| |
Main
Date: 28 May 2005 14:25:06
From:
Subject: Chernev on h3 -- inconsistency?
|
I'm enjoying Irving Chernev's Logical Chess: Move By Move, in the "new
algebraic edition".
Chernev generally disapproves of moving a kingside pawn (as h3) to
prevent or dislodge a pin, in cases where white has castled kingside.
In Game 1 (p.15) for instance, he derisively calls this a "coffee-house
move". Yet, in Game 9 (p.56), he lauds just such a move under very
similar conditions. His justification of the latter is that black
doesn't have a kingside attack available by which he could take
advantage of the weakened pawn structure. Yet, in both games black has
plenty of pieces pointed kingside or easily positioned to do so (the
board layouts at the time of both h3 moves are quite similar). The
danger in both cases seems to be potential, not immediate, yet it is
exactly this forward-looking prudence which Chernev uses to criticize
such h3 moves not only in Game 1 but in many places in his book.
It may be that I am missing something to justify the radical difference
in analysis (I am something of a new player) but if so I would like to
know what it is. I am not looking for commentary approving or
disapproving of Chernev's general views on such pawn moves, merely
looking for a cogent explanation justifying what, at least
superficially, appears to be an inconsistency of analysis.
.
k Adkins
[email protected]
|
|
| |
Date: 02 Jun 2005 17:22:46
From:
Subject: Re: Chernev on h3 -- inconsistency?
|
Ron wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > Also compare the location of the black queen. It's much easier for it to
> > > get to the kingside from e7 than from c7.
> >
> > One step to the side (from c7 to d7) brings the queen into a diagonal
> > with the obtruding and exposed pawn.
>
> Indeed. But the queen can still reach d7 from e7 in one step, whereas
> from e7 it can also exploit e5 (after an exchange there, as in the game)
> and it can pounce to squares along the d8-h4 diagonal if the knight
> moves.
I think you may be confusing details from the two games: in Game 1 ("h3
bad") the queen is on e7 in the diagram after Move 9: but the knight
isn't in its way on that diagonal -- that's in Game 9 ("h3 good").
However, this fact strengthens your argument (to that extent) since the
queen in Game 1 has this additional flexibility.
>
> > Maybe putting queen in front of
> > the c8 bishop (instead of behind it) opens up another can of worms, but
> > maybe that's just what would be needed (to back it up): and the knight
> > at f6 and the other bishop at e7 are poised to lead the attack;
>
> The battering ram with the queen in front of the bishop isn't so useful
> because you're not going to sacrifice the queen on h3 like you sacrifice
> the bishop. (You're more likely to see a queen-leading-bishop battery
> targeting h2 and a potential mate.)
>
> It's not clear to me at all how the e7 B is "poised to lead an attack."
> The two most useful diagonals for a King Bishop in a kingisde attack are
> those which hit the f2 and h2 pawns. But how can the e7-bishop get
> there? d6 is blocked by a pawn, taking away the a7-g1 and b8-h2
> diagonals. The bishop could (after a knight move) go to h4, but there
> it can be snapped off by the Nf3.
Well, you're asking the wrong person for mating analysis here. To me it
looks like a skilled player (which I do not claim to be) might have
exploitable options. In the Game 9 diagram on page 56 (new edition) I
certainly wouldn't use the queen to take h3, since the pawn at g2 would
take it. I was thinking (rather vaguely) of a different scenario
whereby the bishop or knight makes a sacrifice to remove a critical
pawn (and weaken the position by luring out the capturing pawn). But
since you mention that diagonal, what about this:
11 ... exd4
12 cxd4 d5
13 ... Bd6
Now the black bishop is on that b8-h2 diagonal, with a clear path to
h2, backed up by the queen on c7. Black's other bishop is on c8,
pointed at h3 (the obtruding pawn makes a nice target) without anything
in between. Black's f6 knight is ready to move to a commanding
position at g4 (or to g3 via h5) when the time is right. I realize, of
course, that white won't be sitting around doing nothing and that those
elipses cover a multitude of possibilities, but it seems to me that h3,
even in Game 9, created just the sort of defect which Chernev was
preaching against (quite correctly) elsewhere. Am I mistaken?
