Pawn Theory

After watching many games from people higher rated than me I realize that my pawns do not seem to be as active.

I don't think I have a deficient method of playing. It seems to me however that I could learn to do more with the pawns.

When I decide that the time is right to advance them as a whole i generally try to move my army behind them to protect them, also the two openings I like to use for black tend to create a lot of pawn opportunites in the mid game.

Lets share our ideas on pawn theory so you can help a noob like me.

Someone once said (Steinitz maybe? No doubt i'll be corrected) that pawns are the 'soul of chess', meaning that the pawn structure defines the whole character of the game. I have a silmilar problem, perhaps you could call it 'over-development', where my minor pieces are all storming around with the majority of my pawns flat at home. I've paid the price for it, to.

twas actually paul morphy. yay first to correct

but now for actual legitimate advice. what opening(s) do you strive to play or play?

ie as black what is your response to e4, what is your response to d4?

and as white what is your first move...

what do you play as white against the sicilian, the french, alekhines??

The guy you're talking about is Andre Philidor, and yes the pawns are most certainly the soul of chess. They are the skeletal structure of any position, and give the game its static features. They are also good for attack, because: you have a lot of them, they can be traded for pieces without material loss, and pieces have to block them if they are passed; they can't afford to let them Queen!

Thus, they are two different things to different players: To the positional player- pawns are the structure on which the game rests, and the shields and defenders of your men. To the attacker- pawns are like mini howitzer shells.

Correct, as black I usually proceed with b6 and fianchetto the bishop. The seems to be very successful for me.

The best way to go further into this is to accept the pawns not as obstacles or armies to be advanced, but as equals to your other pieces (with the only exception that they are mnore expendable). Try to see all your pieces as a whole, not the pieces and the pawns apart.

That is correct, but I believe he also meant that promotion is the ultimate goal of a great many games.

Possible tonight, but isn't funny how quickly a game falls oith a bad pawn structure.

often i feel like a "hanging pawn".....but that's just me

When I'm thinkg about the pawns I often think of their effects on the surroundings. The pawns have 2 strong squares (where they can capture) and 2 weak squares (the square their on and the blockade square. The trick is to advance the pawns so that strong squares cover weak squares.

Interesting way of looking at it...how do you reconcile the pawn chain with this idea?  if we accept that the pawn's square and square in front of it are weak, the neighbour pawn can only strengthen one of these squares, and logically it's the square the pawn is on.  does this mean that you're creating a chain of weak squares when you build a pawn chain?

i'm not sure i agree that the blockade square (or for that matter the occupied square) is inherrently weak, merely potentially weak.

overlooked because you were trying to explain your approach as concisely as possible (but this is also the essence of my approach to pawns); the key is coordination.  it is coordinated pawns that are strong and contribute to a strong position, it is uncoordinated pawns that are weak and present targets.  building on that, our army is not comprised of 8 pawns and 8 pieces but of 16 men.  We should use them as one unit of 16 rather than two teams of 8.

If I might also add to the quotations; "The older I get the more I value pawns" - Paul Keres.

Ok man, heres a study routine that will allow you to defeat anybody with a better knowledge of pawn structure.

Study tactics.  A lot.

Seriously follow this advice.  I didn't study tactics and now my chess knowledge far surpasses my chess ability!  Well at least I'm a good annotator...

Pawn structure is very important. But the idea is not not doing enough with your pawns, but trying to do too much.

1. Every pawn move creates weaknesses in your position.

You can't move them backwards once you move them, so you have to understand that with each pawn moved, you strengthen new parts of the parts and create weaknesses where the pawn use to be. It's really important to think about why you're moving a pawn before you do. Often enough, it's best for the majority of your pawns to be sitting right at home until your opponent commits to a plan.

Chess is all about the minor pieces.

No "Chess is 99 percent tactics" ~ Teichmann

That leaves only 1 percent left for your minor piece knowlodge =).

 Well firstly the thing with the pawn chains depends on whether the opponent has opposing pawns in a chain. if they are locked together like this then the chain is not weak because the enemy pawns block the pieces. On the other hand without this block the pawns might be weak e.g a bishop would love to rest on on of those squares and stop the whole mass form advancing.

Also what is your definition of "inherently" versus "potentialy" weak. If a square is potentially weak then it is also inherently weak since a piece is needed in defence.

Finally you say that you should logically defend the pawn's square. How does this reconcile with the classical pawn centre, where the pawns are best placed guarding the squares in front of the other rather than each other.

I hope you continue this debate.

Very true, you can't move them backwards again until they promote.  but really this just means that you should be careful when advancing them, to consider what will happen behind them, much as you should be careful on any move.

waiting for your opponent to commit to a plan is correct sometimes, but it's always correct to be proactive.  don't let him decide what's happening and react to it, take control of the game and make him deal with your ideas.  pawns define your territory and are essential to the control of basically all key squares.

I agree with what you're saying, but i think i would express it more in terms of overall pawn structure rather than individual pawns and what squares they make weak.  it is holes in structure that present weaknesses...i think i would have also said that it's the squares to the left and right of pawns that are weak, rather than the squares in front of pawns...play h7 to h6 and it's g6 that you weaken, i would describe it with reference to the moving pawn.

I didn't say anything about the classical centre, i was talking purely about pawn chains there :)  By inherent/potential I mean that a square does not become weak simply because some pawns moved, pawn moves create potential weaknesses.  other things will have to happen in order for them to become actual weaknesses, with inherently weak squares.  black plays an early g6 and Bg7, is h6 weak?  it is potentially weak, because a compromise has been made in the pawn structure, but it is not inherently weak because the g7 bishop is a rock and the dark squares around the black king should be off limits to white.  20 moves on the pawns haven't moved but the bishop is no more and white is building a kingside attack.  now h6 is inherently weak.