Today's chessstyle psychoanalyic quiz [NOT in any way sponsored by The Church of Scientology] :
Is your chess playing style:
1. Wobbly?
2. Crunchy?
3. Solid?
4. dynamic?
5. comatose?
6. squishy?
7. rubbery?
8. transparent?
I am not understanding the term "solid" in chess
Sort:
Solid : It is defined as a matter that liquid could not pass through due to obstruction ie no penetration.
In chess term, it means that your position has no holes/weaknesses.
Estragon wrote:
Berder is the most accurate in describing static vs dynamic elements.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The static and dynamic elements are the 2 overarching elements of a chess position that in combination contribute to a time, space, or material advantage.
Using Berder's example of a pinned piece. The static advantage/disadvantage is the physical pinnedy piece itself and the physical square it stands on. The dynamic advantage/disadvantage is the power exercised by the pinning piece against the piece or square behind the pinned piece.
I agree with Berder that dynamic aspects of an advantage are short lived and static aspects of an advantage are longer term. But, there are only 3 advantages in chess time space and material. They all have static and dynamic aspects to them. Only in combination of the static/dynamic are advantages manifested o the chessboard.
winnersp wrote:
As to the material advantage,Here are the pieces accurate height on board.
P:N/B:R/K:Q=1:3:5:9
However,I think pawn is too small sized,and shall be twice higher.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the point you are trying to make is that we can imagine the physical piece elevated above the chess board still exercises it's imaginary power on the chessboard from the physical square on which it stood; then I understand.
Is the above an accurate restatement of your post?
However, if your post is meaningless and meant to disrupt this topic, please stop.
transpo wrote:
However, if your post is meaningless and meant to disrupt this topic, please stop.
Aw, I kinda like those.
Sorry this answer is coming a little late 
In concrete terms, the Caro-Kann is a 'solid' opening because of its initial pawn structure on light-square mini-chains (b7, c6, e6, f7), with the problem piece Bc8 outside in the main line. Pawn structure determines 'solidity' here. Connected pawns in chains (MOST ESPECIALLY), or a pawn front with pawns in duos or trios abreast of one another firmly supported by pieces and controlling important central squares, all potentially form a stronghold that may hold off the opponent's advances for a while (especially when the opponent doesn't have good break moves, and his pieces tend to bite a lotta granite). 'Solid' structures usually allow for some piece manoeuvring to optimal squares to prepare for later explosion of the position. Examples of solid lines include the Philidor defence (e5 strong-point lines), closed Spanish, main lines of Caro-Kann/QGD/Slav/closed Catalan, Hedgehog formations, Maroczy binds, closed central formations (French, Benonis, KID, Stonewalls). Sometimes White plays 'solid systems' such as the e4 light-square strongholds (KIA, Vienna/Bishop openings, d3 Italians), the d4 dark-square triangles (Torre, Colle/Zukertort, London systems), etc. Look at it from the pawn structures point of view; if the opponent can't easily break the position with pawn breaks (short of sacrificing material), then it is quite solid. Kinda like a kingside fianchetto structure, said to be quite safe and 'solid'. Which it really is, unless you have an f or h pawn sniffing the structure and attempts to sacrifice material and/or exchange off the defenders.
LePredator wrote:
Sorry this answer is coming a little late
In concrete terms, the Caro-Kann is a 'solid' opening because of its initial pawn structure on light-square mini-chains (b7, c6, e6, f7), with the problem piece Bc8 outside in the main line. Pawn structure determines 'solidity' here. Connected pawns in chains (MOST ESPECIALLY), or a pawn front with pawns in duos or trios abreast of one another firmly supported by pieces and controlling important central squares, all potentially form a stronghold that may hold off the opponent's advances for a while (especially when the opponent doesn't have good break moves, and his pieces tend to bite a lotta granite). 'Solid' structures usually allow for some piece manoeuvring to optimal squares to prepare for later explosion of the position. Examples of solid lines include the Philidor defence (e5 strong-point lines), closed Spanish, main lines of Caro-Kann/QGD/Slav/closed Catalan, Hedgehog formations, Maroczy binds, closed central formations (French, Benonis, KID, Stonewalls). Sometimes White plays 'solid systems' such as the e4 light-square strongholds (KIA, Vienna/Bishop openings, d3 Italians), the d4 dark-square triangles (Torre, Colle/Zukertort, London systems), etc. Look at it from the pawn structures point of view; if the opponent can't easily break the position with pawn breaks (short of sacrificing material), then it is quite solid. Kinda like a kingside fianchetto structure, said to be quite safe and 'solid'. Which it really is, unless you have an f or h pawn sniffing the structure and attempts to sacrifice material and/or exchange off the defenders.
Just in time for me
I was searching for some solid responses from Black's viewpoint as I'm focussing my short amount of chess time on learning and playing White's London System.
Thanks for explaining the 'solid' structures, lines etc, plus some relevant named openings as well.
Thanks to winnersp for inducing a flashback.