Castling Structure (Which one do you prefer ?)

This may seem strange to some of you, but it really is possible to debate any topic without insulting anyone....

the evaluation of a diagram uses many positional aspects, king safety, pawn structure, piece activity, etc. While one cannot evaluate the entire diagram on one aspect, it is good to look at single aspects anyway, trying to see what their strenghts and weaknesses are. For if one cannot evaluate one positional aspect, how can one evaluate an entire diagram with multitudes of positional aspects? With my jab at pfren my intention was to not let this topic die with the argument that other pieces are needed, because for the evaluation of this single aspect they're not needed to be defined. Moreover, defined other pieces might just make other positional aspects interfere with the thing we're discussing here.

It still puzzles me how some people aren't free to acknowledge the ideas of others and just after, add a few complimentary ideas to them, without being ridiculed.

Does anyone need to bow and pay homage first, before responding to another's idea with one of their own?.......

I definitely think I am going to get some apples...

---

This is what I was thinking, but you beat me to it :)

If I can try to bridge the gap here a bit...

It really depends on what a person wants out of chess.  Some people just want to learn a handful of "tricks" and during a game will pull out one or another.  That way they can beat a few of their friends and enjoy a few games without putting much effort into chess.  If that were the case then I'd say pfren needed to be more supportive.

So topics similar to this one I understand... but this one asks a pretty specific question for someone who wants just a few tricks, so really the best answers were pfren's.  If someone wants to learn about structure, then you have to look at game positions.  You people can't really think there is a proper answer to give the OP (as either white or black)... really?

---

Everyone first couple of posts were informative and not at all insulting.  It's when people asked but weren't willing to listen over and over that insults came.

If Bobby Fischer was trying to teach any of you and he became uncooperative with your attempts to reason/argue with his ideas, would you attack him for maybe losing his temper a bit because, he felt insulted/frustrated/unappreciated, or would you give him a pass?

We should always try to appreciate the effort of one who is qualified to teach us and maybe even cut them some slack, especially if they are trying to reason to you in a second language. Maybe they don't always articulate their ideas, as well as, maybe they thought they would be perceived.

When any good player comes to a forum, you should probably always just take mental notes of what they say when it comes to what they are an authority on.  Do they need to play you a game first or give you lessons in persons to get their point across?

LOL - human nature has not and will not change this millenium or the next. But let's ignore that for now.

Even though I'm a relative moron at chess, I'll throw in some comments of my own based on what I *think* the OP might have meant, which is the relative merits of "fianchetto" versus "non-fianchetto" castles. Those of you who actually know how to play this game might be willing to let me know if my thinking is completely wrong.

- in a fianchetto structure, I'm always worried about losing the bishop, which leaves me with a clear weakness on the squares around the king

- in a fianchetto structure, I'm less worried about a simple back rank mate, but more worried about getting attacked on the back rank, blocking check with the bishop, and then getting the bishop pinned

- in a fianchetto structure, I like having the king defending the bishop while the bishop usually commands a nice diagonal. In the middlegame this means I don't have to allocate a rook or other more active piece to defend my long-diagonal bishop who might otherwise be alone (like on b2, while the castle is on kingside)

- in a non-fianchetto structure, I tend to worry about a bishop sac of the corner pawn which rips open the castle, whereas in a fianchetto castle, it seems to be the pawn advance taking off my nice forward pawn which damages the castle and can leave my bishop naked and easily pinned

All things being equal, I can't really say which I prefer. Of course, at my rating it probably doesn't matter much what I prefer :-)

I have said before that the first time i make the structure it's only King, Rook, and 3 Pawns (see post #30). Since there are so many debate about the other pieces position, i try to make the whole diagram. I hope this diagram balance enough. I know there are some wrong moves, but hey i try my best (for your shake).

 

 

 

If someone think that i'm not supposed to ask this thing, please help me, call the forum manager or the site owner tell him/her to shut the forum down. Or restricted this forum just for someone that expert in chess, so there will be no "wrong/dumb/silly question". And for newbies, they can just observe, without giving any comments. Thx before.

For you who think you know everything. I'm maybe mature enough in RL, but in chess theory i'm just a baby. Maybe you never asked by a baby "why should we sleep ? why should we eat ?". Maybe you know everything, i bow to you, but i'm not. If you think my question is dumb and you have no good willing to help me to understand, just tell me it's dumb and leave. I have admitted that i'm new to chess theory, isn't it enough for you ?

I'm asking a serious question here (in my knowledge), and i think i already got the serious answer enough.

 

---

I have to agree with you, since you are the one who know everything (in chess theory) better than me. And if you leaving, i think it would be the best you. Thx.

