Kings Indian Question. No early d6.
Sort:
There is game on this theme in Fischer's 60 memorable games, game against Lettier?, not sure. Black undetermines centre with d6 and c5, and is ok, not sure about better,
TwoMove wrote:
There is game on this theme in Fischer's 60 memorable games, game against Lettier?, not sure. Black undetermines centre with d6 and c5, and is ok, not sure about better,
Letelier - Fischer, correct.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1008397
Fiveofswords wrote:
black is obviously not better.white has a huge lead in center space, and still leads in development.
Yes, but White's center falls apart.
The problem with pushing all your Pawns is that every Pawn move weakens the squares left behind it. And if the Pawns disappear, all you are left with are the weak squares.
Fiveofswords írta:
blueemu wrote:
Fiveofswords wrote:
black is obviously not better.white has a huge lead in center space, and still leads in development.
Yes, but White's center falls apart.
The problem with pushing all your Pawns is that every Pawn move weakens the squares left behind it. And if the Pawns disappear, all you are left with are the weak squares.
of course...but the pawn push forced the knight to this stupid e8 square. Its absurd to push pawns for no reason...but worrying about them being weak is inconsistent with knowing that lots of gambits are perfectly playable because of development/center control compensation. Lose pawns if you need to...(prefer not to, of course)...but keep the mobility advantage.
The knight is just temporarily placed on e8 it will come to the game later. And white's pawn center is not strong, it is rather an object of an attack.
White does not have enough development to keep his pawn center.
But think about it this way. What Fischer played was an improved version of Alekhines defense. He did not have to lose that many time with moving the knight around the board just to force c4 and d4 since those moves were already played. And he has already fianchettoed the bishop which was able to put pressure on the center pawns, which is another thing black wants to do in the alekhine defense, but here it was already played.
So IM pfren are u refering to me? Whats your thoughts? Is lureing this position happening good?
When I say good i dont mean black being better... but is this position better for black than an otherwise normal kings indian? Of course if white doesnt play e5 i just play d6 next move and transpose.
AttackChess123 wrote:
So IM pfren are u refering to me?
I don't imagine that IM pfren's remark was addressed to you, no.
Yes Tinman. Exactly like that. Thats what I meant.
Thanks Blue Emu.
Looking at notes to
Letelier - Fischer
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1008397J
John Watson suggests 5Bg5 bettter than 5e5, but suspect most players play d6 from lazyness.
After 5.e5?! black is =+.
blueemu hat geschrieben:
(...)
The problem with pushing all your Pawns is that every Pawn move weakens the squares left behind it. And if the Pawns disappear, all you are left with are the weak squares.
That is the point. It has been called Vakuum-effect by Dworetzky. The black pieces are "sucked" into the white position.
chessmicky hat geschrieben:
Letelier - Fischer 1960. Fischer's play in the opening was double-edged, but Black wasn't better. White could probably kept a small advantage with precise play, or so Andy Soltis thought. But Fischer wanted to sharpen the game and put both players under pressure--and he succeeded. The finish is pretty
Soltis is wrong here. The truth is: After 5.e5?! black is slightly better. 10.Ne4? is a bad move, moving a developed piece a second time. 10.Nf3 instead gives good drawing chances. White continues to not develop his pieces and after 13.Qb1?! black is finally won. Fischer then plays it in an elegant style and without any serious error until the logical end of the game. There is nothing double-edged in blacks play. It is a solid positional refutation of the white misconcept.
Fiveofswords hat geschrieben:
black is obviously not better. (...)
Wrong. Black is (not obviously) slightly better.
Fiveofswords hat geschrieben:
(...) white has a huge lead in center space, and still leads in development.
Wrong. True is: white has pushed his pawns but lacks development.
Fiveofswords hat geschrieben:
some people frankly take hypermodern ideas to the point of insanity. (...)
Which people are you talking about? Give names.
Fiveofswords hat geschrieben:
(...) Center control and development matter. (...)
True. But it is not Center control or development. it is center control and development. In this concrete example after 5.e5?! white has no real center control (He just has his pawns there) and he is underdeveloped.
Fiveofswords hat geschrieben:
(...) Absolutely center pawns can become weak, but that doesnt mean white is losing. In fact if you try to go overboard with hypermodern methods then white could simply lose a pawn while maintining a totally winning position.
Yes, there are many positions where one player gives material to reach a winning position. It is called sacrifice. So what?
Fiveofswords hat geschrieben:
of course...but the pawn push forced the knight to this stupid e8 square. Its absurd to push pawns for no reason...but worrying about them being weak is inconsistent with knowing that lots of gambits are perfectly playable because of development/center control compensation. Lose pawns if you need to...(prefer not to, of course)...but keep the mobility advantage.
(...)
well one would assume that the N would be on e8 temporarily, or else black doesnt know how to paly chess...cause e8 is a terrible place for the knight.
I understand. Yes. the pawns can be weak. I understand that eventually black will managed to get some pieces in the game.
I still say white is better.
(...)
Yes the counterplay against the somewhat immobile center pawns is important for black, and its how he stays in the game, but no it does not fully compensate for the
space and development issues. Not fully. And to say black is better i think is crazy optimistic.
(...)
Bla bla bla. Give a concrete variation which proves that white has the slightest advantage after 5.e5?!
Fiveofswords hat geschrieben:
(...)
(example)
white is down a pawn...and imo is clearly better.
No. This position is unclear. White may have enough compensation for the pawn but black has no weaknesses. Steinitz would love to defend this position with black. I also would prefer to have the black pieces.
Apocalyp7o, very interesting idea, ..Nc6 and ..e5 without ..d6 against the Sämisch. Here is another motiv i ran into (it has many sidelines). For white it is a more or less forced variation after 10...Nxe4. He has to play it like this:
White's advantage in development and space are both static. Instead of being able to use his center to launch a kingisde attack, for example, he will be stuck defending his overextended pawns. Black's position, on the other hand, is very dynamic. He will attack white's center with his pawns and his pieces will follow to active squares. Black may not be better, but black scores very well in this line and it is white who struggles to maintain the balance after 5 e5?!
After say.
1. d4, Nf6
2. c4, g6
3. Nc3, Bg7
4. e4, O-O
I read in a book that castling here without the d6 is actually a small trap? Because if white plays e5 and black plays Ne8. The book says black is better. The book in question is a Kings Indian defence book.
Any thoughts?