One instance I can give is that when you've exchanged your light square bishop for say a knight, then it's often profitable to place your pawns on light squares since they will no longer be in the way of your bishop. So pawn chains on the light squares would be very attractive.
For the general answers I think others can help you out more. Doubled pawns are not necessarily a bad thing, not always is it a bad thing to put a pawn on a square where a minor piece may want to go / go through. For me, a general rule of thumb is that since pawns are less important than knights and bishops (and the other pieces for that matter) I would prefer my minor pieces to be more active over a good pawn placement, but this is one of those advices I give myself that are debatable.
Pawn Importance
Hi. Great questions and vague answer - it depends on the position. One approach is to try and compare the differences or weaknesses between your position and your opponents. This can be a mixture of objective assessment and experience. For example if you are ahead in development you may look for a pawn break to open up the position to take advantage of having more pieces developed. If behind in development and your opponent offers a pawn break, you might push rather than exchange, to lock the pawn formation, giving you time to catch up and then seek a more favourable break. Colour weaknesses can depend on which bishops have been exchanged off. For example, if you've lost your light squares bishop you might put pawns on white squares to contest these, prevent your opponent dominating with their LSB and restrict its movement. Double pawns are necessarily a bad thing, they give you a half open file for a rook and can strengthen control of the centre. One way to think about it is simply to think of them as features in the position and then shape your plans and position to take advantage of the positive aspects and minimise the negative. Hope that helps.
I'm pretty sure the main blunder on my part is not enough times been dedicated toward understanding openings and seeing how they link to the middle game
I'd say that this is as far from the truth as possible. Thinking or learning about opening has marginal benefits at best on your level (or on mine). Pawn structures are slightly more important, but still marginal. The most important things are: piece activtiy, king safety and TACTICS.
Blunder less than your opponent, this is the thing that matters in games under 2000 rating.
Just another comment. Simplify Chess (google it) have some good explanations of pawn structures and the typical middle game plans that arise from them and why. Its advanced stuff and might not help your game now, if you are still marketing basics, but I found it very useful for an insite into how an opening flows into a middlegame.
Marketing=mastering 😄
Can you edit on the android app on a phone?
“Trading light squared bishop for knight..” - Wildekaart
In the case where one bishop is traded off, at what point do you begin to really narrow down a structure for the middle game? Right before the trade, maybe after? Maybe it’s just based on play-style or opening, or both.
I also wanted to ask do you find yourself preferring one square more than the other while playing either white or black; the white king starting on a dark square and black king starting on a light square. Throughout the course of the game this might not matter all that much because things change a lot but is it something you even remotely take into account?
“..compare the differences or weaknesses between your position and your opponents.” - MarkGrubb
So true, often times I get lost in thought and don’t even really consider the fact that it’s a two man game. 😁
When you talk about objective assessment - are you saying that, depending on how far in development you are, pawn structure shouldn’t take priority over the orientation of your minor pieces?
“..if you are ahead in development you may look for a pawn break..”
Maybe something like, once things are in order, then you can make the necessary adjustments - just don’t put too much emphasis on that beforehand.
Greatly appreciated Mark, thanks again.
I'm pretty sure the main blunder on my part is not enough times been dedicated toward understanding openings and seeing how they link to the middle game
I'd say that this is as far from the truth as possible. Thinking or learning about opening has marginal benefits at best on your level (or on mine). Pawn structures are slightly more important, but still marginal. The most important things are: piece activity, king safety and TACTICS.
Blunder less than your opponent, this is the thing that matters in games under 2000 rating.
Right on magipi - it really does take some weight off; knowing that so much concern for openings isn't important right now. The only thing more confusing in understanding them is picking one. You're right though, I haven't even begun to develop any kind of play style, so there's no reason for worrying about what works best. Learning tactics, piece activity.. I can do that.
“Trading light squared bishop for knight..” - Wildekaart
In the case where one bishop is traded off, at what point do you begin to really narrow down a structure for the middle game? Right before the trade, maybe after? Maybe it’s just based on play-style or opening, or both.
I also wanted to ask do you find yourself preferring one square more than the other while playing either white or black; the white king starting on a dark square and black king starting on a light square. Throughout the course of the game this might not matter all that much because things change a lot but is it something you even remotely take into account?
First point, I don't really get what you ask me but I prefer to not narrow down a position at all, instead complicate the game as much as possible, while still trying to keep in control. Even when I'm behind in material, I won't mind that as much, as long as I am in control, then I can decide where I want the game to go. So my play-style won't give you an answer you are looking for.
Second part, no, I don't have a 'preferred' square color. I tend to believe things like these are more a thing of superstition than a thing of good-faithed logic. I can get where you're coming from in implying that it's relevant for king safety, but I don't consider that relevant enough for this question.
Others will probably help you out in more detail than me though.
By objective assessment I simply mean try and put some numbers to your evaluation. For example, if comparing development, you may see your opponent has castled and developed three pieces, so that equals +4. You have castled and developed 4 pieces, so +5. Conclusion, you are ahead in development so should look for a pawn break to open up the position and take advantage of it before your opponent catches up. In practice its not that clear cut as maybe your opponents pieces are much better positioned, so assessments are a mixture of objective and subjective factors. That's all I meant - just a suggestion on how to do simple comparisons of positions.
On the knights versus bishops I think it depends, as you say it is a 2 man game. You can always force trades. I tend to shape the pawn structure based on the minor pieces I have not the ones I want or expect in a few moves time. If you win the bishop pair, open up the game, but maybe dont open up expecting to win the bishops in a few moves. It might not happen. Once you are down to a minor piece each then you can consider your Superior Minor Piece Strategy where you try to place your remaining pawns to make your minor piece better than your opponents. Maybe not possible with same coloured bishops on both sides, but can work with knight vs bishop and opposite coloured bishops.
@Wildekaart - I think Mark kind of summed up a good enough answer when talking about development. On this account, thinking about structure before and/or after capture, I was trying to make a point, sorry if the response was a little unclear.
"Others will probably help you out in more detail than me though."
No man 🙂 I appreciate your POV a lot, thank you for contributing. Worrying about the starting colors is a bit much right? lol
Should I be concerned about the placement of pawns? The short answer would be yes, because pawn structure has a lot of importance, especially during the end-game.
What I mean though is - how important is it to focus on open lines of attack for whatever knight/bishop you plan on utilizing the most? Would having more pawns on light squares be relevant for a dark squared attack and vice versa? What about instances in pawn breaks where the opponent, of course, ruins my plans and forces his way through?
A lot of times I get stuck thinking things like:
"It seems like they're all on light squares...that can't be good."
"No, I can't take that because it'll double the pawns."
I'm pretty sure the main blunder on my part is not enough times been dedicated toward understanding openings and seeing how they link to the middle game - but are there any other things to consider that anyone would be willing to share?