achja wrote:
The queenside majority story is something to care about, but it does not guarantee a win.
It can be good in cases where both parties castled short.
There's however more things that can decide the result of a chess game.
For example, take the Ruy Lopez exchange.
I like going through games by Bobby Fischer winning as white with the kingside pawn majority, but if you look at more games and statistics, then you will realize that the bishop pair of black is something to care about as well.
In fact, you need to play careful as white, not to lose against the black bishop pair.
@Fiveofswords
That game example was not a very good one re: the topic.
White got a passed c pawn because black erred several times.
That's along the lines of what I was originally thinking, but I do admit that my sense of danger was off; I was barely thinking about the queenside pawn majority at all, which is not good! I need to recognize these imbalances.
i agree...many losses are meaningless. You jsut werent paying attention forgot a move was legal and know it the moment you see the move. Nothing to learn from that but to rmeember to focus if you dont want to lose. Meanwhiel this game although he won i think shows that he lacked a sense of inherent danger that there was with the queenside. if his opponent had played 19 a3 or 20 b4, he may very well have lost. The mobile queenside majority is something he did not seem to be aware of as a danger. his opponent also didnt seem aware of the opportunity. too bad.
Yes, I did not have a sense of danger with the queenside pawn majority.