| |
Main
Date: 25 Aug 2005 05:53:15
From: Warp
Subject: Could non-castling be a viable strategy?
|
I suppose I'm a rather beginner (although I don't have much concrete
data on my own strength because of lack of playing in the past 15 years),
so don't take this too seriously.
Anyways, in a couple of games I have played in the internet I noticed
one interesting thing:
I lost my right to castling (more because of my own mistakes than
anything else) so in order to compensate I started a strong attack
with all my pawns towards both enemy wings, backed up with both rooks.
I kept my king in the middle of the first or second line, protected
by minor pieces.
This kind of strategy felt interesting. Instead of castling and
subsequently greatly diminishing the attacking power of the pawns
in the castled wing, I made a full-scale attack on both wings using
the pawns on both sides backed up with both rooks. This attack felt
especially poweful in the wing where my opponent had castled, as it
caused him a lot of pressure to defend it.
The problem of this strategy was, naturally, that even though I tried
to protect the king with the minor pieces, it was still a lot more
vulnerable to attack. Another problem was that the rooks were not
connected, which caused problems eventually. Moving the king to the
second row connects the rooks but makes the king even more vulnerable
to attack...
One advantage, though, is that if the game proceeds quickly to the
endgame, you already have the king in a good position instead of having
to waste several moves to get it into play from the corner.
Anyways, I was wondering if not castling can be a viable strategy.
Are there any websites discussing this?
--
- Warp
|
|
| |
Date: 26 Aug 2005 03:56:48
From:
Subject: Re: Could non-castling be a viable strategy?
|
Bs'd
Of course they are both important.
But which one is the MOST important, especially for somebody on class
level?
Eliyahu
|
| | |
Date: 26 Aug 2005 17:21:01
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Could non-castling be a viable strategy?
|
In article <[email protected] >,
[email protected] wrote:
> But which one is the MOST important, especially for somebody on class
> level?
You can't divide it up like that.
Yes, tactics are crucially important. But at the same time, if you don't
have an understanding of basic strategic concepts (like controlling the
center) it doesn't matter how good your tactics are, because you won't
have the opportunity to use them.
Tactics and strategy are not completely separate things. You will tend
to find opportunities for tactics when you have a positional advantage,
but the threat of tactics will also help you get that positional
advantage.
A very common "story" of a chess game is that one player develops a
positional advantage, and then converts that advantage by finding a
tactic. You see this in games of Lasker and you see it in the games of
the 1300-player down at the local chess club.
Now, the 1300-rated player gives his opponent more opportunities to
fight back than Lasker did, but the principle is the same.
-Ron
|
| | |
Date: 26 Aug 2005 17:03:18
From: The Man Behind The Curtain
Subject: Re: Could non-castling be a viable strategy?
|
[email protected] wrote:
> Bs'd
>
> Of course they are both important.
>
> But which one is the MOST important, especially for somebody on class
> level?
>
> Eliyahu
>
Who is this idiot? He's sure giving me a good laugh over my morning
coffee...
John
--
Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven
|
| |
Date: 26 Aug 2005 03:27:30
From:
Subject: Re: Could non-castling be a viable strategy?
|
Bs'd
So what do you think is more important, strategy, of tactics?
Eliyahu
|
| | |
Date: 26 Aug 2005 11:36:10
From: Terry
Subject: Re: Could non-castling be a viable strategy?
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bs'd
>
> So what do you think is more important, strategy, of tactics?
>
> Eliyahu
>
They are both important.
Regards
|
| |
Date: 26 Aug 2005 02:36:15
From:
Subject: Re: Could non-castling be a viable strategy?
|
Bs'd
Terry wrote:
Controlling the center is important at all levels.
All this depends on the strength of your opposition. If you are playing
patzers then they wont have the skills to show you the error of your
ways. To improve you need to play better players then yourself mixed
with players of your own strength to retain confidence.
Eliyahu writes:
Chess games between class players are usually decided by some kind of
unsophisticated trick or a blunder.
Deep positional concepts like "controlling the center" usually play a
very minor role, and a strong attack against the short castled king of
the opponent is usually worth a whole lot more.
If somebody follows this advice: "To improve you need to play better
players then yourself mixed with players of your own strength to retain
confidence." then he will loose the majority of his games.
I don't know why other people play chess, but I play chess because I
want to enjoy myself, and I am definitely NOT enjoying myself when I
loose, so I avoid stronger players like the plague.
