Combating Pawn Storms

Pawn storms come with the direction of pawns.

You are expected to see white pawn storm in king side and black pawn storm in queenside. Tips- dont do castling early for black( keep in centre is safer).

But pawn storms generally failed in open centre like.

What Nicator is saying is that there ate no general rules about pawn storms.  Everything has to be weighed. In fact, they are double edged.

After all the great advice I have (I think) provided an example of what I mean re. my problem with pawn storms. As someone wrote, patzers may sometimes be reluctant to submit games in case they look like "idiots." This isn't me but do take into account please my low rating. Thanks

Black's problem in this game is not the pawn storm.  He is behind in development and white has strong attacking ideas.  But do you know why Black won?  If white had such a good position, why did he lose? Hint:  what Nicator said about amateurs lacking tactcal abilities.

In this instance white blundered so you ended up on the winning side, but you can sense your fear once he starts pushing the kingside pawns.

As soon as he begins moving them everything you do is an anticipation for the eventual exchange of pawns.

Instead I would focus more on setting up your own attack and developing your own strategies. 

In a way, it's an instructive game (when learning from others' mistakes is the point):

My mistakes with pawn storms have come when I was too eager to push my own pawns or trade pawns in the hope of defending.  That opens my king up just as my opponent wants.  It is better to be patient, let them come, push a pawn forward to lock the position instead of taking, and remember that your opponents pawns in front of your own king can add to your kings safety!  Your opponent can't take his own pawns off the board to open up the king!  

Thank you Nicator.  Beautiful analysis.

Thank you @Nwap111 but it was fairly simple, sort of linear play for both sides (not many logical alternatives to get confused with).

On a side note to the annotation on Black's 19th movement, when explaining how to think in chess (to find plans, the better way to carry them out and only then to evaluate if an alternative is convenient or not), beginners are often told to avoid leaving hanging, insufficient or inadequately defended material. Teachers use lots of examples where masters seem to have everything well defended all the time and when not, then the rival has no roads or squares to reach the "weaknesses". A good reason for this "strategy" is to have more "defensive" alternatives (usually tempos to react) should an attack occur because if something is defended at least once then the rival will need to coordinate more than one piece on it, or use lower value attackers as to threaten with a favorable exchange (justifying the concept of using "lower value" material when a choice to defend).

But then the student finds several masters' games where there are lots of hanging pieces and pawns on both sides. This way of playing is often called dynamic or ultra-dynamic chess, where the value of the material, space, time and pawn structures are highly subordinated to piece activity (essentially: Threats, the stronger, the faster and the more difficult to deal with, the better). This explains why White had a winning game no matter dropping a full piece: White's coordinations around Black's King will occur long before the Black pieces could become active or come into their King's help, leading to checkmate or heavy material losses without any sort of dynamic compensation. Considering things this way makes it easier to understand why, sometimes, masters sacrifice or leave hanging material here and there: Material quantity (and, or static considerations) vs. Material quality + tempos + squares to achieve lethal coordinations before the opponent can defend adequately and, or is forced into defensive concessions which can be exploited. This clarifies why there isn't a single answer to this thread's question, as it all depends on the situation over the board.

Not simple for nonmasters.  You saw all the tactical themes and you put them together in the right order.  Move order is just as important as knowing a tactical theme.  Also I think before either side embarks on a tactical voyage that each evaluate the position.  White is better in development, and his position is solid.  Black played mechanical development moves.  As you pointed out, there is no easy answer to the thread.  Pawn storms are double edged.

Pawn storm is present in any level of games. At around 2100-2200( my level), GM level , even 3500+ engines level.

This is 3 min blitz game where I used the idea of Leela's pawn storm.

Two key moves,

1.  6. d3 practically giving up control of centre( common move is d4), idea is to restrict the LSB activity on f5.

2. 8. cxd5 , dxc5 ( after this move there is 4 pawns on king side vs 3 pawns). 

At move 12. position looks quiet but the pawn storm on king side is imminent danger.