>
> It game one, note how crucial the bishop's pin on white's f-pawn is to
> the success of the attack. If there's one generalized thing I think
> you're missing here (and bearing in mind that, in chess, generalizations
> and always oversimplifications) it's that you keep suggesting that a
> bishop on e7 is in any way aggressively posted. It's not. It's not
> going to be taking part in an attack from there for a long time.
>
> (There's a huge difference between the queen's aggressiveness on that
> square and the bishops, because the queen is vastly more manuverable -
> although I wouldn't call it a highly aggressive square for the queen,
> either - rather, a potentially aggressive one, ready to exploit errors
> like the ones white makes. A bishop on e7, with d6 blocked, is really
> not taking part in the attack at all.)
>
> > > (I actually prefer "The Most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played" -
> > > which is a little more advanced, and a lot less oversimplified, but also
> > > very educational.)
> > >
> > > -Ron
> >
> > Is this by the same author
>
> Yes.
.
k Adkins
[email protected]
|
| |
Date: 02 Jun 2005 13:46:20
From:
Subject: Re: Chernev on h3 -- inconsistency?
|
Ron wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Yet, in both games black has
> > plenty of pieces pointed kingside or easily positioned to do so (the
> > board layouts at the time of both h3 moves are quite similar). The
> > danger in both cases seems to be potential, not immediate, yet it is
> > exactly this forward-looking prudence which Chernev uses to criticize
> > such h3 moves not only in Game 1 but in many places in his book.
>
> The board positions actually aren't that similar. Compare, for example,
> the position of the black king bishop - which is in an entirely
> defensive spot in game 9, but on the aggressive a7-g1 diagnal in game 1.
Alright, the black bishop is a bit hemmed in here. Yet, as Chernev
says elsewhere in the book, *pieces* can always move or be moved. The
tension in the center of the board is going to have to be resolved, and
once it is, white is left with what Chernev calls an irremediable
organic weakness in his kingside pawn structure, which may be exploited
by a skillful opponent (as Chernev demonstrates so many times).
>
> Also compare the location of the black queen. It's much easier for it to
> get to the kingside from e7 than from c7.
One step to the side (from c7 to d7) brings the queen into a diagonal
with the obtruding and exposed pawn. Maybe putting queen in front of
the c8 bishop (instead of behind it) opens up another can of worms, but
maybe that's just what would be needed (to back it up): and the knight
at f6 and the other bishop at e7 are poised to lead the attack; my
point being not that black is ready to launch a mating attack, but that
he's nearly ready given a weakness to exploit and the skills to exploit
it. I'm still not sure I see the important difference between the two
games which makes h3 a coffee-house move in the one case and a
brilliant suspension of normal methodology on the other. Maybe I
simply lack the chess analytical skills at present to see this
difference. Or perhaps Chernev has a lamentable occasional tendency to
characterize moves based upon the eventual outcome of the game (i.e.,
whether they are made by the winner or the loser) instead of on their
intrinsic merit in a consistent fashion.
>
> For those without the book, there are the two positions:
>
> game 1:
>
> r1b1k1nr/bpp1qppp/p1np4/P3p3/2BPP3/2P2N1P/1P3PP1/RNBQ1RK1 b kq -
>
> game 9:
>
> r1b1k2r/2q1bppp/p2p1n2/npp1p3/3PP3/2P2N1P/PPB2PP1/RNBQR1K1 b kq -
>
> Of course, it's worth pointing out that white's next several moves in
> game one - opening the position and trading off his best defensive piece
> - are bad also.
As Chernev does.
>
> It's good to look critically at these positions. Chernev DOES
> oversimplify for the sake to pedagogy - especially in this book - and
> the objective truth of his statements sometimes suffers.
Well, it's a book for novices, like me. I'm generally pleased by it.
