Moving a Pawn Twice in the Opening

As I said, the positions will often transpose since black will want to get in c5  anyway at some point to help with his queenside counterplay (or white just attacks freely on the kingside as is normal for the KIA). From p238 of the book, referring to the position after 4. Qe2: "I've also scored pretty well with it and indeed it was my only set-up against the french for a time." 

I also once had that book and played 4. Qe2. That is why I knew 3. Qe2 was incorrect [and probably not recommended in the book]

I am only saying 3. Qe2 is not correct. I played 4. Qe2 myself. For a while I did well and then the shortcomings of 4. Qe2 also came into the situation.

But all this is beside the point of players should think before pushing a pawn twice in the opening.

Qe2 has been discussed in other threads. I don't quite see why it is so important in this particular thread.

Acording to Nimzowitsch: pawn movements are only admissible in the development stage when they either help to occupy the center or stand in logical connection with its occupation.

Black (Peter Leko) to move (15...?)....see if you guess his next (3) moves !!

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1143867

It is not or should not be. I made this mistake of calling 3. Qe2 as a slightly dubious move.

Yes! 

I don't know what the Albin game is supposed to prove. Black chooses the worst possible setup and loses his most important piece, the Be6, to a mere knight. Of course after that he is strategically losing. 

Reason why Albin is not a first class opening is not the second move of the d-pawn, but the fact that white is a pawn up at move 3. But the opening is good enough to be occasionally used as a surprise weapon by strong GMs against strong GMs. Real GMs, not 1900 rated correspondence chess guys with good hardware, Komodo, and too much time at hand.

The game was played way before Komodo and the strong chess engines we have now.

There are really two reasons the Albin Counter Gambit is a bad opening, one is it gives up a pawn and the other is that it moves a pawn twice in the early opening without good enough cause.

I doubt if you will ever see that gambit played by any of the super Grandmasters we have today.

That explains the poor quality. No, the pawn moving twice has nothing at all to do with Albin's being a second rate opening. This d-pawn is the strongest aspect of black's position, and if it were not for the loss of material, taking the moves Nb1-c3 and e2-e3 out of white's position is easily worth the tempo spent. If anything, the loss of time involved winning back the e-pawn (in the only serious way to play it, Ne7-g6xe5) contributes to the opening's status.

Actually the line in the Catalan that causes me (white) the most headache at the moment has a very Albin-like motif: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.g3 Be7 5.Bg2 0-0 6.0-0 dxc4 7.Qc2 b5 8.a4 b4! Black returns the pawn on c4 or sacrifices the exchange and keeps it. Pawn b4 serves purposes similar to the Albin d-pawn, like controlling square c3.

There is nothing wrong with formulating rules of thumb for beginners, and as such, "don't move your pawn twice unless provoked" may be good advice. But chess is full of exceptions, for concrete reasons it is very often necessary to move pawns and pieces several times, knights to the edge of the board, and many other things that go against such rules.

Rumo  I very much disagree with you as to the reasons the Albin is a bad opening. I think there are two reasons the Albin is bad , not just one reason.

Black or White gives up a pawn in many openings without getting the worse of it.

 I also state that to defeat the Albin one does not have to try to "win back the e pawn" 

You are way off the subject. Also you somewhat misquote me when you try to have me say "don't move your pawn twice unless provoked." I am saying do not move a pawn twice in the opening without very good reasons."

However this rule is not just for beginners, it is for players rated

below 1800. I do not think of a 1700 rate player as a beginner.

 Also my rule has nothing to do with moving pieces several times [you did not say in the opening]  

The way my rule is stated, it already allows for exceptions. It is--

 Do not move a pawn twice in the opening without very good reasons.

The Catalin line you gave has nothing to do with this. The Albin Counter Gambit does as in this gambit already on the 3rd move Black makes the mistake of moving a pawn twice in the opening.

I'm with Rumo. He summarizes quite succinctly the modern approach to chess: general rules are ok for beginners, but modern chess is about concrete analysis and exceptions to general rules.

I strongly recommend IM John Watson's books, especially Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy: Advances since Nimzowitsch, for his discussion of rule independence. 

Yea, gotta agree with Rumo here as well.

Disagree with him as much as you like ponz, but there is no such thing as chess theory for players under 1800. Chess is a game of logic, and something either works or it does not.

The fact that players under 1800 might not very often understand the difference does not mean inferior lines should be recommended to them.

That's kinda like playing hope chess: "here look, you can play that, as long as your opponent is under 1800 he probably won't see it's weak and make a mistake. Just hope for that mistake of your opponent and you're good."

If lower ratings merited their own opening theory, then we could recommend the most ridiculous hope chess lines to players under 1000 and call that "opening theory".

rubbeldiekatzunso  Please tell me what inferior lines I am recommending in this forum?

Name two.

"there is no such thing as chess theory for players under 1800"

A patzer can play e4 and a GM can play e4.  This could be seen as "theory".

Are you claiming theory starts after a given, like in geometry?  Then you are ignoring the premise.

Moving the pawn twice in the opening is neither always a good or a bad thing. Though the theory says that each side need to develop quick (and this type of move is not a developing one) however moving a pawn forward thus gain space. The thing is those pawn moves given above was I think-to some extent an impulsive one and don't really have support so those moves were bad.

Well yes, you said already that you think it has two reasons. But this doesn't make it correct. The pawn being moved to the 4th rank on move 8 instead of move 3 is of no relevance. We are talking about move sequences in the opening, pawn moves that are played before all pieces are developed. And it is a matter of fact that the pawn in my example does a job similar to the Albin pawn's. You did in no way address my argument that the d-pawn in the Albin is a strong pawn. Having a pawn like this is certainly worth a tempo, but in this particular concrete case it's not quite worth a full pawn. (Although it must be said that the Albin is not an easy opening to play against, second-rate does not mean easily refuted.)

You say your rule doesn't have to do with the rule regarding moving pieces several times. It should! Both moving pawns and moving pieces twice have the consequence that development is delayed. This is the main reason not to do it. With pawn moves another aspect is that they cannot move back, and that they might leave weak squares behind. Well, that is certainly the case for nonsense like 1.e4 g6 2.e5, but not for 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 d4. This pawn move has only one "disadvantage", and that is the loss of time. But actually either side has made 3 pawn moves, development is equal, black has a structural/space advantage, but white has that extra pawn.

All I am saying is that players rated under 1800 fairly often move a pawn twice in the opening when they should not. Then I gave examples of when they should and when they should not.

My thesis is that players should think in many situations in the opening if they should move a pawn twice?  My thesis is NOT "Players should not move a pawn twice in the opening"  Those who say this is my thesis are misquoting me.  My thesis is players should not move a pawn in the opening without very good reasons. 

This has nothing to do if 3. Qe2 is a good or bad move. This has nothing to do with most chess openings except 3 chess openings which I said were poor chess openings because a pawn was pushed forward twice in the early opening.

This has nothing to do with moving a piece twice in the opening.

This is not necessarly addressed to beginners as, for sure, a player rated 1600 or 1700 is not a beginner.

The subject was brought up because many players have posted games where a pawn was moved twice in the opening and this changed the whole nature of the game and neither player noticed the mistake. This does not mean that there is a rule to not push the same pawn twice in the opening. it means in many games players do this and do not realize in the particular situation it is a bad move.