Moving a Pawn Twice in the Opening
Sort:
Here is a situation where it is correct for the d pawn to take when attacked.
The reason is that the pawn taken is the valuable e pawn for Black.
Awww, you used my opening as an example!
What are your thoughts on this:
1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5
rtr1129 wrote:
What are your thoughts on this:
1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5
ponz111 wrote:
Mozekgames
I am not saying beginners do this often, I am saying players under 1800 often move a pawn twice in the opening when they should not. A player rated 1700 is not a beginner.
Yes, the opening is often 10-15 moves as you suggest. However you are wrong to say the opening is not generally considered over until the rooks are connected.
I am wrong? Let us look at what International Master Rench says on his article right here on chess.com (I could easily bring in other references from Pandolfini, and other GMS) " you have indeed connected your Rooks, than you have likely completed the first stage of the game... " (the first stage of the game being the opening,) this is a general guideline but this is the accepted requirement for the opening to be over. this does not mean that attacks can not occur in the opening stage before development is complete.
You keep implying or saying that I said players should not move a pawn twice in the opening. I am not saying this at all. I am saying players should not move a pawn twice in the opening without a very good reason.
I gave no example of a player making a dubious move and then a blunder.
look again at your examples. A dubious move by white then a second one is a mistake/blunder. OF
I gave an example of one player making a dubious move and turning his advantage with the White pieces in the opening down to zero and then HIS OPPONENT moving a pawn twice in the opening and then the player with White now having the advantage.
please stop mischaracterizing what I say and please stop misquoting me.
Iam not trying to misquote you I am pointing how that overly broad statements like pushing the pawn twice in the opening is a mistake is in itself misleading and too broad of a statement to be considerered accurate. The thesis is too broad and results in your main concept taken in the wrong light.
There are always exceptions to any chess rule but the way I phrase the idea takes into account the exceptions.
It would be very nice if some strong player would list the general conditions where a pawn should not be moved twice in the opening and also the general conditions when a player can move a pawn twice in the opening.
I have taught kids/beginners for the last 10 years (and very successful at it btw) In my experience giving very general guidelines is a good idea BUT there should always be room for an exception to the point that players should be encouraged to play what they think is a good idea until proven differently (for the most part)
I have talked to many masters and gleened a ton of information and tips for the last ten years.
I know there is such a listing somewhere as I have seen it.
http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/ten-rules-opening
This has a long list of items that players have suggested as general guidelines (rules tend to be too hard and fast as Watson's modern chess strategy points out, too many exceptions means the rules are not valid. So guidelines are a better word imo.
Beginners often move pawns to attack something, this is the same reason they tend to move the same piece twice. The concept of attacking something is a good one but it can be flawed for tactical and strategical reasons but these have to be proven on the board.
I guess my final point while I agree with you in principle it was overly broad statement with too many exceptions to be considered a rule. esp at the 1800 level.
Mozekgames wrote: ponz in blue
ponz111 wrote:
Mozekgames
I am not saying beginners do this often, I am saying players under 1800 often move a pawn twice in the opening when they should not. A player rated 1700 is not a beginner.
Yes, the opening is often 10-15 moves as you suggest. However you are wrong to say the opening is not generally considered over until the rooks are connected.
I am wrong? Let us look at what International Master Rench says on his article right here on chess.com (I could easily bring in other references from Pandolfini, and other GMS) " you have indeed connected your Rooks, than you have likely completed the first stage of the game... " (the first stage of the game being the opening,) Wikipedia the opening is the initial moves of a chess game. also a sequence of moves at the first part of the game consider standard.
few openings end with all pieces out and both rooks connected.
The first stage of a chess game and "opening" do not mean the same. Many chess games are completed before all t he pieces are out and rooks connected.
this is a general guideline but this is the accepted requirement for the opening to be over. this does not mean that attacks can not occur in the opening stage before development is complete.
You keep implying or saying that I said players should not move a pawn twice in the opening. I am not saying this at all. I am saying players should not move a pawn twice in the opening without a very good reason.
I gave no example of a player making a dubious move and then a blunder.
look again at your examples. A dubious move by white then a second one is a mistake/blunder. OF you seem to cut yourself off here. I showed an opening where one player made a slightly dubious move--he was White and this turned his opening down to zero, then a DIFFERENT player pushed a pawn twice, incorrectly and then White had a big advantage
I gave an example of one player making a dubious move and turning his advantage with the White pieces in the opening down to zero and then HIS OPPONENT moving a pawn twice in the opening and then the player with White now having the advantage.
please stop mischaracterizing what I say and please stop misquoting me.
Iam not trying to misquote you I am pointing how that overly broad statements like pushing the pawn twice in the opening is a mistake is in itself misleading and too broad of a statement to be considerered accurate. The thesis is too broad and results in your main concept taken in the wrong light.
