Castling Structure (Which one do you prefer ?)

I like the fianchettoed bishop better. Each side has it's vulnerabilities. I tend to find it more difficult to invades black's shape.

@nameno1had : Thx for passing by :D

@bbracken : Thx. Learning chess theory is something i do recently. And i like to learn something i interested in. Maybe there will be fault here and there, but it's a process to be better :D

I have a hard time buying an IM or GM feeling the need to belittle anyone in a forum, unless of course they are either on the same level, and/or the other person is very condescending towards the IM or GM.

Sometimes I think about what it would be like to converse with an omniscient being.

I guess maybe a GM/IM might understand more what it is like, after trying to reason with someone who might know only half of what they do.

---

Something else I find both curious and absurd, is when, an IM decides to drop in and give free advice and lessons, but the "underrated" decide to reprove the master in front of his class....maybe I should get some apples...

---

Then, would it be fair to assume you worded that wrong?

The OP's question was very clear to me IM pfren. Perhaps you should refrain yourself from mocking other people too.

The way I see it is that the OP asked which structure do you like better. Of course it will feel different in different positions, but on a whole i prefer the fianchetto'd black bishop, rather than the white structure as the white structure feels slightly opened. 

That being said, everything could be the reverse in different positions.

actually it depends entirely on the board.

so actually, the answer is "it depends".

but the way you've posted the diagram, i prefer black.

xD

trollz.

THAT DIAGRAM IS MISLEADING PEOPLE TO THINK BLACK

bb bbracken, you called an IM a jerk, instant-ban please xD

---

no, cus i dont like white. not cus im racist, but because i dont like the bishop on g3 and the pawn on h3.

personally anyway

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.

......................................................................................

This was the IMs first contribution to the OPs post. Nothing of course is wrong with his opinion.

Then he was attacked by this comment-

^ lazy answer. Ofcourse structures can be analysed without needing legal diagrams. For example, a knight on e5 is generally better placed than a knight on a1, because it has more moves.

...taking a jab at him, and asserting that his reply is "lazy".

...and of course it all went down hill from there.

It continues to amaze me how people can continually attack one another for no reason what-so-ever...in the cyber world yes, but moreso in the real world. We feel that only "our" opinion matters...and those who do not share this, we should disrespect.

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.