At move 22. The position is practically over.

The strategy is similar to typical King Indian Attack ,Yugoslav  variation but the difference is there is no pawn on e6 for black (after exd5 ).

Once again, I'm blown away by the intelligent and kind responses by you all although I have to give special thanks to Nicator65 for his in-depth analysis of my game. To do this and all the comments justice I will be going away for a weekend to go over everything methodically in order to glean as much knowledge as possible. This issue has obviously morphed beyond pawn storms and there are other important facets to consider.  You are right, I was (and always do) initially play "mechanically" although I am trying to break that mould. Thanks again guys. 

Good for you, Marky.  Knowledge of mistakes is the first step, and you have already taken the second step, of admitting.  Most would just deny.  Keep at it.  You will get better in time.  Nicator gave such great advice, and it was objective.  Also other people also presented part of the puzzle.  Like alot of evaluations, it really depends on the position.

It's simple once you realize that coordination to achieve active play is the key.

In a position, piece activity is what matters most. If not present, then we work towards building it (that's what development and positional play are about). We know that the chances to find concrete threats increase as we accumulate material, space and time on the sector we are playing actively, same as our opponent's decrease as we put obstacles to his edge in material, space and time wherever he tries to play. We also know that pawn structures determine the available roads inside our camp same as when infiltrating the enemy's camp, meaning that the pawn structure drastically affects the space and time for the pieces.

Take the OP's game and the annotations where I suggest Pg2–g4 and Pb7–b5. If you remove White's pawns on d4 and g2 then you get clear coordination on g7, which may be problematic to deal with because of the absence of Black's darksquares Bishop. That's how you arrive at the idea of pushing the kingside pawns, and elaborate other threats around the "main" idea. On Black's Pb7–b5, there's no clear coordinated attack at this point, but you realize that White's defense will cost tempos: Pb7–b5–b4 will get one by attacking the Bc3, and once removed the threat of moving a Rook to c8 and opening the c–file with Pc6–c5xd4 will find both Queen and King exposed.

And why not piece attacks for any of both sides? Because opening lines to coordinate the heavy and minor pieces is faster and leads to stronger threats in that position. Take my annotation after Black's Qd8–c7: I said that, IMO, Black was too behind on tempos to build something before White's play crystalizes into effective threats, so I suggested defending and slowing down White at that point. On crystalizing threats, it can be seen that even after blundering a piece White had a won game because his material advantage and superior coordination on the theater of operations was still overwhelming.

A little debate here with Nicator.  "In a position, pieces activity is what matters most."   I would say that it depends on the position. For example, one could have great piece activity, with threats everywhere, pieces exchanged.  Now the strong attacker is left with weak pawns and no counterplay.  A good defender will look to eliminate your piece activity.  A very interesting discussion that shows no general rule can be given. Chess is a jungle.

There's a misunderstanding about what piece activity implies, in the sense that by making threats then the player is playing okay. Well, it's okay if after the defender deals with the threat the attacker can develop more (initiative), or the defender has been forced to some sort of static concession. It's not okay if the threats can be stopped without the defender giving any sort of concession (the old 1-move attacks comes to my mind), as then it's likely a waste of time, or false activity (too soon, not enough resources to keep it up, and so on).

When Petrosian (the world champion) was alive, his opponents used to say that his play was too peaceful, but that if for any reason he began an attack, you may very well resign right away, even if not understanding the attack's basis (!!). On the opposite side, I am often subject to unjustified attacks right from the go when playing against amateurs; they keep me against the ropes for 10, 20 moves by pushing pawns and sacrificing whatever, but eventually they need an extra set of pieces to finish it or get some "free moves" to deal with my counterattack.

"The defense faces a poor imitation of attack."  Mark Buckley in Practical Chess Analysis.  To say that piece activity, at least as theory goes, is to be sought after above all else is not to give the entire story.  Very often piece activity dies.  Chess is filled with paradox.  For every rule, one can find an exception. It all depends on each person's analysis of a position.