Of course I want my chess ability to improve, but I don't think playing
stronger opponents is going to help me in that one.
When just simply playing, somebody soon reaches a kind of maximum level
over which he is not going to improve, no matter how many games he will
play.
I know that if I would play constistently play stronger players, and
consequently get beaten most of the time, I would quickly find myself
another hobby, like knitting or something.
I am by no means a masochist.
Eliyahu
|
| | |
Date: 26 Aug 2005 17:16:14
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Could non-castling be a viable strategy?
|
In article <[email protected] >,
[email protected] wrote:
> Deep positional concepts like "controlling the center" usually play a
> very minor role, and a strong attack against the short castled king of
> the opponent is usually worth a whole lot more.
Here's the problem with what you're saying.
"Controlling the center" is NOT a deep positional concept.
It is probably the simplest positional concept in all of chess. Okay,
maybe the idea of a lead in development is simpler. But really, this
isn't advanced stuff - rather, it's the source, the first principle from
which so much of the complex stuff flows.
What you will quickly learn when you play even ginally better players
is that you don't get to attack on the wing unless you have control of
the center (or you've completely locked down the center). Because
otherwise, your opponents pieces have greater mobility and are therefore
in a position to attack faster while also defending.
Certainly extremely weak players simply don't react to basic threats -
but even when you get to the 1200 level, you're going to find that your
attacks need to have a positional foundation.
-Ron
|
| | |
Date: 26 Aug 2005 11:15:47
From: Terry
Subject: Re: Could non-castling be a viable strategy?
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bs'd
>
> Terry wrote:
>
> Controlling the center is important at all levels.
>
> All this depends on the strength of your opposition. If you are playing
> patzers then they wont have the skills to show you the error of your
> ways. To improve you need to play better players then yourself mixed
> with players of your own strength to retain confidence.
>
> Eliyahu writes:
>
> Chess games between class players are usually decided by some kind of
> unsophisticated trick or a blunder.
> Deep positional concepts like "controlling the center" usually play a
> very minor role, and a strong attack against the short castled king of
> the opponent is usually worth a whole lot more.
>
> If somebody follows this advice: "To improve you need to play better
> players then yourself mixed with players of your own strength to retain
> confidence." then he will loose the majority of his games.
> I don't know why other people play chess, but I play chess because I
> want to enjoy myself, and I am definitely NOT enjoying myself when I
> loose, so I avoid stronger players like the plague.
> Of course I want my chess ability to improve, but I don't think playing
> stronger opponents is going to help me in that one.
> When just simply playing, somebody soon reaches a kind of maximum level
> over which he is not going to improve, no matter how many games he will
> play.
>
> I know that if I would play constistently play stronger players, and
> consequently get beaten most of the time, I would quickly find myself
> another hobby, like knitting or something.
> I am by no means a masochist.
>
> Eliyahu
>
The purpose of playing better players and those of your own strength
is to learn from the better players and retain confidence by beating
some of those at your level.
I agree that when your max level is reached - you will not improve.
For those that want to improve then my method is best.
I hardly call controlling the centre a 'minor positional concept.
Regards
|
| |
Date: 26 Aug 2005 00:07:06
From:
Subject: Re: Could non-castling be a viable strategy?
|
Bs'd
I have A LOT of succes with the tactic of preparing the castling to
both sides, but not actually castling.
I wait until my opponent did the (usually short) castling, and then I
start to attack his king side with my king side pawns.
In the mean while, I still didn't castle.
Usually I manage to break open his pawn structure in front of his king,
and get open rook lines right into his king side, which is really a
killer.
By the time my attack is well on the way, I somewhere do the long
castling, and get 2 rooks to attack his kingside, supported by my queen
and light pieces.
This is usually a killer.
It is important not to do the long castling to early, because then the
opponent might start to attack your kingside with his pawns, creating
an about equal situation.
When you wait with the long castling until he is under heavy attack, he
is so busy defending he will not have any time to attack you.
All the talk about controlling the center is undoubtely true, but only
when you play on master level or higher.
On my patzer level a brutal attack is worth much more then controlling
the center.
You don't win the game by mating the center.
Eliyahu
|
| | |
Date: 26 Aug 2005 17:10:24
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Could non-castling be a viable strategy?
|
In article <[email protected] >,
[email protected] wrote:
> All the talk about controlling the center is undoubtely true, but only
> when you play on master level or higher.
>
> On my patzer level a brutal attack is worth much more then controlling
> the center.
