Yes, Virginia, Pawns Have Power

...or so says Hans Kmoch

I told a very low level chess playing friend recently that at the beginning, a player like himself will be interested in capturing pieces, and be fascinated by the "long range guns" doing distant strikes and basic attacking tactics.  As a player gets better, his interest shifts to combinational play, and using his pieces together to achieve more than they can alone.  He asked me what really high level players are interested in.  I said "Pawns".  He didn't believe me!

Les pions sont l'âme des échecs.

Pawn moves are permanent because they cannot move backwards.

Winning chess is the strategically/tactically correct advance of the pawn mass.

I got that book .

But did you read it?

I was once told when all else fails, try reading the instructions.  When that fails, try following them.

Leucopenia and melanpenia.   Rams and levers.  Stop squares.  All openings within the first 6-10 moves result in 6 characteristic pawn structures.

I tried to read Kmoch's book few times and was so irritated by his terminology that had to stop. I wil give it another try but I am wondering if it is a good idea to rewrite this book using normal chess language.

I have seen this phrase before - it's absolutely useless as a guideline - what about piece play, coordination of pieces and pawns? How do use it when  playing pawnless endgame? Winning chess can't be limited to just that.

Agreed. It's very difficult to read.

The first thing to keep in mind is that pawns can never move backwards.  Which makes pawn moves permanent. 

Of course there has to be coordination of pieces and pawns.  But remember pieces can move backwards, pawns cannot.

"...How do use it when  playing pawnless endgame?..." 

 Pawnless endgames have serveral categories in the endgame technique repertoire.  But, the important factor is that the won endgame must be established before the pawns are off the board.  There is no way to force a winning position in a pawnless endgame.  One of the main reasons for the 50-move rule.

You try to defend nonsense by writing more nonsense.

"There is no way to force a winning position in a pawnless endgame" - what is this about???

I have never seen this "pawn mass" nonsense written in a chess book or said by a strong player.

So, KRvs.K and KQvs.K are draws?

uri65 wrote:  "...I have never seen this "pawn mass" nonsense written in a chess book or said by a strong player..."

You can find it in both My System and Pawn Power In Chess.  There may be others.

The complete quote is:  "... But, the important factor is that the won endgame must be established before the pawns are off the board.  There is no way to force a winning position in a pawnless endgame.  One of the main reasons for the 50-move rule..."

First you quote out of context.  Then you select 2 examples which are known to be forced checkmates.

Chapter? Page?

Google doesn't find it as quote from Nimzowitch or Kmoch, only some amateurs repeating this mantra at forums.

I told you why I think it's nonsense:

1. it's absolutely useless as a guiding principle
2. winning chess has many more sides

And what is a definition of "pawn mass"? I've checked in few chess glossaries and couldn't find it. There is "pawn structure", "pawn island", "pawn chain" but no "pawn mass".

What i took his explanation to mean is that a pawnless endgame is determined.  There is either a forced win or there is not....so when he says "the won endgame must be established before the pawns are off the board.  There is no way to force a winning position in a pawnless endgame." that means you better have a winning position then, because your fate is sealed once the pawns are removed

Every endgame is determined just many times we don't know how. When pawnless endgames are won/lost that has nothing to do with "advance of pawn mass".