dealing with pawn-pushers

darkunorthodox88 wrote:

this is a gross simplification of the issue. the starting position of pawns in 0-0 is no better or worse than other structures. in fact the structure has its own set of weakenesses like greek gift sacrifices. 


what happens though is that since pawn cant move back, the more pawn moves you make around a castled king, the less efficient that sort of defense becomes as pawns cannot re-arrange themselves by moving backwards. the consrvative nature of the f2 g2 h2 structure gives white the flexibility of defending with appropiate pawn moves as well as his pieces, the more they move the less flexibility in the structure you have.


even a move like h3 permanently weakens your grip on g3 and gives black a closer sac target. all of this however has to be implemented with practical considerations in mind.  perhaps that g4 move unpinning your knight might be worth the defensive cost , or perhaps that seemingly premature h3 move saves you from many tactical threats of backrank 10 moves down the line.

I am guessing you simply skipped over the post where I said doing this unforced can cause problems (and provided examples)?  In general, playing weakening moves without being forced to do so is problematic.  This is especially so when you have much better moves (e.g. proper development of your pieces) that should be played.

It is been interesting to read through most of the comments here. My only additions are surrounding the criticisms of the early h3 move by white. White look to be playing the Colle as his opening and if he was planning to create an outpost for his knight on e5 in the early goings ( or keep this option open for a stratification sacrifice as was played in move 13 ), an early pin of his knight on his knight by the white bishop g4 would short change that plan and force him to either play more to the queens side initially or make the h3 move anyway but after the pin ( which if his opponent simply move B h5 puts it out of immediate reach but maintains the knight pin ). This is not an issue if you adjust your strategy. Both those citing rules and this defending the choice have valid and correct points... I would only add that as with all rules, there are to be weighed with ones planned strategy, analysis and execution. Rule are ultimately sound guidelines one should observe unless there is an equally or greater sound reason for not doing so :).
tipish wrote:

nice games but your pushing the pawns right from start so your opponent knew not to castle in king side. then main problem when you castled already early in the game following opening rules thinking your king is now safe and your opponent's king is not. now your opponent starts a pawn storm when your king is stuck basically.

Actually it doesn't make much difference with me. I push pawns on both sides or up the middle, whichever direction they look to castle on, and count on my rapid advance to protect the king. It doesn't matter which side they castle on because I don't mind pawn advancing in multiple directions at once and advancing the king as well. Case in point: 

There are quite a few games where I never castle at all if I have enough of a central blockade built up, and see that the opponent is expecting me to castle. By the time they realize I have no intention of castling I've already taken over board control.