How do you control the center?

There are at least two methods of controlling the center or gaining control of the center. The first is to occupy the center with pawns or pieces and the second is to control the center from a distance with bishops, rooks, queen and knights.

The later is known as hypermodern systems, where you let your opponent have the center and through a solid position, slowly chip away at it until you evetually own it.

What is your favorite style or opening?

Darkcloudy has a great discussion going on about the different opening styles. If interested please follow link

http://blog.chess.com/Darkcloudy/which-one-is-supreme

Its common sense.

Control The Centre,control the Game.

All pieces should impact the centre at its fullest.

You have a better chance of controling the center when your peices are developed.                     

well, I almost usually go for Queen's pawn, no matter Black or white.

http://www.chess.com/members/view/miteybishop, I totally agree with this person!

id have to go with kings pawn.

miteybishop definately has a great point!

Queen's pawn for safe control of the center, King's pawn for highly experienced players...

This is why you have to be extremely careful when you capture at the very beginning with your Queen. YOUR QUEEN is lured out and you must PROTECT IT PROPERLY!!!!!

HI Turn,

Great example of a Queen runaround! The Center Counter Defense opening, which is what that was, is a tricky and dangerous opening for black if he does not handle to position properly

The diagram is a book opening for the Center Counter Gambit using 3 ...Qa5. As you will see, contrary to perception, this move is safe enough for the Queen to make.

   That is the bad rap against the Queen's Gambit Accepted, giving up central control.  At the same time, the QGA can be a nasty weapon in the hands of an attack artist.  Doubt Black will resign on move 3, realizing he has made an error.  If he wanted to keep his share of center control he (or she) would have played the Queen's Gambit Declined.  Black will probably strike back in the center with the move e5 at some time or other. 

     Black's plan is not to win White's Gambit pawn and hold it.  It is rare that will happen against good players.  There is a difference between knowing one is giving up the center and not knowing.  That is sort of the reason Central Command exists.  If you are White against the QGA, and Anand is playing Black who will win?  Would it be a draw?  Giving up the center in this opening is about two things (1) preparation and (2) attacking spirit.  The point being that we want to keep central control, but can we do that playing Black?  In openings like the Sicilian Najdorf and Alekhine's Defense we are falling back to cover the center with our pawns on the third rank. The Philador Defense and Closed Variations of the Ruy Lopez are trying to stake out their territory in the center with 1...e5.  The point is the players of other defenses like the QGA know they are giving up the center.  That does not mean we will win with White.  Sometimes in the Philador Black plays exd giving up the center (and may be forced into doing that).  In the QGD Cambridge Springs Variation we are going to give up our center with dxc at the right time.  So things are not as they seem.  In the Sicilian Najdorf Black must plan, or at least consider e5.  Alekhine, a champion of the Nimzo-Indian Defense sometimes played 2...e6 and then (early in the opening) e5, reclaiming some share of the center for the loss of a tempo.  Chess being a dynamic game the positions and the pawn structures do not remain the same.  That is why White can lose.

    White's advantage of the first move is about seizing central control, and some how holding on to it.  That is why positional players probably prefer 1.d4 over 1.e4.  Attacking players, and Bobby Fischer is the best example, believe White's advantage in many king pawn games is using what space White does have to attack.  In the Sicilian that means early sacrifice to get at Black's king standing in the middle.  That is why Bobby preferred the move Bc4.  He did not mean to hold the center, but to attack through the center, before Black could do much about it.  Even if it did not come off the threat was still there.

    Aron Nimzovitch and the Hypermodern school taught we can also keep central control and develop our pieces at the same time, with bishops on the long diagonals peircing the center and with pins, immobilizing an enemy knight's control of a crucial central square.  In the 1950's "the Soviet School of Chess", as announced by communist party member GM Kotov, used counter attacking openings like the King's Indian Defense.  That was the way the Russians fought World War II, and that was the way they would approach the game of chess.  No one knew better about sacrifice than former Soviet infantry men.  Marshall Zhukov appologized in his memoirs for having to sacrifice so many Russian solders, but that is another story.  In a famous game from the 25th USSR Championship:  Averbach - Tal Riga 1958, Mikhail Tal in a Modern Benoni Defense played 12...Nxe4.  This was a tactical surprise giving up a knight for the e pawn and breaking up White's grip on the center.  Averbach got very upset about this move, probably because he had not thought of it himself.  Before the game he had wanted to teach this upstart, Tal, who was the best player.  Well, it turned out to be Tal.  This is an example of Soviet chess after the war.  Before the war there was no Modern Benoni.  With this game and a few others Tal made the Modern Benoni popular.  He and Fischer also popularized the King's Indian, the idea being that the attacks come as counter attacks, not as the opening attacks of the 19th century.  Fischer spent a good bit of his time studying the games of the soviet players, even reading their annotated games in the Russian language.

  Getting back to the Queen's Gambit Accepted, it may not be the best opening and it may give up the center, but Black is plotting against you.  Black's strategy is like the PT Boats going in to attack a line of destroyers-  " his only defense is speed " (of development).  Black hopes to develop quickly and attack with mobility.  His advantage is that he did not have to sacrifice a pawn to open the game, he just takes the one White offered him.  He wants to develop quickly and look for attacking chances.  One advantage is this defense is very dangerous if white brings his Queen out too early.  A White blunder can certainly spoil that central control, and central control is what White is trying to acheive.  Central control is not always available for Black, so Black defenses should not be criticised or taken fore granted by the player of the White pieces.  Chances are the Black player is not trying out a new defense.  If he didn't know the opening he would not be playing it. So when everything is said and done, with all the chess games played, Central Control is a White option, not a Black option.  Black must fight back, and White must be prepared. 

    Only pompous asses make statements like " Black is lost because he gives up central control ".  White foregos central control in openings like the Nimzo-Larsen Attack, but that is a player's style.  He also hopes Black has not seen this opening too often.  It was basically criticised by Eric Shiller in Unorthodox Chess Openings.  Fischer played this opening five times, won four games and drew one.  So "giving up control of the center" must be evaluated in terms of Hypermodern chess opening theory as well as in openings like the King's Gambit. 

    How many have played against the Benko Gambit?  Raise your hands.   

Hey BillyIdle...Awesome narrative comment on the QGA and Central Control in general. It is evident that you have spent some serious time and effort on it!!! Especially interesting is how you used analogous military concepts to explin your points.

It is a great concept and reality that white with the first move has first chance at controlling the center. As black, using the hyper-modern system, I know that timing the counterattack is crucial. I have oftentimes waited too long to attack white's center and claim some ground for my own pieces, ultimately being over-run. I think it takes a great deal of finesse to control the center from a distance, but it certainly is effective.

Thanks again for your great contribution!

Thank you BillyIdle, I think I speak for everybody who has viewed this page that I have learnt a lot. With good play though, QGA is equally good to QGD. I find that the strongest defences are Slav and Semi-Slav. QGA is perfectly sound as long as black accepts that their pawn is gone and starts developing immediately, instead of protecting it.

mmm...I stray from Hypermodernism unless if I know my opponents style very well. Although things like Kings Indian Defense I very often play. The only times I play Nimzo-Larsen attack is against a particular opponent who fianchettos his Kings Bishop. For me it is to later challenge his kingside. I think that if that is the reason, then b3 is no more effective played earlier than later.