I repeat for the umtenth time--my thesis is not players should not push a pawn twice in the opening. my thesis is players should not push a pawn in the opening without a very good reason. By you delibertly leaving out "without a very good reason" you are misquoting me. This is a practice called "strawman" when someone delibertly misquotes another person. "strawman is a logical fallacy.
There are always exceptions to any chess rule but the way I phrase the idea takes into account the exceptions.
It would be very nice if some strong player would list the general conditions where a pawn should not be moved twice in the opening and also the general conditions when a player can move a pawn twice in the opening.
I have taught kids/beginners for the last 10 years (and very successful at it btw) In my experience giving very general guidelines is a good idea BUT there should always be room for an exception to the point that players should be encouraged to play what they think is a good idea until proven differently (for the most part) I was "Chess Instructor" for the whole city of Decatur Illinois when I was age 15 and 16 and taught hundreds and maybe thousands of children ages 8 to 13.
And again you misquote me by indicating I have said there are no exceptions to the rule. As my rule is players rated under 18 should think very hard before pushing a pawn twice in the opening. My rule is NOT players should not move a pawn twice in the opening as you state and imply.
I have talked to many masters and gleened a ton of information and tips for the last ten years. I was way above master strength and also learned a lot.
I know there is such a listing somewhere as I have seen it.
http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/ten-rules-opening
This has a long list of items that players have suggested as general guidelines (rules tend to be too hard and fast as Watson's modern chess strategy points out, too many exceptions means the rules are not valid. So guidelines are a better word imo.
Beginners often move pawns to attack something, this is the same reason they tend to move the same piece twice. The concept of attacking something is a good one but it can be flawed for tactical and strategical reasons but these have to be proven on the board. Of course it can, I never said otherwise.
I guess my final point while I agree with you in principle it was overly broad statement with too many exceptions to be considered a rule. esp at the 1800 level. My statement was not overly broad. You making up what my statement was is and was misleading. You misquote me several times when you try and say that I say players should not move a pawn twice in the opening.
Again I am saying players rated under 1800 should not move a pawn twice in the opening WITHOUT A VERY GOOD REASON.
ponz111 wrote:
It is off subject but I would love to see what GM Gawain Jones says about 3. Qe2 in that series of moves.
I have read a book by Jones and do not ever remember his approving of that move in that sequence.
He recommends the setup in his book "how to beat the sicilian defence" for e6 based sicilians. The positions often transpose to the french move order anyway but he does mention that he used it against the french for a while too.
Apr 22, 2015
0
#51
Ponz's original point that you shouldn't move the same pawn twice in the opening without good reason is excellent. Where he got into trouble was trying to define each example.
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 is perfectly playable and is a good try to maintain White's normal advantage.
The only move that maintain's White's first move advantage after 1.d4 d5 is 2.d5!
If Ponz had left it at that and then demonstrated clear cases where White pushed too many pawns, as Nimzowitsch does in My System, the thread would have been very educational, but a bit dull.
Instead, he got defensive when some of his borderline examples were challenged. The thread became more interesting, but less useful.
binblaster I had that same book. My point was that I did not remember Jones advocating 3. Qe2. In that book as you have apparently shown he advocates 4. Qe2 not 3. Qe2 [i no longer have the book]
Here is what happens in your [or is it in the book] 3. Qe2 example...
lol
SmyslovFan wrote:
Ponz's original point that you shouldn't move the same pawn twice in the opening without good reason is excellent. Where he got into trouble was trying to define each example.
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 is perfectly playable and is a good try to maintain White's normal advantage.
The only move that maintain's White's first move advantage after 1.d4 d5 is 2.d5!
If Ponz had left it at that and then demonstrated clear cases where White pushed too many pawns, as Nimzowitsch does in My System, the thread would have been very educational, but a bit dull.
Instead, he got defensive when some of his borderline examples were challenged. The thread became more interesting, but less useful.
I do not disagree with this. [except after 1. d4 d5 how can White move d5]
However, I do not like to be misquoted as Mozekgames did more than once.
I said in post 40 that after 1. d4 c5 White should play 2. d5 though I did not emphasize how d5! was the only good move in that postion.
The reason d5! is the only good move is that it is supported indirectly by the queen and can be supported with c4 and Nc3 and e4.
Apr 22, 2015
0
#57
ponz111 wrote:
I said in post 40 that after 1. d4 c5 White should play 2. d5 though I did not emphasize how d5! was the only good move in that postion.
The reason d5! is the only good move is that it is supported indirectly by the queen and can be supported with c4 and Nc3 and e4.
If that were the reason, then 1.d4 Nf6 2.d5 would be a good move.
Again, your generalization is more or less accurate, but your specific explanation has holes.
Yes, my specific explanations have holes. I am not denying that. Am no longer very able to give the best explanations.
However the theme is correct as this is one area where many players make rather bad mistakes and do not realize they made a mistake.
So, hopefully this can be instructive to some.
tired of dealing this post quoting wikipedia when i quote an international master and master is typical.
enjoy.....
However if it is the e pawn it is usually better to take rather than push forward. I will give some examples