| |
Main
Date: 07 Mar 2005 22:17:20
From: LSD
Subject: Chernev says..
|
Castle early and Kingside is to be preferred.
Why is Kingside preferred and what factors militate in favour of castling
queenside (assuming both the Queenside and Kingside pawns are equally
undisturbed)?
LSD
|
|
| |
Date: 08 Mar 2005 19:41:02
From: Mike Ogush
Subject: Re: Chernev says..
|
On Mon, 7 2005 22:17:20 -0500, "LSD"
<[email protected] > wrote:
>Castle early and Kingside is to be preferred.
>
>Why is Kingside preferred
This question has already been answered by others.
>and what factors militate in favour of castling
>queenside (assuming both the Queenside and Kingside pawns are equally
>undisturbed)?
White often castles queenside in variations of the Sicilian (e.g.
Dragon Yugoslav Attack, Najdorf (w Bg5), Scheveningen Keres Attack).
These might suggest the factors:
* opponent has castled (or is very likely to casle kingside)
* your plans for the middlegame center around conducting a
king-side attack in which moving the k-side pawns plays a large role.
It is safer to move these pawns if your king is not being protected by
them.
* castleing queenside because opponent's pawn structure and piece
placement suggest that they will conduct a king side attack.
[Especially if opponent has already castled queenside.]
Mike Ogush
>
>LSD
>
>
|
| |
Date: 09 Mar 2005 01:28:10
From: Few Good Chessmen
Subject: Re: Chernev says..
|
"LSD" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Castle early and Kingside is to be preferred.
>
> Why is Kingside preferred and what factors militate in favour of castling
> queenside (assuming both the Queenside and Kingside pawns are equally
> undisturbed)?
Just add 1 more development move (a Pawn blocking the Bishop) required
before castling either onto Kingside or Queenside as wrongly attributed by
those befiore my post here...I can't help myself laughing till it hurts so
much (never mind the stass).
Conquer your fears and we shall conquer death!!!
-- Alexander The Great
|
| | |
Date: 08 Mar 2005 11:16:32
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Chernev says..
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"Few Good Chessmen" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Just add 1 more development move (a Pawn blocking the Bishop) required
> before castling either onto Kingside or Queenside as wrongly attributed by
> those befiore my post here...I can't help myself laughing till it hurts so
> much (never mind the stass).
What a wonderful contribution to the discussion.
The earlier posts were perfectly clear.
-Ron
|
| |
Date: 08 Mar 2005 06:21:53
From: Morphy's ghost
Subject: Re: Chernev says..
|
In the year of our Lord Mon, 7 2005 22:17:20 -0500, "LSD"
<[email protected] > wrote:
>Castle early and Kingside is to be preferred.
>
>Why is Kingside preferred and what factors militate in favour of castling
>queenside (assuming both the Queenside and Kingside pawns are equally
>undisturbed)?
>
>LSD
>
>
Kingside castling can be accomplished more quickly (two pieces to
develop instead of three) and the position reached in a Kingside
castle is more secure than a Queenside castle (often Kb1 or Kb8 is
necessary on the queenside, using a valuable tempo.)
That said, this is just a general rule. Part of being better than
other people in chess is to realize when these general rules do not
apply. For example, there are many lines in the French defense in
variations where the center is closed where it is actually to Black's
advantage to delay or do without castling. Why? Because sometimes
when the center is closed and white has both the space and
development advantage on the kingside, the king is actually safer in
the center. And sometimes, delaying castling on the kingside can
cause White to deploy his pieces in such a way that an early kingside
attack is far less likely when Black does choose to castle. Learn
Chernev's rule. Follow Chernev's rule. But then, start looking for
the exceptions to it.
The enemy fight in chains, invisible chains, but heavy;
Their minds are fetter'd; then how can they be free,
-- William Blake
|
| |
Date: 07 Mar 2005 21:59:23
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Chernev says..
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"LSD" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Why is Kingside preferred and what factors militate in favour of castling
> queenside (assuming both the Queenside and Kingside pawns are equally
> undisturbed)?
Castling kingside is usually faster. It requires only two pieces be
developed, rather than three (and rapid development of the queen is
often counterproductive). Also, the king is more secure on the kingside
because immediately after development of the knight and castling, the h
pawn is protected twice (by the king and knight) whereas with a N on c3
and 0-0-0, the a pawn is only protected once, so yet another move may be
necessary.
That being said, there are plenty of positions where castling kingside
is simply a mistake, and castling queenside is correct. You must always
consider the specifics of the position in front of you.
-ROn
|
| |
Date: 08 Mar 2005 03:49:57
From: skoonj
Subject: Re: Chernev says..
|
"LSD" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Castle early and Kingside is to be preferred.
>
> Why is Kingside preferred and what factors militate in favour of castling
> queenside (assuming both the Queenside and Kingside pawns are equally
> undisturbed)?
>
> LSD
>
>
Kingside castling can be accomplished more quickly - you only need to move
two pieces out of the way before doing it. Also, Queenside castling usually
requires an extra move (Kc1-b1/Kc8-b8) to tuck away the King and defend the
a-pawn.
That being said, I'm guessing Chernev's suggestion has as much to do with
his opening recommendations as anything. As he is typically arguing for
playing moves like e4, Nf3 and Bc4 right off the bat, 0-0 is natural.
-T
|
|