I supplement it with a book of tactical puzzles. Chernev provides the
strategic background and enough tactical analysis to give it context,
while the tactical puzzles help to develop insights into combinations
through the solution of highly specific problems. I'm just starting on
both, though. I can imagine re-reading both these books several times,
over time, before being able to properly absorb their lessons.
>
> One thing I think Chernev is really trying to do in this book is break
> weak players of bad habits, and reflexively pushing an h-pawn up instead
> of developing is a very common bad habit, even if in some positions it's
> the right move. Take his comments with a grain of salt, but there's a
> lot of good instruction in that book.
Agreed. (Not that my opinion, as a neophyte, counts for much.) I'm
just a little disappointed with the publishers in their keting. It
turns out that Irving Chernev was a chess grandmaster. But you'd never
know it from the description on the back cover. To say that someone is
"one of the most prolific and highly regarded writers on chess...a
strong player in his own right..." is -- in the world of publishing
hyperbole -- a bit damning with faint praise. There is a big
difference between a strong player and a grandmaster, and the pedagogic
credentials of the latter are worth exploiting.
>
> (I actually prefer "The Most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played" -
> which is a little more advanced, and a lot less oversimplified, but also
> very educational.)
>
> -Ron
Is this by the same author?
.
k Adkins
[email protected]
|
| | |
Date: 03 Jun 2005 00:16:38
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Chernev on h3 -- inconsistency?
|
k Adkins <[email protected] > wrote:
> Ron wrote:
>> (I actually prefer "The Most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played" -
>> which is a little more advanced, and a lot less oversimplified, but
>> also very educational.)
>
> Is this by the same author?
Yes.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Carnivorous Puzzle (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ an intriguing conundrum but it's full
of teeth!
|
| | |
Date: 02 Jun 2005 22:37:45
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Chernev on h3 -- inconsistency?
|
In article <[email protected] >,
[email protected] wrote:
> > Also compare the location of the black queen. It's much easier for it to
> > get to the kingside from e7 than from c7.
>
> One step to the side (from c7 to d7) brings the queen into a diagonal
> with the obtruding and exposed pawn.
Indeed. But the queen can still reach d7 from e7 in one step, whereas
from e7 it can also exploit e5 (after an exchange there, as in the game)
and it can pounce to squares along the d8-h4 diagonal if the knight
moves.
> Maybe putting queen in front of
> the c8 bishop (instead of behind it) opens up another can of worms, but
> maybe that's just what would be needed (to back it up): and the knight
> at f6 and the other bishop at e7 are poised to lead the attack;
The battering ram with the queen in front of the bishop isn't so useful
because you're not going to sacrifice the queen on h3 like you sacrifice
the bishop. (You're more likely to see a queen-leading-bishop battery
targeting h2 and a potential mate.)
It's not clear to me at all how the e7 B is "poised to lead an attack."
The two most useful diagonals for a King Bishop in a kingisde attack are
those which hit the f2 and h2 pawns. But how can the e7-bishop get
there? d6 is blocked by a pawn, taking away the a7-g1 and b8-h2
diagonals. The bishop could (after a knight move) go to h4, but there
it can be snapped off by the Nf3.
It game one, note how crucial the bishop's pin on white's f-pawn is to
the success of the attack. If there's one generalized thing I think
you're missing here (and bearing in mind that, in chess, generalizations
and always oversimplifications) it's that you keep suggesting that a
bishop on e7 is in any way aggressively posted. It's not. It's not
going to be taking part in an attack from there for a long time.
(There's a huge difference between the queen's aggressiveness on that
square and the bishops, because the queen is vastly more manuverable -
although I wouldn't call it a highly aggressive square for the queen,
either - rather, a potentially aggressive one, ready to exploit errors
like the ones white makes. A bishop on e7, with d6 blocked, is really
not taking part in the attack at all.)
> > (I actually prefer "The Most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played" -
> > which is a little more advanced, and a lot less oversimplified, but also
> > very educational.)
