Wikipedia where?
In your line, h6 is an awful move and f6 is even worse. I doubt that those were played in any serious game.
Wikipedia says this is bad, to me it looks good.
Sort:
magipi wrote:
Wikipedia where?
In your line, h6 is an awful move and f6 is even worse. I doubt that those were played in any serious game.
What is so bad about 5...f6?
To answer your question here is the link to that wikipedia page. https://en.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/Chess_Opening_Theory/1._e4/1...e5/2._f4/2...exf4/3._Nf3/3...g5/4._h4
Why is this such a bad opening?
h6 loses the pawn that black gained in the first place, and then f6 just weakens the black king way too much.
I think because after g6 your dark squared bishop is constantly defending the g7 square.
And you can't develop your knight to its natural f6 square.
sushima01 wrote:
h6 loses the pawn that black gained in the first place, and then f6 just weakens the black king way too much.
Surely the white kingside is just as bad.
joranstijnen2005 wrote:
I think because after g6 your dark squared bishop is constantly defending the g7 square.
And you can't develop your knight to its natural f6 square.
Why is the bishop constantly forced to defend the g7 square after g6?
It's not even Wikipedia. It's another project called Wikibooks.
Let's deal with this.
After the simple 6. g6, let's analyze by hand, reviewing the good and bad of White's position and Black's.
White:
More central and kingside space;
Easier access to weak king (with Bc4, say);
Easier development;
Significant threats can be made with the pawn on g6 (because if the queen ever moves to h5, which is likely, then g7+, picking up the rook, is a threat; that is why the bishop has to defend g7
The g6 pawn is a little bit accessible.
Black:
White g6 pawn might (and that is a big if) be a target in the future;
No space whatsoever;
Horrible pawn structure (doubled isolated f pawns, and weak isolated h-pawn)
Difficult to develop kingside
No open lines for bishops and queen, and you can absolutely forget about the rooks.
Does this give the issue a bit of clarity?
Mar 5, 2023
0
#11
Putting aside any tactics that may be calculated from weakening your structure like that, think about long term strategy into the game.
You just destroyed your kingside structure, you have 0 development, your pieces are all in the starting squares, your king is unsafe in the center, what the point would be in castling kingside when you have destroyed the pawn structure that's supposed to keep your king safe, you've created 2 pawn islands, one of them with double pawns ...
And all that, for what? Where's the compensation in material or positional advantage? Sure your opponent has only developed one knight, but he even could easily threaten to deny you castling on the kingside in a couple of moves via development of his kingside's pieces, or even develop queenside for queenside castling just by developing his pieces and threatening to bring them over to your exposed kingside.
That's why it's so bad. And Im sure someone would come up with tactics to take advantage of all the positional errors in your position with a bit more indepth analysis.
If this was a game under a long time control you'd might as well resign.
ChessBeginner35 wrote:
Let's deal with this.
After the simple 6. g6, let's analyze by hand, reviewing the good and bad of White's position and Black's.
White:
More central and kingside space;
Easier access to weak king (with Bc4, say);
Easier development;
Significant threats can be made with the pawn on g6 (because if the queen ever moves to h5, which is likely, then g7+, picking up the rook, is a threat; that is why the bishop has to defend g7
The g6 pawn is a little bit accessible.
Black:
White g6 pawn might (and that is a big if) be a target in the future;
No space whatsoever;
Horrible pawn structure (doubled isolated f pawns, and weak isolated h-pawn)
Difficult to develop kingside
No open lines for bishops and queen, and you can absolutely forget about the rooks.
Does this give the issue a bit of clarity?
Why are there no open lines for the bishops and queen?
RedFastMath wrote:
Play this... maybe
I already knew this variation, it's good spread the word about this opening though to raise awareness.
RedFastMath wrote:
Then why do you do a completely trash opening?
It's not trash until scrutiny proves it such. I haven't picked this opening, I have simply held it up to scrutiny.
AlpineIbex7 wrote:
It's not even Wikipedia. It's another project called Wikibooks.
WIkibooks is a part of Wikipedia.
The debate must continue.
We must continue this discussion.
Tell me why Wikipedia criticises this so much!