+1 and +1
Philidor Defense and 4...c5 (?)
Sort:
May 19, 2011
0
#3
@ RainbowRising and ajedrecito - a big thanks for the answers to my questions. I knew I could count on your expert analysis. 
May 20, 2011
0
#4
Estragon wrote:
We all weaken squares all the time - we have to, there is no getting around it. Every single pawn move weakens squares somewhat, because it can never again control the squares it did before advancing. So even 1 e2-e4 permanently weakens d3 and f3, which can never again be protected by the e-pawn. But of course this isn't so much what is normally considered a "weak square." That would be a square which can no longer be protected by any friendly pawn, like d5 for Black in your example.
But sometimes we must acquiesce to even that level of weakening in the course of a game. Bobby Fischer observed, "To get squares, you gotta give squares." Weakening squares can be justified and even beneficial in the proper situation.
Here, though, Black's ...c5 weakens the d5 square for no sound reason. Black only gains a single tempo at best, one he cannot use to immediate advantage anyway. The weak square will be there a long time. So no, this cannot be good, based on basic principles.
A very good morning read on basic chess principles. Thank you!
I found a chess club in my town, finally! In one game, my opponent played the Philidor Defense, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6. Play continued with 3.d4 exd4 4.Nxd4 c5 (?).
4…c5 is not a theoretical move in the Philidor Defense. I played one of two possible moves played by master level chess players in my ChessBase database, 5.Nf3. The other move is 5.Bb5+.
Is 4…c5 a weak move? Why? Also, which move do you like better, 5.Nf3 or 5.Bb5+?
I found it of tactical interest that Black can not play 9...Nxe4 (??).