> >
> > -Ron
>
> Is this by the same author
Yes.
|
| |
Date: 29 May 2005 20:01:34
From: Dan-the-K
Subject: Re: Chernev on h3 -- inconsistency?
|
As a fellow beginner, I'd like to add my 2 cents worth.
I'm reading Chernev's LCMBM and I also caught that contradiction.
Actually, most books have contradictions like this. I think its just
one of those things. I think the idea is that these principles are all
subject to exceptions. They are ideals but you often have to
compromise them.
It reminds me of horseback riding lessons I took 25 years ago. I did
everything wrong. Sit up straight. Keep the reins on a straight line
between my hands and the horse's mouth. Don't let my legs flop around
so much. And so on.
The goal is to have it all come together.
Isn't it?
Dan
|
| |
Date: 29 May 2005 20:17:03
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Chernev on h3 -- inconsistency?
|
In article <[email protected] >,
[email protected] wrote:
> Yet, in both games black has
> plenty of pieces pointed kingside or easily positioned to do so (the
> board layouts at the time of both h3 moves are quite similar). The
> danger in both cases seems to be potential, not immediate, yet it is
> exactly this forward-looking prudence which Chernev uses to criticize
> such h3 moves not only in Game 1 but in many places in his book.
The board positions actually aren't that similar. Compare, for example,
the position of the black king bishop - which is in an entirely
defensive spot in game 9, but on the aggressive a7-g1 diagnal in game 1.
For those without the book, there are the two positions:
game 1:
r1b1k1nr/bpp1qppp/p1np4/P3p3/2BPP3/2P2N1P/1P3PP1/RNBQ1RK1 b kq -
game 9:
r1b1k2r/2q1bppp/p2p1n2/npp1p3/3PP3/2P2N1P/PPB2PP1/RNBQR1K1 b kq -
Also compare the location of the black queen. It's much easier for it to
get to the kingside from e7 than from c7.
Of course, it's worth pointing out that white's next several moves in
game one - opening the position and trading off his best defensive piece
- are bad also.
It's good to look critically at these positions. Chernev DOES
oversimplify for the sake to pedagogy - especially in this book - and
the objective truth of his statements sometimes suffers.
One thing I think Chernev is really trying to do in this book is break
weak players of bad habits, and reflexively pushing an h-pawn up instead
of developing is a very common bad habit, even if in some positions it's
the right move. Take his comments with a grain of salt, but there's a
lot of good instruction in that book.
(I actually prefer "The Most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played" -
which is a little more advanced, and a lot less oversimplified, but also
very educational.)
-Ron
|
| |
Date: 29 May 2005 05:20:00
From: Markku
Subject: Re: Chernev on h3 -- inconsistency?
|
[email protected] wrote:
> It may be that I am missing something to justify the radical difference
> in analysis (I am something of a new player) but if so I would like to
> know what it is. I am not looking for commentary approving or
> disapproving of Chernev's general views on such pawn moves, merely
> looking for a cogent explanation justifying what, at least
> superficially, appears to be an inconsistency of analysis.
Look here:
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman48.pdf
/kku
|
| |
Date: 29 May 2005 03:22:56
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Chernev on h3 -- inconsistency?
|
> I'm enjoying Irving Chernev's Logical Chess: Move By Move, in the "new
> algebraic edition".
>
> Chernev generally disapproves of moving a kingside pawn (as h3) to
> prevent or dislodge a pin, in cases where white has castled kingside.
Depends on the situation.
If you can truly break the pin, and may have to deal with back-rank threats,
the move can be very powerful.
--
Ray Gordon, Author
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Four FREE books on how to get laid by beautiful women
http://www.cybersheet.com/chess.html
Free Chess E-book: Train Like A Chess Champion
Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech forum.
|
| |
Date: 28 May 2005 16:55:35
From: Mark Houlsby
Subject: Re: Chernev on h3 -- inconsistency?
|
You may be too good a player for LCMBM to be relevant to you. Perhaps
you should consider reading a more advanced book, i.e. one not written
by Chernev.
k Houlsby
|
|
