anyone elaborate further ?

Logically, those central squares closest to the opponent's castled king ( depending on which side he is castled ) are more important than the other two. But I haven't focused on the fight for these squares. I always thought the central squares are just good to keep until development is complete and thereafter they are not useful. But obviously, that's not really true - and I think I will be a better player if I can just understand why.

 

---

 it was his bishop/knight on d5[it is in chess mentor]

Not confusing at all, Yury because you have taken time to explain it well.

I think I understand what you are getting at. Just as much as I want to increase my influence ( in this case, the e5 square ), I should also want to reduce my opponent's influence ( in this case, the e4 square ).

The e5 square is contested by White 3 times whereas it is contested by Black only twice ( the two Knights ). It appears that White had planned to fight for the e5 square right from the beginning. This means that the opening is not just about achieving development, grabbing space but also positioning for key squares.

Thanks again Yury 

 

 

 

Yes, you got it right!

 

 

Great stuff - thanks mate !

Mebeme wrote: Bodhidharma wrote:

I read somewhere ( I kick myself nowadays because I can't remember where ) that Fischer always work to win one of these squares ( don't remember which ) and once he gets it, the game is virtually over because he projects from there ( an outpost ? ). But this is certainly beyond the opening, can anyone elaborate further ?

Logically, those central squares closest to the opponent's castled king ( depending on which side he is castled ) are more important than the other two. But I haven't focused on the fight for these squares. I always thought the central squares are just good to keep until development is complete and thereafter they are not useful. But obviously, that's not really true - and I think I will be a better player if I can just understand why.

 

---

 it was his bishop/knight on d5[it is in chess mentor]

---

 Thanks Mebeme...yes, I got chessmentor - I'll go look it up. Your memory must be photographic !!!

so yury let me get this right if im playing as white and my pawns are on dark squares and blacks pawns are on light squares then i want to take out blacks light square bishop if thats right then why?

Yury, after ruminating on your comment that White will attempt to take out the  Black's light-squared bishop, why does Black in this Slav Defense Exchange variation ( I am not familiar with this defense ) do not create a escape square for it since White's Nh4 will definitely bring it down ?

NO, you are supposed to exchange your "bad bishop" (the one thats of the same colour your pawns are in) for his "good bishop" (the one thats on a different colour his pawns are.) this is because bishops are specially good in open positions, and the bishop becames stronger if your own pieces arent bloking it.

ok so can you explain more on that luischess or what should white do in the diagram above us which bishop should he exchange

luischess, by your definition ( bad bishop is the one the same colour as our pawns are in ), then White's "bad bishop" is the dark-squared one because White's pawn chain is on dark squares. Following your definition again, his "good bishop" (the one thats on a different colour his pawns are) is the dark-squared bishop because his pawns are on the light squares.

OK - it's a dark-squared bishops fight. But how does this gel with :

1) reducing Black's light squared bishop's influence on e4

2) trading my dark-squared bishop means that instead of 3 pieces ( pawn, Knight and Bishop ) pressuring  e5, it will be reduced to 2 ( not enough to beat Black )

3) White's dark square bishop is outside its pawn chain. It's only blocked by its own pawns if it needs to go backwards. It's not exactly a good bishop but it's definitely not a bad bishop.

Can you explain further. Thanks 

well, as you can see in the above diagram, both players have placed their "bad bishop" outside their pawn chain. by doing so, the bishops becames much more active, so its not a bad piece at all.

on move 6, they played Bf4 and Bf5, and then on move 7, e3 and e6, if they had moved the pawns on move 6, then they would have had a lot of trouble developing those bishops . but once they are outside, its correct to form the pawn chain, so that its really easy to develop the remaining bishop, and of course pawn chains are good.

in this case, blacks light square bishop is more important than the dark bishop, because its controling the center, and the dark bishop isnt even develop. but its just move 9, near the endgame it will probably be the other way arround.

 

EDIT: for example, 10.Bd3 in an ok move, since after 10.Bxd3 (which is probably best) white recaptures with the queen and gets back the tempo lost by moving the bishop for the 2nd time,  10.Nh4? of course not because of 10.Qxh4.

i would personally develop another piece instead. 

oo ok i see now thanks for that

young_roy123 wrote: so yury let me get this right if im playing as white and my pawns are on dark squares and blacks pawns are on light squares then i want to take out blacks light square bishop if thats right then why?

---

Roy, I think you already got the answer on your question, but let me repeat once again. If you're White and your pawns are on dark squares that means that b1 - g6 diagonal is weak, so is e4square. In such position (Slav/SemiSlav) c2 is a great square for White's queen. However, since black's light squared bishop control this square it is good to exchange the bishop.

hope that somewhat helps,

www.thechessworld.com