Btw, here's an example of what I was thinking of in terms of a situation where the former structure seems to be acceptable for White:
So close and yet... so far
Sort:
It depends on you definition of "acceptable".
In the 2400+ level, the position after white's 18th move has scored 1.5 / 11 (with three draws and no wins) which is not terribly acceptable to my eyes. The most notable example is Shirov- Ivanchuk, Amber (blindfold) 2005. The engines evaluate the position as approximately equal, but as the results reveal it is MUCH easier to play as Black.
In the above game, Black should stop the pawn march by 22...h6, and after that he should really take on h6 instead of allowing a bone in his throat.
Feb 10, 2012
0
#24
Blast you and your databases!
OK, the variation apparently has a wretched score, but Shirov seems to have thought he could maybe beat Ivanchuk blindfolded with it, so, er, well, that's something. I guess.
Of course, also possible is that Alexei was just having one of those days...
c_pawn wrote: The question is which of these pawn structures is more favorable for white. In the red diagram there is a weak pawn on c3, in the green diagram there is a weak pawn on d4. Whereas the weak pawn on c3 is easy to defend, e.g. by Qc2, Bd2/Bb2, Rfc1 and White's pieces are still fairly active, with a weak pawn on d4 it is not so simple. Of course white does not want to play Be3, so he may have to play b3 and Bb2. Black will try to attack the d-pawn with Qb6, Ne7-f5. He may also get his rooks on the c-file, and white's kingside attack should not be very dangerous.
On the other hand in the red diagram Black will still be trying to put his rooks on the c-file and control c4, but White will then have play on the b-file and he can play Ba3. The bishop on a3 may assist in a future kingside attack.
I play exclusively the Advance variation against the French (mostly Milner-Barry Gambit stuff), and found C_pawn's post here to be on the money as far as describing the two main structures and their plans. Great post!
John, unrelated now, but I was glad to see the title changed. I know it's more to your style, but you take chess so seriously (in terms of dedication), and your humor permeates the commentary enough that I thought you didn't really need that title to begin with. That said, as a writer working with copy-editors, I get infuriated if somebody adds even a word to my story without consulting me; so I understand the sense of invasion.
Great game. As soon as I saw you do Kf1 I was thinking, "Oh John, that's so something you would do." Crazy, yet mostly viable, and always psychological to your opponent. Thinking about you as a player, I must say the few times anybody at the club has had any measure of success against you (aka the only way I've been able to draw you, your insane Queen-Sacs aside) is because of the time dumps you'll use on semi-important turns. You'll sit there for 2-3 minutes sometimse in a 5 minute game debating whether that rook-for-a-knight sac has any merit.
Not that I can judge you as a player, being my superior, just me noting a reoccuring trend ;)
Glad to see more people noticing your work here. Keep it up!! I enjoy your articles immensely.
A bishop on a3 without a counterpart is a real monster in such positions. In the old positional mainline of the French Winawer (1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bc3 Ne7) White wastes a whole move to get the a3 square for that bishop (7.a4). Black has found ways to equalize, but for many years this was the main tabiya of the Winawer.