At the extreme patzer level, maybe.
But you're strategy is going to fall apart the moment you start playing
opponents who react to your wing attack with action in the center.
You'll quickly find that your pieces are misplaced. And that's going to
happen long before you're playing masters.
There is value to delaying castling. Steinitz showed how when the
position in the center was stable, you could defer castling at little
risk. Personally, I think it's a good idea to make sure you CAN castle
in one move if you need to.
|
| | | |
Date: 28 Aug 2005 11:44:58
From: Toni Lassila
Subject: Re: Could non-castling be a viable strategy?
|
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 17:10:24 GMT, Ron <[email protected] >
wrote:
> There is value to delaying castling. Steinitz showed how when the
>position in the center was stable, you could defer castling at little
>risk. Personally, I think it's a good idea to make sure you CAN castle
>in one move if you need to.
For attacking players it actually makes more sense to castle than to
not to. The best way to defend is to counterattack, and thus the
attacker's king will surely come under fire in the center. Morphy knew
this and always castled before launching his attack. Consider this: in
the center, the king will potentially come under attack from one file
or two diagonals. In the corner, there is only one diagonal, so the
attacking opportunities are decreased by one third.
I'm sure we've all played full-length games where neither side
castled. Are there any good examples of master-level games where
neither side castles but play went on for a good while? I'm sure they
would be priily positional in nature.
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2005 22:18:15
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Could non-castling be a viable strategy?
|
>> There is value to delaying castling. Steinitz showed how when the
>>position in the center was stable, you could defer castling at little
>>risk. Personally, I think it's a good idea to make sure you CAN castle
>>in one move if you need to.
>
> For attacking players it actually makes more sense to castle than to
> not to. The best way to defend is to counterattack, and thus the
> attacker's king will surely come under fire in the center. Morphy knew
> this and always castled before launching his attack. Consider this: in
> the center, the king will potentially come under attack from one file
> or two diagonals. In the corner, there is only one diagonal, so the
> attacking opportunities are decreased by one third.
The downside to this, which Morphy never had to deal with the way today's
players do, is that many attacks rely on that extra tempo to succeed, and if
that is wasted castling, it can cost the game.
> I'm sure we've all played full-length games where neither side
> castled. Are there any good examples of master-level games where
> neither side castles but play went on for a good while? I'm sure they
> would be priily positional in nature.
There are tons of situations where not castling is correct. The most common
one involves ducking the king to f1/f8, or to c2/c7 after an exchange of
queens.
The other situation is when the endgame is approaching and the king should
be in the center anyway.
|
| | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2005 19:37:11
From: The Man Behind The Curtain
Subject: Re: Could non-castling be a viable strategy?
|
Ron wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>>All the talk about controlling the center is undoubtely true, but only
>>when you play on master level or higher.
>>
>>On my patzer level a brutal attack is worth much more then controlling
>>the center.
>
>
> At the extreme patzer level, maybe.
>
> But you're strategy is going to fall apart the moment you start playing
> opponents who react to your wing attack with action in the center.
Yes, but he's already said he doesn't want to play anybody but
brain-dead patzers because he wants to win every time. He said if he
plays someone stronger than himself and he loses he'd just as soon "take
up knitting."
I can't see the point of playing people you know are so much weaker than
you so that you always win. Why "play" at all? You're just pretending.
Knitting would indeed be a better hobby: at least you end up with a
nice scarf or cap at the end.
On the other hand I'm wondering if this guy is a troll.
John
--
Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven
|
| | | | |
Date: 29 Aug 2005 22:14:25
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Could non-castling be a viable strategy?
|
> I can't see the point of playing people you know are so much weaker than
> you so that you always win. Why "play" at all? You're just pretending.
I have to chime in on this one, because I did exactly this from 1991-1996,
after I had "retired" from tournament play.
I began playing in coffeehouses, where I was almost always the strongest
player, by far. It was FUN, and HOT WOMEN would watch the games, being
dazzled by my ability to almost totally ignore the board while my opponent
was deep in thought, yet still win. That chess was more fulfilling than any
I had ever played. Even got me laid!
His strategy has merit, as long as one isn't trying to become a champion.
|
| | | | |
Date: 27 Aug 2005 21:20:39
From: Terry
Subject: Re: Could non-castling be a viable strategy?
|
"The Man Behind The Curtain" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Ron wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>>>All the talk about controlling the center is undoubtely true, but only
>>>when you play on master level or higher.
