how to play chess

How To Play Chess

Participate and you will gain!
Funny name, real matters
[ Sign up | Log in | Guest ] (beta)
far1ey 39 ( +1 | -1 )
Which pawn structure is better? Which is better?
Pawns on:
C4, D5, E4. PROS: If one pawn gets taken the pawns are not isolated after retake.
CONS: It doesn't control as much FORWARD space. (Only the pawn on D5)
C5. D4, E5. PROS: Controls more FORWARD space (The pawns on C5 and E5)
CONS: If one pawn gets taken after retake the pawns are isolated.

Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks.
brilliance 36 ( +1 | -1 )
... That's situational.

I don't like those holes and I try to avoid them early on in the game. When playing English for example, some play with c4-d3-e4 setup which creates an outpost for black at d4 or possibly at e3/c3 depending on how the game develops. I find that that doesn't suit well with how I view the center-confrontation development.
ccmcacollister 283 ( +1 | -1 )
IMO ... First would usually matter as to whether the pawn formations given are Black or White pawns, but perhaps not so much here since they are inverse formations.
But it IS going to depend VERY greatly where the opponent's pawns now are! And also, of course just what pieces remain on the board, and where.
Either of those formations can be made to be Very GOOD or Very BAD, depending upon those factors.
From your mention of "Forward Space" it is apparent that you are using WT pawns for your given formations. So for a couple examples:
A Very Bad situation of Formation #1 would be if WT's c&e pawns are backwards & BL has half-open c & e-files(or even just one of those two), a pawn on d6, Nd7, and lever-pawns on the b & f-files, plus Rooks for BL's files.
A Very Bad situation of Formation #2 would be simply for BL to have a half-open d-file and WT has no piece (preferably a knight) that he could place upon d6 to close down BL's attacking line vs the d4 pawn. BL having lever pawn's on the b & f files could make that even worse.
Yet with that same WT formation; put a BL pawn upon d5, and WT is probably not hurting at all, and may actually have a choice of attacking upon either wing, without being out of line with the potential of his center pawns. (That old maxim to "ATTACK THE WAY YOUR PAWNS ARE POINTING" , which is an easy way of saying to attack where you {most likely} have a space advantage, or can create one there).
Yet again, take that same WT pawn formation and put a BL pawn upon the d7 square .... ?!?! And BL could quite easily be in dire straits indeed! Since the hole on d6 can NEVER be alleviated, without sac'g his d-pawn outright. And even then, the hole never goes away, it would just become more possible for BL to try to defend that square using Rooks or Queen, which he cannot do with a Pd7. If BL could get a piece on d5 here, likely WT could just make it disappear if he has his KB or N(s) to attack that SQ with.
So i have to agree completely with brilliance that it is highly situational. As a practical matter, you'll find the formation with the Pd5 will be played/occur MUCH more frequently in real games. The King's Indian one of the most common examples.
But also, Nimzo or Queens Indians, Dutch and Dory Defenses, Pirc Defense, French or Caro-Kann might all produce these or similar formations.
Kmoch adresses similar in depth in his book on pawn formations and play, and gives them exotic names such as Wyvill, Rex-Wyvill, Benoni, Benoni Jump formations etc. But despite the unusual nomenclature, I thought his book on pawn play to be a very worthwhile read. Anyone else like that one ? :)
anaxagoras 15 ( +1 | -1 )
I don't like either formation because both are full of holes. Can you show us a position in a game of yours where you had to make these considerations?
far1ey 23 ( +1 | -1 )
Just curious I have played several unrecorded games with my dad and a closed situation arose when we each had the opposite pawn formation and I was just wondering who's was better annd what others think of this matter.