@all : Like i have said on and on. I really appreciate your shares and comments. If you don't like the question, please forgive me. For i'm just a newbie here, and maybe you are the expert since the beginning.

LOL. Apa kabar?

I was surprised to see such a simple question can generate such a heated argument. Anyhow, going back to the original diagram (reproduced here for convenience).

The weakest point of White's structure is the g2 pawn, but the structure is very flexible in the sense that its pawn structure is not yet fixed and White has the option to advance the pawns according to the situation. The presence of the bishop deprives the possible advance of the g pawn, but in return it helps covering the g2 pawn from a direct attack. We can also see that this structure covers the surrounding squares (f1-f4-h4-h1 squares) thoroughly making it difficult for knight to establish an outpost here. Overall, it looks solid.

Black's structure is more well known. The fianchettoed bishop covered the weakness of the pawn structure. Pawn structure is relatively fixed. However, the method of dismantling this defense is well-known. The bishop holds the key to the defense, and the pawn's static structure making it easier to organize an attack. It also leaves a hole at the g5 square. Overall, Black's defense is harder to crack, and it may take a considerable resource to dismantle this defense, but it is easier to organize an attack against this kind of structure.

I personally prefer White's structure, but probably without the bishop there. I believe the key to attack or defense is mobility, and the ability to adapt to the enemy's plan. With Black's structure, that option is more limited. Black is basically saying "Ok, this is how I play. Come and get me!". White on the other hand adopts a more flexible, wait-and-see attitude, which I prefer. I believe if you stay on one spot, you are dead no matter how good is your defense is. Learn how to move like a good boxer.

  I was determined not to post again in this thread but ,unfortunately  I have to, as some things I said have been misunderstood.

I said 

"I think you are understanding the whole thing wrong."

... and that phrase was completely misunderstood.

I never meant that the question is wrong or dumb.I totally agree with bbrackenthat there are no dumb questions.My teacher used to say that "dumb are only the questions that were never asked" and I totally agree.

   I was trying to say that trying to find the easy solution to your (chess) problems simply doesn't work.The question gives clearly the impression thar the OP needs a "recipe" so that he can "cook" the right "Castling structure"(I am sorry if I was wrong but it is so common).

   It's a common mistake.How many times have you seen a forum topic with the title:

"What is the best opening?"

"How do I win in rook endgames?"

"What's the best way to play the Najdorf?"

"Should I castle long or short?".

They all try to find the easy answer,the easy solution to their problem(s) , something that  will guarantee that they will make the right decision.The problem is,  chess is a game of decisions  not a game of rules , principles or "recipes".Rules , Principles  even "recipes" do exist but they are like a compass that shows you where North is , no one can guarantees you that you will find something if you go North, the destination is your decision.

      So when Dinnebolt posts a diagram like that in post #1 and asks ,

"Which one castling structure do you prefer ?"

......and someone answers

"I would say i like black better, because black's bishop is a little more mobile"

We have a wrong, still though very instructive, question and a completely wrong , very confusing answer from a person who should try to learn and not share his "knowledge".

And when Pfren gave the correct answer:

"None is better of course, without putting the other pieces onboard. Whoever said "other pieces are irrelevant" has still to read lesson number two.

The above position is a boring draw, so it doesn't count for anything. "

he was accused for "lazy answer".Here we can all take a great lesson.I will take as starting point Averbakh's words:

"The most complicated thing in chess is understanding it's simplicity." 

Why Pfren was accused for  "lazy answer" ?Easy , because with simple words he expressed a simple and very important truth.In Chess , good or bad is determined by the whole "picture" and not by a part of the picture.From an IM we would expect something more sophisticated, something more complicated , something difficult to understand , even something uncomprehensible or what's the point of being an IM?.

   Ladies and gentlemen, the ability to express simple truths with simple words is not easy and not lazy at all, and we must realise that anyone who believes that you can choose which side you prefer by looking to only a part of the "picture" , really needs to go back to lesson 2,  he never really understood it(I say that with the best of intentions).And that has nothing to do with  rating(which I never take under consideration).I was surprised to see that a 1500+ player, Metastable, gave the most complete answer of all, including me.

 Yes , you can study specific formations but, one thing you understand when you study chess is that every little detail is important.An "insignificant" pawn that is on a3 and not on a2 can make a huge difference, a closed diagonal , an open file , a weak square ,a bad knight , a lost tempo.........games have been won or lost because of  these.How can anyone say so lightly

"Other pieces are irrelevant" 

Finally I want to assure you that I have the best of intentions ALWAYS when I answer any post.

Someone said "we were all newbs some time".Really?I still am, I never managed to feel as an experienced veteran.