>>>
>>>On my patzer level a brutal attack is worth much more then controlling
>>>the center.
>>
>>
>> At the extreme patzer level, maybe.
>>
>> But you're strategy is going to fall apart the moment you start playing
>> opponents who react to your wing attack with action in the center.
>
> Yes, but he's already said he doesn't want to play anybody but brain-dead
> patzers because he wants to win every time. He said if he plays someone
> stronger than himself and he loses he'd just as soon "take up knitting."
>
> I can't see the point of playing people you know are so much weaker than
> you so that you always win. Why "play" at all? You're just pretending.
> Knitting would indeed be a better hobby: at least you end up with a nice
> scarf or cap at the end.
>
> On the other hand I'm wondering if this guy is a troll.
>
>
>
>
> John
>
> --
>
>
> Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven
>
Not important if he is a troll. This thread may be useful to other people.
Regards
|
| | | | | |
Date: 28 Aug 2005 03:41:54
From: lightarrow
Subject: Re: Could non-castling be a viable strategy?
|
Whether or not leaving your king in the center depends mainly on whethe
or not
your opponent can open up files torwards you king. This game of mine i
a good example of when your king can be safer in the center. I wa
white. It was G/20 and we were both rated a little over 2100 on ICC a
the time.
1 e4 e6
2 Nf3 Nc6
3 D4 d5
4 Nbd2 Nf6
5 e5 Nd7
6 c3 Ne7
7 Bd3 Ng6
8 Nf1 c5
9 Ng3 Be7
10 Be3 Rb8
11 Qc2 c4
12 Bxg6 hxg6
13 Ke2 b5
14 h4 a5
15 h5 g5
16 Qd2 g4
17 Nh2 f5
18 h6 g5
19 Nh5 Rxh6
20 Nxg4 fxg4
21 ng7+ Kf7
22 Rxh6 Kxg7
23 Rah1 Nf8
24 Qc2 Kf7
25 Rh8 Qb6
26 Rxf8 Bxf8
27 Rh7+ Bg7
28 Bxg5 Ba6
29 Rxg7+
30 Bf6+ Kf8
31 Qh7 Qb7
32 Qh8+ Kf7
33 Qg7+ Ke8
34 Qg8+ Kd7
35 Qf7+ Kc8
36 Qe8+ Kc7
37 Qe7+ Kb6
38 Qc5#
With black pawnstorming on the queenside and the center locked up, m
king was safer in the center.
This game with me playing black is a good example of when not to leav
your king in the center.
1 d4 f5
2 h3 d5
3 c4 c6
4 Nc3 Nf6
5 cxd5 cxd5
6 e3 e6
7 Bd3 Nc6
8 a3 Bd6
9 Nge2 Bd7
10 Bd2 a6
11 b4 0-0 ( I have delayed castling just in case white tries to do
kingside attack.)
12 Na4 Ne4
13 Nc5 Bxc5
14 bxc5 e5
15 Qb3 Nxd2
16 Qd5+ Kh8
17 Kd2 Qa5+
18 Nc3 exd4
19 exd4 Rad8
20 Rhb1 Be8
21 Qa2 Nxd4
22 Rxb7 Nb5
23 Rac1 Bc6
24 Rb6 Be4
0-1
White got in to trouble because I could trade off all of the pawns o
the file that his king was on. Having his queen on that file didn'
help out either
--
lightarrow
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 28 Aug 2005 11:55:15
From: James
Subject: Re: Could non-castling be a viable strategy?
|
"lightarrow" <[email protected] > a �crit dans le
message de news: [email protected]...
>
> Whether or not leaving your king in the center depends mainly on whether
> or not
> your opponent can open up files torwards you king. This game of mine is
> a good example of when your king can be safer in the center. I was
> white. It was G/20 and we were both rated a little over 2100 on ICC at
> the time.
