#20
It was a reply to #15 "he played Ne5 saying "I like this because it increases my control of e5"
Controling the center, what exactly does it mean?
Sort:
IMBacon skrev:
Think of the 4 center squares: d4-e4-d5-e5 as the "high ground". From there you can see the entire battlefield. This is what a former coach taught me on how to determine who has more center control.
Keep in mind that is is just a basic explanation:
Occupying any of the center squares with a pawn is worth 2 points of center control.
Controlling a center square with a pawn is worth 1 point of center control.
After move 4, why has white still only 3 points? The knight aiming at two squares doesn't count because it can be captured? But does that mean that the position of the knight doesn't improve my overall centre control? Even if at the current board position it can't go to the center without being capture I still would have thought that if the knight wasn't there my overall control of the centre would be weaker?
#23
This point system is not universally accepted and is controversial to say the least.
Simply counting influence the move Ne5 loses influence: it abandons control over d4 and e5 and it occupies e5, thus +1-2=-1 it loses control.
Counting by the point system: it abandons control over d4 and e5 and it occupies e5, thus -2+2=0 and it is neutral.
Nevertheless in the Karpov example game I provided the knight on its outpost e5 was the main contributor to white's swift victory.
A knight in the center that cannot be chased by pawns is no weaker than a rook.
I don't like Yasser's style of teaching that much, but he seems like someone who... let's put it this way, if you can't get along with Yasser you're probably a terrible human being