Doubling pawns.

It is a draw with accurate play. you can't count blunders as "a chance of winning."

That's the logic players of the Parham Attack use.

By the way, an even game at this point of the game is a draw, since almost every move leads to a drawn endgame. 

That only counts for the opening and middlegame.

We are now at the verge of the endgame.

Yes, if both sides play accurately, without error, it would likely to end in a draw.  However, that's so far into the future that using the term "drawn" to describe a game that's reached a position where black has somehow achieved equality is wrong.  Don't really know about users of the Parham Attack, but they don't dictate chess terminology I'm afraid. 

That is of course what winning chances means, if your opponent doesn't play accurately. Otherwise it will be a winning position.

You don't have to see into the future. That's not how humans play.

We see the best move through pattern recognition. You just play the best moves one by one.

It's kind of hard not to play accurately. There aren't that many moves that lose the game.

You can't count blunders as part of the equation. A blunder in this position loses instantly. 

It would be like claiming that the Parham Attack is a great opening because of amateurish play.

????

Again, you're going off on weird tangents that are completely irrelevant to what we're trying to say:  The term "drawn" as recognized by the chess community is not what you think it means.

I really can't tell if you're doing this intentionally or not.

the point is humans dont play the best move all time as computers have shown us. This idea of chess being a human compeition is key to the game. How easy is it to find a good move or the best move in a given position is critical to success for both sides. If both  players  find the right moves a draw is likely BUT players usually try to create challenging positions for their opponents then its harder to find the best moves. The problem with some beginner openings like the patzer opening and the grob one is that the black obtains a good game with equal chances to win with out much effort. 

As Ken_mom said an equal position means EQUAL chances of a given result (say 30% win for each side and 40% draw in practical play) . This is not the same as a drawn position although amateurs tend to use the terms interchangeably they are not. if a side  has better chances that is another issue. White generally is expected to have the better chances to win over  black. Whites general plan is to play for 2 results (win/draw) when all 3 results (win/draw/loss) are introduced then players usually agree that something went wrong for white. A few players thrive on this wild style of play such as Tal, Nakamura and Morozevich and intentionally introduce this extra result. most players will do so if things start drifting to positions with unacceptable drawing chances , they will hit a 'random' button to create complications. Their opponents winning chances usually go up but their chances of making a mistake do as well. 

I know what it means. Unless we are talking about players rated 1200-1500, it is extremely unlikely that black will lose. 

Like I said, it's almost impossible. The moves are extremely natural.

A massive blunder is just a matter of luck.

Put me across the table against Kasparov and even I could draw this.

draw what postition. 

massive blunders are NOT luck. its because a player played a bad move due to a lack of skill not some wild interferance of chance. 

Since, based on your current ratings Yereslov, you are one of those 1200-1500 players it seems you fall into that category based on your own critiera.

A drawn game is not the same as an equal game. equal game = equal chances for both sides to win/draw/lose. a drawish position just means a larger percentage in the middle but still chances of losing . A dead position or position with no chances of winning is considered drawn but this is  based on level too. GMs shake hands over positions they would never shake hands with against amateurs. 

? Irony, or are you one of those '1300 rating, 2300 skill' players?

No, it would be like claiming white has winning chances in the Parham. Which he does.

On the Rd5 point, a rook on d5 doesn't really do anything that it doesn't do on d1 anyway, as far as I can see. Nd5 is a monster.

I appreciate the initally sensible discussion on one of my favourite coaching positions (although I'm still not convinced keeping the rooks on is best), so I'll be better equipped to explain this position next time I set it up. Thanks.

I didn't expect my first post on this thread to eventually start a row, though...

You reckoned without....Troll Power!

Is it only trolling when you have a fit?

benws is right.  Black's doubled pawns are not that bad. If you mess up he can still win.

Doubled pawn can be useful  if they are protected.

Yes, you are definitely right, though the idea of creating a battery on the d-file seemed pretty promising at first glance :( .  Thanks for your response.

The following position took place after Black's 19th move in Botvinnik v Panov, 1939.  I came across this game as I was searching for chess related videos on Youtube, and noticed that the pawn structure is pretty similar to the structure featured in the position givenby Madhacker.

What's interesting about this position in the game is that white can play Nd5, which forces black to "repair" white's fractured pawn structure by capturing the d5 knight (black loses material otherwise). In addition to this, white will have a protected passed pawn.  Despite all of these factors, white chooses not to plant his knight on d5, opting instead to simply move his Queen off of the d-file.  This decision probably had to do with potential of white's doubled pawns as well as the open d-file which Botvinnik recognized would prove to be much greater assets than what I mentioned above.  White's bishop pair eventually wins him the game, but that was only possible because he kept the position open instead of blindly following the "doubled pawns = bad" principle.

I thought that this was a neat example of illustrating that not all doubled pawns are bad (or at least that repairing them is sometimes not ideal).

The complete game can be found here: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1031980

Also, if anyone is interested in the Youtube video I was referring to, here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPBEjvQD9vI

The author does a much better job of explaining the game than what I've attempted here (though I think he uses the term "Winning the exchange" incorrectly in this vid, nothing big).

Agreed, Estragon, I am no endgame expert but I wondered also why the rooks were to come off.  And regarding the useful contributions you referred to, that point was certainly backed up by the last one from Kens Mom:  another very nice angle to approach the subject from.  Admittedly that Botvinnik position is a little bit more complicated than the one we were looking at, with knights to blockade efficiently at the d6 square.

Estragon, yes I was annoyed by the trolling, but there you go.

I just can't see any useful function for the rooks. But there you go, that might just be a reflection on my endgame play...

I assume this is the position we are talking about. White is better based on a few factors.

Doubled pawns are a weakness IF they can be attacked. In the above case they are not easily attacked. Endgames are another problem area for doubled pawns because they are unable to create a passed pawn as in a typical 2 vs 1 position (undoubled). In the middlegame or almost endgames where multiple pieces are on the board activity is critical (think of positions where you happily sac a pawn for piece activity) more so than static features such as doubled pawns. Doubled pawns give greater control of squares AND open (or semiopen) files! so as long as rooks are on the board the files are annoying. black cannt fight for control of the d-file due to the knight d-idea.

In this case whites activity easily compensates for the weakened pawns infact the doubled pawns help control good squares. Black has problems that he has no easy plan to improve  his position while white's plans are easy. improve the position of the pieces and see what happens! 

I would also pick a plan to keep rooks on the board. improve my knight and king position and attack the queenside pawns  and see what happens. Put a rook on the 3rd rank so I can shuffle from king to queenside quickly. play a4-a5 to weaken the black b-pawn and see what cracks. Right now black's safety issue is that he has really only 1 weakness and black can defend it. create two weaknesses and black should crumble.