Pawn mobility

I was looking at 19...Nc5, however I was looking at the most ideal placement of the pieces utilizing the blockade. In doing that I saw that if we could somehow get the knight to f5, then black would be solid. It's easier said than done, but I'm wondering if somehow the c7 knight has time to go 19...Nc7-Nd8-Ng7-Nf5!? Is this somehow plausible? Am I sending him to no mans land? Well, at least cover the square from g7?!

Yes, that route is possible. Actually I had wanted to add that in together with the Nc5-Qe7-Ncd6 blockade.

However I then realised the f5 square cannot be held because white can get g-pawn, knight, bishop and queen attacking the f5 square.
Black's knight on f5 would feel betrayed when he looks behind him and see only the g-pawn and maybe the queen giving him moral support :P

i think the g7 sqr is better utilised by a rook. To force through f5, white needs to trade g-pawns, so I think black should keep the second row cleared for the rook for both defence and counter attack.

so double the rooks on the f-file on move 19...Rf7?!

well... maybe not on move 19.

Black does need a rook to shore up the queenside.
It depends on how white wants to proceed with the breakthrough and whether white is doing a pure k-side break or tying in activity on the q-side with the k-side. if black has both rooks on the k-side, i would imagine wihte would pause k-side operations and look to start something on the queenside. Or white could also bring everything to the k-side for a massive piece exchange party? if black doubles rooks on the f or g-file, the logical (active) follow up is to try to push g4. This is very double-edged because white can always push f5. I think the only way black can pull this off is if he puts the e-pawn under great pressure so f5 cannot be played. Somehow I doubt this is feasible. If black isnt trying to start anything active, then just giving space for the rook to zoom over when the need arise, shoud be sufficient. Anyway, I didnt run this through an engine. Stockfish will give you better ideas :)

yes thats true that an engine can come up with the solution, however, I am a purist. I don't believe in engines and that may be my falling. Truth be told a smart man would perhaps use a calculator to prove his point. I on the other hand like the idea of puting theory into practice, thus the praxis. I think we did well analyzing this game, though it be somewhat intuitive in some spots. Looking at this game from the 1700's made me realize how much evolved the chess player is today. With this I will thank you and I enjoyed our analysis.

This brings me to the enterprising topic known as the phalanx. Take a look at the game Anderssen-Steinitz match, London 1866, 13th game. In this game Stienitz prepares an assault by a mass of pawns as taught by philidor, who's example was seen earlier. It was a historical event which caused Steinitz to concieve his theory of the phalanx. A good opening to look at based on these pawn advance ideas is the theory developed over the years of the french defense. It has evolved lately into the Winawer, but in its early adherence it was manly disputed between Nimzowitsch and Tarrasch who both had their own theories in place. But how is this phalanx and outpost to be seen as a winning strategy? That is the basis for the praxis in My System by Aron Nimzowitsch, and I will tell you. It is a good strategy.

Ok sorry... my last comment on this...

I think the 10.. f6 wasnt the problem.
This move to challenge the pawn structure at its head is quite normal and natural. (occurs pretty frequently in french defence structures i think).
I think the big problem is black doing the exchange on e5 rather than getting white to do the exchange on f6.

I would prefer to delay the e5 trade, moves like Qc7 puts pressure on e5 and encourage white to trade on f6 instead. If the trade had occurred on f6, black can recapture with the e8 knight and he doesn't stand so badly.

I think Black should only trade on e5 if white is threatening to get in an advantageous e6 (and not just blundering a pawn there). Or when black has enough pieces ready to surround and pick up the e5 pawn after the exchange. Or if he is ready to roll on the queenside. Exchanging on e5 does get the white's d-pawn out of the way, so Black's subsequent d4 might be part of a grand scheme for a a-b-c-d storm trooper assault.

yes but in playing f6 in a french structure the pawn on e5 is usually 'fixed' and imobile. f6 is a fine move in the french, however in this case in playing f6 black allows white to create a passed pawn. Had that pawn remained on f7 it is in a sense protecting e6 from this pawn advance. That was the point I was making. No I think 10...f6 is a bad idea, unless of course the e5 pawn is restrained.

The Philidor game was likely a composed game for the purpose of illustrating Philidor's principles. Lots of chess writers have critiqued it. Garry Kasparov discusses it briefly in the first volume of My Great Predecessors. Kingscrusher examines it in one of his videos on YouTube. Max Euwe discusses it in Development of Chess Style. There are many more.

From Philidor to Steinitz, there are a handful of games that illustrate the power of pawns as an offensive weapon or techniques necessary to restrain and neutralize such pawns, but the theory did not advance until Steinitz.

Charles Mahe de la Bourdonnais' thrashing of Alexander McDonnell after 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e5 5.Nxc6?! in which he sacrificed a queen to set three pawns on White's second rank is probably the best example between Philidor and Steinitz of the strength of a mobile pawn center.

In a couple of other games, La Bourdonnais made good use of his pawns. I wrote about one such game in http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2014/09/la-bourdonnaiss-infantry.html.

Here's the beginning of that article:

La Bourdonnais's Infantry

Great article Ziryab and what a wonderful game example of pawn mobility. The one thing I will point out in that game (McDonnell-La Bourdonnaise 1834) is the mistake white made of 14.c4 which allowed black to create a passed d pawn. I believe this is the main crux of this pawn mobility discussion.

Thanks yall I have bought my system and can't wait to learn more about my new favorite game chess 😏😏