snatch up more space and try and deny his minor pieces any good squares
What to do if your opponent completely ignores the center?
Sort:
Leave the centre as it is. For example, in the setup you gave both knights and both bishops do not have any good squares. Just focus on developing your pieces and at the right moment, play e4 to break through in the centre and pound his kingside or d4 to cramp him.
Jun 30, 2012
0
#4
You can improve your position before trigerring a pawn break : for example you play f5, maybe b5, centralize your second rook, and when you're ready, break with f5-f4 or c5-c4
Another way of playing in your position might be to prepare a rook lift on the 6th (maybe by Rad8, idea Rd6 later), trade the light squares bishop by Bh3 and launch an attack with your h-pawn
Jun 30, 2012
0
#5
Thats the Hippo, a system that is passive, but solid.Why not do something like FPA, playing f5 early at some point than developing the kings knight?
Read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippopotamus_Defence
Alchemind wrote:
Did you play me? lol Cause thats the position I regularly do and its quite uncommon. Every piece is where I exactly put it in that diagram.
I probably pwned you, am I right?
I don't think i played you cause your rating is 500 higher than mine so we wouldn't be paired together. But you would obviously have beaten me.
White is not completely ignoring the center. On the contrary he has both
Bishops attacking the center. He also has potential pawn breaks.
The fact that White has not occupied the center--does not mean he is ignoring the center.
IPihl wrote:
Alchemind wrote:
Did you play me? lol Cause thats the position I regularly do and its quite uncommon. Every piece is where I exactly put it in that diagram.
I probably pwned you, am I right?
I don't think i played you cause your rating is 500 higher than mine so we wouldn't be paired together. But you would obviously have beaten me.
Alchemind was just banned for cheating ...
As has been said, white is not ignoring the center...the bishops, knights and several pawns are all aimed at the center.
I have played this hippopotamus in the past. An aggressive player wouldn't play it. When I have played it, it has been for reasons to do with attempting to build up a cautious, yet solid strategical defense before launching an attack.
Many would argue that a double fianchetto is a bad idea. I wouldn't argue with that. However, sometimes building a defense before attacking...and being strategically positioned..is, to me, a good idea.
And, if the enemy launches an attack, you have a pretty solid defense and can quickly launch a counter attack.
Here it is played by Boris Spassky as black against Tigran Vartanovich, 1966 World Championship, game 12, Jan. 13: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1106728
uhohspaghettio wrote:
The hippopotamous is just the old strategy of controlling the centre from afar rehashed again. If something like that is serious then it becomes a popular or at least sometimes played opening, like the Grunfeld. It seems like even good players sometimes have trouble differentiating between "black has a signifcant advantage here" and "black is definitely going to win no question".
Frankly in your position black doesn't seem that much better to me, you mustn't have played optimally to get to this position. If you look at the first diagram in that Hippopotamous Wikipedia page, look at both of white's bishops and how active they are. Since in your case white has gone to the trouble of fianchettoing both bishops, I think black should have more to show for it. It might be helpful if you showed us how you got to this position. I know in your position obviously he has an extra tempo because he's white.
If P-K5 or P-Q5 completely blocks a long bishop diagonal for him it's well worth playing. I'd just like to know what happened that you still cannot play either of these moves and meanwhile your own bishops don't look too amazing. Is this diagram just made up? If so you would do better to make up the moves along with it and post that...
I did make up this position, i was just wondering how to play in a position like that. A possible move order might have been:
Well, you know, I just posted a link to a game in 1966 where Spasky played the hippopotamus. Did you look at it? Did it not show how a grandmaster played against it?
BTW...I am not endorsing this position. Nor was I concerned with the ultimate outcome of the game. That had a lot more to do with the play after the opening positions. It is just one illustration of what can happen.
It is my view that more often than not, the superior player is going to win regardless of which particular opening is played (ceterus parabus). That is why I always spot my brother a rook when we play. Maybe someday, he'll actually start studying chess...just a teensy weensy amount. 
uhohspaghettio wrote:
IPihl wrote:
uhohspaghettio wrote:
The hippopotamous is just the old strategy of controlling the centre from afar rehashed again. If something like that is serious then it becomes a popular or at least sometimes played opening, like the Grunfeld. It seems like even good players sometimes have trouble differentiating between "black has a signifcant advantage here" and "black is definitely going to win no question".