>
> 1 e4 e6
> 2 Nf3 Nc6
> 3 D4 d5
> 4 Nbd2 Nf6
> 5 e5 Nd7
> 6 c3 Ne7
> 7 Bd3 Ng6
> 8 Nf1 c5
> 9 Ng3 Be7
> 10 Be3 Rb8
> 11 Qc2 c4
> 12 Bxg6 hxg6
> 13 Ke2 b5
> 14 h4 a5
> 15 h5 g5
> 16 Qd2 g4
> 17 Nh2 f5
> 18 h6 g5
> 19 Nh5 Rxh6
> 20 Nxg4 fxg4
> 21 ng7+ Kf7
> 22 Rxh6 Kxg7
> 23 Rah1 Nf8
> 24 Qc2 Kf7
> 25 Rh8 Qb6
> 26 Rxf8 Bxf8
> 27 Rh7+ Bg7
> 28 Bxg5 Ba6
> 29 Rxg7+
> 30 Bf6+ Kf8
> 31 Qh7 Qb7
> 32 Qh8+ Kf7
> 33 Qg7+ Ke8
> 34 Qg8+ Kd7
> 35 Qf7+ Kc8
> 36 Qe8+ Kc7
> 37 Qe7+ Kb6
> 38 Qc5#
>
> With black pawnstorming on the queenside and the center locked up, my
> king was safer in the center.
>
This is Shredder9 analysis (Blunder check, 60s/move) of the above game. It's
in PGN format, with chessbase/fritz extensions (%eval 100 equals one pawn
up). It can be loaded under any PGN reader though (winboard does a great
job, using the comment window to read shredder analysis).
It is interesting to note that Shredder doesn't like much 13 Ke2, and
prefers the line 13. Qd2 b5 14. Bg5 b4 15. Bxe7 Qxe7 16. O-O, which involves
castling.
Anyway the game is mainly lost (or won) because of the many blunders made by
black (and despite some by white -:) )... I am still to be convinced by the
non castling strategy (except perhaps when the opponent has castled really
too early).
--------------------------------------------------
James
Note: remove 1, 2 and 3 to send mail.
--------------------------------------------------
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2005.08.28"]
[Round "?"]
[White "No Castling 1"]
[Black "No Castling 2"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C04"]
[Annotator "Shredder 9"]
[PlyCount "75"]
1. e4 e6 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 d5 4. Nbd2 Nf6 5. e5 Nd7 6. c3 Ne7 7. Bd3 {
dernier coup de la biblioth�que} Ng6 {[%eval 98,17]} 8. Nf1 {[%eval 98,16]}
c5
{[%eval 98,15]} 9. Ng3 {[%eval 97,15]} Be7 $16 {[%eval 130,14]} ({Shredder
9:}
9... cxd4 10. cxd4 Bb4+ 11. Bd2 Bxd2+ 12. Qxd2 Nh4 13. Rg1 O-O $16 {
[%eval 97,15]}) 10. Be3 {[%eval 98,15]} Rb8 $16 {[%eval 131,15]} ({Shredder
9:
} 10... Nb6 11. O-O O-O 12. b3 cxd4 13. cxd4 Bd7 14. Rc1 Rc8 15. Nh5 Bc6 16.
Qe2 f5 $16 {[%eval 98,15]}) 11. Qc2 $14 {[%eval 60,17]} ({Shredder 9:} 11.
Qd2
O-O 12. Nh5 f5 13. exf6 Nxf6 14. Nxf6+ gxf6 15. Bh6 Re8 16. O-O-O Qa5 17.
Kb1
Bd7 18. Rhe1 cxd4 19. Nxd4 Ne5 20. Bc2 $16 {[%eval 131,15]}) 11... c4 {
[%eval 60,16]} 12. Bxg6 {[%eval 40,19]} hxg6 {[%eval 40,17]} 13. Ke2 $15 {
[%eval -30,19]} ({Shredder 9:} 13. Qd2 b5 14. Bg5 b4 15. Bxe7 Qxe7 16. O-O
bxc3
17. bxc3 Qa3 18. Rab1 Rxb1 19. Rxb1 Nb6 20. h3 Bb7 21. Ne2 Kf8 22. Rb5 Kg8
$14
{[%eval 40,17]}) 13... b5 {[%eval -30,17]} 14. h4 {[%eval -30,16]} a5 $11 {
[%eval -6,17]} ({Shredder 9:} 14... b4 15. Bg5 Bxg5 16. hxg5 Rxh1 17. Nxh1
Qa5
18. Qc1 Nb6 19. cxb4 Qxb4 20. Qd2 Na4 21. Qxb4 Rxb4 22. b3 Nc3+ 23. Kd2 Ne4+
24. Kc2 c3 25. Rc1 $15 {[%eval -30,16]}) 15. h5 {[%eval -14,19]} g5 {
[%eval -22,16]} 16. Qd2 {[%eval -14,17]} g4 $14 {[%eval 42,19]} ({Shredder
9:}
16... f6 17. h6 gxh6 18. exf6 Bxf6 19. Nh5 Qe7 20. Rae1 b4 21. Kd1 Rb6 22.