Dinnebolt , I was right when I said 

"I think you are understanding the whole thing wrong."

but I said it to help you and I believe(allow me the arrogance) I did.

You will find the correct answers if you first find the correct questions.

And to answer for the diagram on post  #56 we can say that the position is equal and both sides have safe kings so it's a matter of , not what castling structure you want, but  what middlegame you want.

Ok, this has got to stop. This gets annoying after a while. If people have personal issues after being called names, they should open up another thread and argue there. What you people are doing is thread hijacking.

Also, you cannot impose your opinions on others. Even if you are right and the other person is wrong, you cannot force the other person to accept your arguments. Have some respect that other people may have different opinions.

I believe that the OP has asked a valid question. The OP asked which structure you prefer. I may prefer A, you may prefer B, they may prefer C, everone else may prefer D. There is nothing wrong with that. Even if the OP asked which structure is the best, different people may have different opinions about it. This is why Karpov plays differently from Kasparov. This is why Kramnik style is different from Anand.

Grow up people, and let's bring back the discussion to the original topic.

The OP asked a question ,and  some answered wrong.It is "respect" if we don't correct them?

I think we have a totally different idea of what "respect" is.Would you find it disrespectfull if I say you are wrong?

p.s. If the OP doesn't want me to post I will gladly won't post and I will also apologise.If the OP thinks I crossed some lines , I will again apologise.You see , I never try to convince anyone about anything.

my interest lies in a very nice chess discussion. But if I was wrong in assessing the black bishop is more mobile, please tell me WHY. I have not heard any argument against it.

ofcourse, evaluating a chess diagram involves many aspects, but it is good to focus on single position aspects like castling structures too, to understand their strenghts and weaknesses, so you have an idea how to fit in this single aspect in the entire diagram. Right?

Dear Terrahammer , I already told you.See post #29

First example , you are right , in fact all te Benoni defense is based in that bishop. 

Second example, you are wrong, it is considered wrong to fianketo the bishop.

The opening changes by just one move,3...e6 in the first case ,3...e5 in the second but the bishop needs to be developed differently.I'm sorry if I wasn't so clear

Also in post #26 , 2 fianketo positions give 2 different results.Even a widely open fianketo bishop can't help you if the other pieces are wrongly placed or if the rest of your pawn structure is full of uncompensated weaknesses. 

All pfren is saying is that the question is meaningless without more context. He isn't being condescending, he's just telling it as it is. What would you expect an international master to do - humour the meaningless question with a meaningless answer? Would that help anyone learn anything? I don't think so.

It's hard if not impossible to think of any positional 'structures' in the abstract, as they form part of a whole position and need to be considered as such. It's like asking whether you prefer a hammer or a saw, without knowing what job you need the tool to carry out.

@LisaV : Agree, the answer is "it depends". Maybe it's the answer of most question lol. Thx for remind me :D

@hankas : Hahaha apa kabar ? Baru ini ktm org indo disini hahaha. Dah gpp bro sante aja, tinggalin aja nih thread, gue jg udah ckp sih. Thx yah :D

@Michael-G : Actually i'm really glad with your comments, you give me much information and another side of view. I have no personal bad feeling to you and i hope you too. I'm sorry if i make you upset and waste your time here.
As in "I think you are understanding the whole thing wrong." Sorry if i misinterpretted it, my english isn't that good.
Like i have said i'm asking serious question and i think i got enough serious answer, even i'm not very satisfied, but i think it's enough. I can learn the rest by my self.

@all : Thx for your comments and shares, i really appreciate and respect it. I think there is nothing to discuss anymore. The answer is "it depends" on your strategy and pieces position. And for anyone that got piss off by my question, i'm really sorry. If it isn't satisfy you, pm me and we'll talk about it.

 

Regards,

-DinneBolt~~

@Michael I agree with your examples and you indicate well that a castling structure is not the end of the story. Still, it is good to study the differences between different setups, don't you think? Using madhacker's example, it is good to know the strenghts and weaknesses of an hammer and an saw. So if the right occasion arrises, you can take the right tool out of your toolbox.

Agreed that it's important to know the strengths and weaknesses - e.g.

Fianchetto: advantages - control of long diagonal, disadvantages - weak colour complex around king

Bg3: advantages - defends king from frontal attack, if exchanged off with rook still on h1 allows attack down h-file against black king, disadvantages - bishop is less powerful, back rank is more vunerable

etc etc.

But this isn't the same as saying which is "better" or which you "prefer". It's about knowing what applies more in what positions - for example, if the centre is blocked up, there's a good chance that the control of the long diagonal won't count for much.