The battle for a pawn

One of the things I've noticed since playing chess is the battle for a pawn. If they have more attackers than you have defenders they win the pawn by way of minor, if not major, piece exchanges. If you defended well it was a lost cause on their half.

In some instances I've noticed for them to achieve this one point advantage they've had to shift the majority of their pieces to one side of the board away from their king.

I've reached the point now where I think,  all that time and effort over... a pawn?

I'm trying to play now where I think do you know what you can have it. I'm just going to attempt to give up that pawn and hopefully zero in on your king with my pieces.

I read this statement once from Kasparov and he said it takes a long time to master your playing style.

I've reached the conclusion, "sod it". In the long run giving up that pawn will prevail. It might cost me losses along the way but if I master it then...I'm happy :)

Many-many a game are won with a 1 point advantage.

Really? Not some of these Lasker games I've seen. He just shifts a pawn into their territory to be eaten for his knight to have a better position.

I don't know much about playing good chess, but I have certainly learned that being up on material, by a mere pawn or even by several pieces, does not mean you are going to win the game.

Then when you lose your 2nd pawn, you're down two pawns. See how that works?  Chasing pawns in the opening is kind of stupid, usually, so I've heard. Sometimes people compromise their development going for a pawn, but I think it's a mistake to underestimate them as well.

There's probably no absolutely 100% right answer.

Both styles work. I guess the talent comes from deciding when it is a good idea.

This doesn't really counter my statement. What I said is 100% true.

I'm sure there are plenty of examples of games where pawns were sacraficed for a positional gain. In fact, gambits are based on this idea.

But this is a far different thing than believing just giving up pawns will lead to an advantage.

I think you are confusing being down a pawn with compensation of something esle. Lasker was ahead of his time when he played chess and he played moves that Grand Masters didn't understand. It was becuase he realized he needed counter play and found means of generating counter play. That;however, does not mean you can just give up pawns every game. Every game is unqiue and sometimes their is no counter play and you must defend the pawn.

I just don't understand, in my eyes, wasted effort to shift pieces around for a one-point advantage when you could disregard this, stay focused, and make it a twenty odd move masterpiece.

But if your opponent defends well you have no attack and are just down a pawn.

Here is a game I played where my opponent lost 1 pawn. Which lost him the game. I wish he shifted his piece's. It would of made him get destroyed faster. It was a center pawn and you can not shift piece's if your opponent owns the center. So even if he ignored the pawn his position would of been hopeless

I just think there's a major difference between being materialistic whilst remaining creative. The materialistic approach get's a bit bolt-standard. I've seen Kasparov give away a free bishop just for adaquate compensation for an attack.

I think you don't understand how the definition of creative apply's in chess. A Grand Master is not going to give up a whole piece just to be creative. If they wanted to be creative they could take up doing art work or painting not playing chess.

In chess if they give up material they have compensation for the loss otherwise they resign. It is that simple.

^^ Losing 1 pawn for compensation of 2 tempi's which can result in faster development perhap's.

I've come to believe that each game of chess you play is an experiment. You implement new theories, test them and determine if they are valid.

If you feel this idea about the pawn is a worthwhile theory, you should try it. If, in the end, it turns out not to be what you thought. That's OK. You will still learn something useful along the way. Such as fighting for a win when you are down material which is quite often a great lesson in itself.

Here is a game that Garry Kasparov played against Nigel Short

Notice how in the position I have showning. Garry gives up an exchange. 1 Rook is worth 5 points in material. 1 Knight is worth 3 points in material. It seems unreasonable to do such an exchange on the surface. However, their is compensation for the loss.

The reason why is becuase After the rook takes the knight. White than has to recapture the rook which leaves white with damaged pawn structure. An black has the chance to grab a center pawn.

So in the end Black will lose 1 rook 5 points worth of material with a compensation of getting 1 knight+ 1 point which total to 4 points + damaged pawn structure.

Their seems to be some compensation here.

For me one's playing style is like handwriting or even your finger prints. It's unique.

I love winning a game of chess by winning just one pawn and holding onto it the whole game long. It's like I've been given a plan instead of having to figure one out on my own:)

I have to admit I really love that 6.g3 system that Nigel played. It seemed like Garry had trouble in it the most compared to the other lines Nigel played. It just goes to show that the Fianchetteo Structures are no joke. It seems very respectable line it also seems as if others high level have used it with some success. I am planning to learn lol that line lol.