Qc2
bxc3 23. bxc3 Kd8 24. Bd2 Bb7 25. Nxf6 Nxf6 $11 {[%eval -14,17]}) 17. Nh2 {
[%eval 42,17]} f5 $16 {[%eval 93,17]} ({Shredder 9:} 17... b4 18. h6 gxh6
19.
Nxg4 a4 20. Bxh6 Rg8 21. Ne3 a3 22. bxa3 bxc3 23. Qxc3 f6 24. exf6 Nxf6 25.
Rae1 Kd7 $14 {[%eval 42,17]}) 18. h6 $2 $15 {[%eval -63,16]} ({Shredder 9:}
18.
exf6 gxf6 19. Nxg4 b4 $16 {[%eval 93,17]}) 18... g5 {[%eval -54,17]} 19. Nh5
$17 {[%eval -77,15]} ({Shredder 9:} 19. f4 Rxh6 20. fxg5 Rg6 21. Nhf1 b4 22.
Rh8+ Nf8 23. Nh5 bxc3 24. bxc3 Ba3 25. Nf4 Rb2 26. Nxg6 Rxd2+ 27. Kxd2 $15 {
[%eval -54,17]}) 19... Rxh6 $11 {[%eval -5,18]} ({Shredder 9:} 19... b4 20.
Qc2
bxc3 21. bxc3 Nf8 $17 {[%eval -77,15]}) 20. Nxg4 {[%eval -1,16]} fxg4 $2 $18
{
[%eval 513,19]} ({Shredder 9:} 20... Rg6 21. Qc2 Kf7 22. Nh2 b4 23. g4 f4
24.
Bd2 Qb6 25. Rhb1 b3 $11 {[%eval -1,16]}) 21. Ng7+ {[%eval 488,19]} Kf7 {
[%eval 488,18]} 22. Rxh6 {[%eval 488,16]} Kxg7 $2 $18 {[%eval 674,18]} ({
Shredder 9:} 22... Nf8 23. Rah1 b4 24. Nh5 bxc3 25. bxc3 Qb6 26. Nf6 Qb2 27.
Bxg5 Qxd2+ 28. Bxd2 Rb2 29. Rh7+ Nxh7 30. Rxh7+ Kf8 31. Rh8+ Kf7 32. Rxc8
Bxf6
33. exf6 $18 {[%eval 488,16]}) 23. Rah1 {[%eval 674,17]} Nf8 {[%eval
674,18]}
24. Qc2 {[%eval 674,20]} Kf7 {[%eval 674,19]} 25. Rh8 {[%eval 674,19]} Qb6
$2 {
[%eval 32617,19]} ({Shredder 9:} 25... Ke8 26. R1h7 Kd7 27. Bxg5 Nxh7 28.
Rxd8+
Kxd8 29. Bxe7+ Kxe7 30. Qxh7+ Kd8 31. Qa7 Rb7 32. Qxa5+ Kd7 33. Ke3 Ke8 34.
Qa6
Kd8 35. Qd6+ Ke8 36. Qc6+ Kd8 37. Qa6 g3 38. Qa5+ Kd7 $18 {[%eval 674,19]})
26.
Rxf8+ $2 $18 {[%eval 714,20]} ({Shredder 9:} 26. R1h7+ Ke8 27. Qg6+ Kd7 28.
Rxf8 Kc6 29. Rxe7 Bd7 30. Rxd7 Kxd7 31. Qf7+ Kc6 32. Qxe6+ Kb7 33. Rxb8+
Kxb8
34. Qxb6+ Kc8 35. e6 g3 36. e7 Kd7 37. Qd8+ Ke6 {[%eval 32617,19]}) 26...
Bxf8
{[%eval 739,18]} 27. Rh7+ {[%eval 714,19]} Bg7 {[%eval 739,18]} 28. Bxg5 {
[%eval 714,17]} Ba6 {[%eval 885,16]} 29. Rxg7+ $2 $18 {[%eval 234,19]} ({
Shredder 9:} 29. Bf6 Rg8 30. Qd2 Ke8 31. Bxg7 Kd7 32. Qf4 Rxg7 $18 {
[%eval 885,16]}) 29... Kxg7 {[%eval 255,18]} 30. Bf6+ {[%eval 255,18]} Kf8 {
[%eval 255,17]} 31. Qh7 {[%eval 241,17]} Qb7 $2 {[%eval 32760,13]} ({
Shredder 9:} 31... Rb7 32. Qh8+ Kf7 33. Qg7+ Ke8 34. Qg8+ Kd7 35. Qf7+ Kc6
36.
