Sigh....What is this?

That's not me, that Tarrasch. Go argue with him.

Just joking.

Scottrf

The "pieces for pawns" swap was part of the backroom deal that allowed Karpov to keep his title in the first K-K match.  It's why Kasparov has always been against pawns, particularly the pawns near the king, trying to rid the board of them with his friends, the pieces.  Karpov, on the other hand, has always been in favor of pawns, and has said that while some of his best friends are pawns, he just doesn't live with them.  Hope this helped.

Read how to, instead of trading a pawn for 3 moves, to give both a pawn AND three moves Here, and other odds Here.

I was just kind enough to let Batgirl dig up her quotes, I know how much she likes research.

You suffer from dissociative identity disorder.

If it's an e-pawn it works (making dummy a-pawn moves because chess is turn-based):

There was nothing in this thread to derail.

1st off I would not recommend anyone to debate BG, and no I am not joking here, she is extremely consistent, and accurate on her history, and memory. However pawns can become pieces even on the board, I love pawns, they have won me many games.

They are still pawns though, compared to the actual pieces until they reach the back rank, in the game. Also piece value, and pawn value changes, throughout a game, given the position of all the pieces, and pawns (to be perfectly clear). The values of pawns, and pieces, are in general terms only, there are many exceptions to that general rule in a game, based on the position of all the pieces, and pawns in the game. BG is my hero/heroine.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1102375 i think Tempos are even more valuable

Just wondering....Since a pawn can promote to a Q ((not) including underpromotion) wouldn't that make pawns girls ?

I am not arguing with batgirls. I just wonder what she thinks of Tarrasch quotes. Well, in fact she knows what she talks about and give me something I didn't know.

Now, why do they use "odd" instead of "handicap"?

TS, without the chessmen in the proper position in the game, a tempo is meaningless. In otherwords checkmate trumps all. Time is important, because if both have checkmate in one, and it is your move, you should win, unless you blunder, but you still need that position and piece, or pawn to do it. Saying it another way even, is they go hand in hand.

Some pawns under promote, they aren't always promoted to Queens. So evidently not all pawns are girls, though mostly are. lol.

Kasparov speaks English and is not making a mistake in terminology.  He counts attackers and defenders to determine if an attack will work, and he counts pawns like pieces.  In an attack that he determines will work, he will exchange an attacking minor piece for a defending pawn and consider it an even trade.  I recommend watching his documentary as he comments on some of his best games and seeing his thinking is very informative.  Below is a link to the first part and you should find the rest easily:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeEY66T0q80

The reason gambits are played.

PTTD, he is counting in terms of value given to either pieces, or pawns, based on a certain position, that does not mean the defenders pawn is a piece. The actual trade he is referring to would obviously leave him in a winning position, or at the very least a superior position, hence making the pawn more valuable in his assessment of the given position. Again value of all pieces, and pawns, fluctuate during a game, totally dependent on a given position. That still doesn't change the fact that chesspiece isn't a pawn.

CrimsonKnight7 wrote:

PTTD, he is counting in terms of value given to either pieces, or pawns, based on a certain position, that does not mean the defenders pawn is a piece. The actual trade he is referring to would obviously leave him in a winning position, or at the very least a superior position, hence making the pawn more vauable in his assessment of the given position. Again value of all pieces, and pawns, fluctuate during a game, totally dependent on a given position. That still doesn't change the fact that chesspiece isn't a pawn.

Thats what i liked about Hans Berliner. Even if his theory is incorrect and the values he gives to pieces according to their position not

Accurate, i find the idea of opening another Way of looking at the position to the amateur pretty cool. I dont Way everyone hates him so much

Well everyone thinks and see's things slightly different to some degree.

There is a difference between... value of a piece, or pawn, then to.... what it actually is called on, and off the board.

Precisely what Tarrasch was saying!    He continued,  "A gambit in which for the sacrfice of a pawn one obtains an advantage in develpment of three tempi is well worth playing."