Pawn mobility

what is pawn mobility and is it important? Does anyone have example games with pawn mobility?

usually to describe a pawn mass in motion. The pawns become a force that cannot be stopped by supporting each other up the board. mobility is the freedom to move up the board.

For instance a pawn center can be mobile when not infrindged by opposing pawns or pieces.

I played one this evening when a friend stopped by, but we didn't record it. I had a rook and bishop against two bishops and a knight. I had two passed pawns on the f- and e-files that I'd pushed to the third rank (I was Black). He gave up his knight to stop one of the pawns, making the other one less potent.

This diagram is not exact. His bishops may not have been exactly where positioned, but the pawns are essentially correct.

hanging pawns are said to be weak, unless they are in motion and/or supported by the heavy pieces. The reason they are considered weak is they need constant supervision, and should one pawn move up then the other would be backward. In this case the hanging pawns can be restrained and attacked. Keep this in mind should you find yourself with a pair of hanging pawns; or your opponents.

To comment on Ziryab's game:  If knight takes pawn, black rook can go to g8.  If knight moves, Rg1 is mate.  If knight does not move but K moves to f2, Rg2 forces K back to 1st rank, then B takes knight then Rg1 is mate.  What I was reading about pawns last night:  Besides the en masse attack of pawn masses -- Attack at the bases, try to have as few pawn "islands" as possible (more islands make more points of attack), use pawns to take away good spaces from opponent pieces (tho you can't move them back and a move forward may create holes), and use them to block opponent's pawns.  Initially pawns sacrifice for your side but when a passer gets close, the roles reverse and pieces sacrifice so the pawn can queen, and a pair of passers are powerful.

Other than a pawn majority which hopes to queen, mobility is also a factor in winning weak pawns. Eliminating mobility (fixing a target) is usually the first step to winning a weak pawn or pawns.

So yes, mobility is sometimes important.

Other times the pawns are doing a good job where they are. They're not weak, and are controlling useful squares for your pieces, or maybe simply limiting your opponent's space. In such a case it doesn't really matter whether or not they're mobile.

All of this in very general terms of course.

1.Nxe3 Rg8 2.Bxg8

1.Nxe3 Rg8 2.Ng4 or 2.Ng2

1.Nxe3 Rg8 2.Kf2 Rg2 3.Kxf3

1.Nxe3 Rg8 2.Kf2 Rg2 3.Ke1 Bxe3 4.Kd1 Rg1 5.Kc2

Your analysis has nearly 1 error per move!

Yes to sum up, My System by Aron Nimzowitsch, the process of 'fixing a target' and eliminating weak pawns is the foundation of his praxis on restraint. These are useful tools when building a strategy.

My diagram may not be precisely correct, but it makes the point about the strength of two connected, advanced pawns. Such pawns won my second game tonight with a former student who more often beats me these days, and they were the focus of Philidor's work in his classic Analysis of the Game of Chess. This game is from Philidor's book:

One could learn much from this game Ziryab. How to attack with white, but also how black should defend. For me this move 19...d4 troubles me. why give white so many opportunities; what does this move accomplish. Much better to fight for the f5 (after blunder of move 10; hell, why not f5 instead or more solid Be6) square and stay patient to try and hold the pawns in check. This is instructional, more so in what black should do!

ziryab that game is very interesting

ya

and your thoughts?! To say it was interesting in the regard that black makes huge opening mistakes and plays the outcome very weak.

i was saying it interesting because of a  rook sac for a knight and pawn plus using pawns

anything bad?

not at all... I was just wondering. It is interesting, but on the topic of mobility I was trying to point out the praxis of restraint, and how to neutralize these mobility pawn threats.

ok

ok, black should never play move 10...f6? There are a number of reasons. The main ones being that it weakens the e6 square, and allows the pawn to pass. I remember a similiar theme in McDonnell-La Bourdonnais, 4th match, london 1834, 16th game. In this game McDonnell pushes the pawn 14.c4? which created a passed d pawn, and cost him the game. Back to the original praxis of restraining pawns and mobility. As long as a pawn is able to attack the pawn advancing, there is a chance to limit the attacking pawn's potential! You may want to look at that game, for it's surprising finish.

i think black should be able to hold it.

The queen is a poor blockader. Perhaps a better scheme might be 19. .. Nc5 - Qe7-Nce6. In order to force a break on the k-side, white needs to get f5 in. This needs the g-pawn and would open up the g-file too, so black should try to move the king out of the g-file and get a rook or two there before white gets in f5.

Even as late as the 28th move, I think black should stay calm and give back some of the ill-gotten gains by 28.. Qxe5. This loses the knght for the e-pawn, After 28. .. Qxe5 29. Qxe5 Nxe5 30. Rxe5, Black can try the skewer 30. .. Ra3. I *think* white doesn't have anything better than 31. Re3, then 31. .. Kg7 (to get onto a dark square and escape the bishop checks). Black is threatening now 32.. Rd8. I think this would lead to an exchange of rooks and then its bishop+ knight vs rook+ a phalanx of queenside passed pawns. Well, white has only 2 pawns left. Black's task is 'simply' to trade off a pair of k-side pawns and then give up the rook for the remaining pawn... even if it is just a rook for pawn trade. Can white then win the ending of bishop+ knight vs 2 or 3 connected passed pawns? Checkmating a lone king with bishop+knight is not so straightforward. Black should at least be able to get a draw within the time control limit (or white would risk losing on time!)

Just me 2 cts :)