Qxe6+ Kc7 37. Qxd5 Kb8 38. e6 Rc7 39. Bd8 Bb7 40. Qe5 Kc8 41. Qf5 Kb8 $18 {
[%eval 241,17]}) 32. Qh8+ {[%eval 32761,10]} Kf7 {[%eval 32761,11]} 33. Qg7+
{
[%eval 32762,10]} Ke8 {[%eval 32762,9]} 34. Qg8+ {[%eval 32763,10]} Kd7 {
[%eval 32763,7]} 35. Qf7+ {[%eval 32764,26]} Kc8 {[%eval 32764,5]} 36. Qe8+
{
[%eval 32765,10]} Kc7 {[%eval 32765,3]} 37. Qe7+ {[%eval 32766,35]} Kb6 {
[%eval 32766,1]} 38. Qc5# {[%eval 0,0]} 1-0
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 28 Aug 2005 21:02:34
From: lightarrow
Subject: Re: Could non-castling be a viable strategy?
|
James Wrote:
> "lightarrow" [email protected] a �crit dans le
> message de news: [email protected]
>
> Whether or not leaving your king in the center depends mainly o
> whether
> or not
> your opponent can open up files torwards you king. This game of min
> is
> a good example of when your king can be safer in the center. I was
> white. It was G/20 and we were both rated a little over 2100 on IC
> at
> the time.
>
>
>
>
> [Site "ICC"]
>
> [Date "2005.08.12"]
>
> [Round "?"]
>
> [White "lightarrow 2123"]
>
> [Black "TheTortoise 2087"]
>
> [Result "1-0"]
>
> [ECO "C04"]
>
>
> 1 e4 e6
> 2 Nf3 Nc6
> 3 D4 d5
> 4 Nbd2 Nf6
> 5 e5 Nd7
> 6 c3 Ne7
> 7 Bd3 Ng6
> 8 Nf1 c5
> 9 Ng3 Be7
> 10 Be3 Rb8
> 11 Qc2 c4
> 12 Bxg6 hxg6
> 13 Ke2 b5
> 14 h4 a5
> 15 h5 g5
> 16 Qd2 g4
> 17 Nh2 f5
> 18 h6 g5
> 19 Nh5 Rxh6
> 20 Nxg4 fxg4
> 21 ng7+ Kf7
> 22 Rxh6 Kxg7
> 23 Rah1 Nf8
> 24 Qc2 Kf7
> 25 Rh8 Qb6
> 26 Rxf8 Bxf8
> 27 Rh7+ Bg7
> 28 Bxg5 Ba6
> 29 Rxg7+
> 30 Bf6+ Kf8
> 31 Qh7 Qb7
> 32 Qh8+ Kf7
> 33 Qg7+ Ke8
> 34 Qg8+ Kd7
> 35 Qf7+ Kc8
> 36 Qe8+ Kc7
> 37 Qe7+ Kb6
> 38 Qc5#
>
> With black pawnstorming on the queenside and the center locked up, my
> king was safer in the center.
> -
>
>
> > > > This is Shredder9 analysis (Blunder check, 60s/move) of the above game
> > It's
> > in PGN format, with chessbase/fritz extensions (%eval 100 equals on
> > pawn
> > up). It can be loaded under any PGN reader though (winboard does
> > great
> > job, using the comment window to read shredder analysis).
> > It is interesting to note that Shredder doesn't like much 13 Ke2, and
> > prefers the line 13. Qd2 b5 14. Bg5 b4 15. Bxe7 Qxe7 16. O-O, whic
> > involves
> > castling.> >
>
> You can't always trust a computer when they are making suggestion
> that don't involve a winning combination of some sort. Computers ten
> to be worse in these types of positions with the center closed up an
> with both sides trying to pawn storm. You should look at the book "
> psychiatrist matches wits with fritz". In this book, an amateu
> defeats fritz by using a stonewall formation to close the center an
> then pawnstorming on the kingside. The computer's evaluation ofte
> changes from a winning score in the computer"s favor before losing
> If I were to castle short, that would be inconsistent with Bxg6!?
> opening the h file for black's rook and giving my h-pawn a hook o
> g6. But suppose that Ke2 wasn't the best move. I would still play i
> because it is my best chance to get an attacking position. M
> alternative would be castling long, but my king is safer on e2 tha
> it is on c1.