Frankly in your position black doesn't seem that much better to me, you mustn't have played optimally to get to this position. If you look at the first diagram in that Hippopotamous Wikipedia page, look at both of white's bishops and how active they are. Since in your case white has gone to the trouble of fianchettoing both bishops, I think black should have more to show for it. It might be helpful if you showed us how you got to this position. I know in your position obviously he has an extra tempo because he's white.
If P-K5 or P-Q5 completely blocks a long bishop diagonal for him it's well worth playing. I'd just like to know what happened that you still cannot play either of these moves and meanwhile your own bishops don't look too amazing. Is this diagram just made up? If so you would do better to make up the moves along with it and post that...
I did make up this position, i was just wondering how to play in a position like that. A possible move order might have been:
1) 3. ...c5 is inaccurate. You should only move your c pawns or f pawns to try to help win over the centre. Here you have already clearly won the centre so there is no need for moving your c pawn. It weakens your position because now you won't be able to play c6 to maintain your d5 and so you're giving away your power in the centre. A pawn move is not a developing move and should only be used to directly help develop the pieces, clearly prevent opponent's pieces developing or to try to win the centre.
2) c5 also makes your dark-squared bishop worse since he can't go to c5 which is a common place to take against a fianchettoed defence (Bd6 is rarely a good idea against a fianchettoed kingside). You'd now probably be better off fianchettoing him where it can have influence on the centre.
3) Your next move can be Bh3, right? This is the only reason I can see for Qd7. Then you can force an exchange of the bishops to hugely weaken his kingside with a huge hole on g2 and no longer an effect on all that diagonal.
Note: All Houdini checked after I wrote it. Though Houdini liked Be7 better than fianchettoing that bishop, and is nonplussed to Bh3.
Doesn't white often play c4, d4 and e4 against the kings-indian defence? why can't black do the same?
uhohspaghettio wrote:
IPihl wrote:
uhohspaghettio wrote:
IPihl wrote:
uhohspaghettio wrote:
The hippopotamous is just the old strategy of controlling the centre from afar rehashed again. If something like that is serious then it becomes a popular or at least sometimes played opening, like the Grunfeld. It seems like even good players sometimes have trouble differentiating between "black has a signifcant advantage here" and "black is definitely going to win no question".
Frankly in your position black doesn't seem that much better to me, you mustn't have played optimally to get to this position. If you look at the first diagram in that Hippopotamous Wikipedia page, look at both of white's bishops and how active they are. Since in your case white has gone to the trouble of fianchettoing both bishops, I think black should have more to show for it. It might be helpful if you showed us how you got to this position. I know in your position obviously he has an extra tempo because he's white.
If P-K5 or P-Q5 completely blocks a long bishop diagonal for him it's well worth playing. I'd just like to know what happened that you still cannot play either of these moves and meanwhile your own bishops don't look too amazing. Is this diagram just made up? If so you would do better to make up the moves along with it and post that...
I did make up this position, i was just wondering how to play in a position like that. A possible move order might have been:
1) 3. ...c5 is inaccurate. You should only move your c pawns or f pawns to try to help win over the centre. Here you have already clearly won the centre so there is no need for moving your c pawn. It weakens your position because now you won't be able to play c6 to maintain your d5 and so you're giving away your power in the centre. A pawn move is not a developing move and should only be used to directly help develop the pieces, clearly prevent opponent's pieces developing or to try to win the centre.
2) c5 also makes your dark-squared bishop worse since he can't go to c5 which is a common place to take against a fianchettoed defence (Bd6 is rarely a good idea against a fianchettoed kingside). You'd now probably be better off fianchettoing him where it can have influence on the centre.
3) Your next move can be Bh3, right? This is the only reason I can see for Qd7. Then you can force an exchange of the bishops to hugely weaken his kingside with a huge hole on g2 and no longer an effect on all that diagonal.
Note: All Houdini checked after I wrote it. Though Houdini liked Be7 better than fianchettoing that bishop, and is nonplussed to Bh3.
Doesn't white often play c4, d4 and e4 against the kings-indian defence? why can't black do the same?
No, the whole point of Black playing either 1. ...d5 or 1. ...Nf6 is to prevent 2. e4. If Black plays 1. ...d6 or anything other than 1. ...d5 or 1. ...Nf6, White should play 2. e4 straightaway and not bother with c4 at all.
White may eventually force e4, but not unless he plays c4 first.
but if black plays 1. ...e6, c4 is a very common answer.
I have played a few games in which my opponent completely neglected the occupation of the center. He chooses for example a setup like this:
When something like that is reached I don't really know what to do as black. I have lost a number of games, because I started to push pawns and ruined my king's safety. What are the plans black must follow in those situations?