> > > > Anyway the game is mainly lost (or won) because of the many blunder
> > made by
> > black > >
>
> Black's biggest mistakes were Rxh6 and Nxg4, but I was better befor
> that happened. > > > (and despite some by white -:) )...> > I didn't play any moves that would qualify as blunders. I did pla
> Rxf8?! when R1h7+ would have won faster, but I was still winnin
> after that. > > > I am still to be convinced by the
> > non castling strategy (except perhaps when the opponent has castle
> > really
> > too early).> > How is that possible? Non castling happens in grandmaster games al
> the time
--
lightarrow
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Aug 2005 11:40:51
From: James
Subject: Re: Could non-castling be a viable strategy?
|
lightarrow wrote:
> > > (and despite some by white -:) )...
> > I didn't play any moves that would qualify as blunders. I did play
>>Rxf8?! when R1h7+ would have won faster, but I was still winning
>>after that.
I hope you had noticed the smiley. I completely agree with the fact that
there are no real blunders on your side. Not the same for your opponent
however...
> > > I am still to be convinced by the
>>>non castling strategy (except perhaps when the opponent has castled
>>>really too early).
> > How is that possible? Non castling happens in grandmaster games all
>>
>>the time.
>
Well, I did some research in a scid (old) database. I selected all games
with both players above 2500 (around 50000), I suppressed short draws
(less than 20 moves), and looked for games involving no-castling. I found:
- 905 games with both sides not castling (~2%)
- 3313 games with black not castling (~6%)
- 2142 games with white not castling (~4%)
The score for the 50000 games is 56%, while it is 60% when black don't
castle, and 54% when white don't castle.
In the whole database there is 53% of draws. Draw percentage is only 40%
when white don't castle and 42% when black don't.
What I would learn from this :
a) It doesn't happen very often (<15%)
b) Scores are lower than the average for the side that doesn't castle.
c) Play is much more active
James
Remove 123 for actual mail address
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Aug 2005 14:24:26
From: Toni Lassila
Subject: Re: Could non-castling be a viable strategy?
|
On Tue, 30 Aug 2005 11:40:51 +0200, James <[email protected] > wrote:
>Well, I did some research in a scid (old) database. I selected all games
>with both players above 2500 (around 50000), I suppressed short draws
>(less than 20 moves), and looked for games involving no-castling.
How do you search for non-castling in SCID?
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Aug 2005 11:14:45
From: Terry
Subject: Re: Could non-castling be a viable strategy?
|
"James" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> lightarrow wrote:
>
> > > > (and despite some by white -:) )...
>> > I didn't play any moves that would qualify as blunders. I did play
>>>Rxf8?! when R1h7+ would have won faster, but I was still winning
>>>after that.
> I hope you had noticed the smiley. I completely agree with the fact that
> there are no real blunders on your side. Not the same for your opponent
> however...
>
>> > > I am still to be convinced by the
>>>>non castling strategy (except perhaps when the opponent has castled
>>>>really too early).
>
>> > How is that possible? Non castling happens in grandmaster games all
>>>
>>>the time.
>>
>
> Well, I did some research in a scid (old) database. I selected all games
> with both players above 2500 (around 50000), I suppressed short draws
> (less than 20 moves), and looked for games involving no-castling. I found:
> - 905 games with both sides not castling (~2%)
> - 3313 games with black not castling (~6%)
> - 2142 games with white not castling (~4%)
> The score for the 50000 games is 56%, while it is 60% when black don't
> castle, and 54% when white don't castle.
> In the whole database there is 53% of draws. Draw percentage is only 40%
> when white don't castle and 42% when black don't.
>
> What I would learn from this :
> a) It doesn't happen very often (<15%)
> b) Scores are lower than the average for the side that doesn't castle.
> c) Play is much more active
>
>
> James
> Remove 123 for actual mail address
There is something wrong with your analysis.
Most of us dont play > 2500
Regards
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 30 Aug 2005 13:23:52
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Could non-castling be a viable strategy?
|
Terry <[email protected] > wrote:
> "James" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> somebody wrote:
>>>> How is that possible? Non castling happens in grandmaster games all
>>>> the time.
>>
>> Well, I did some research in a scid (old) database. I selected all games
>> with both players above 2500 (around 50000), I suppressed short draws
>> (less than 20 moves), and looked for games involving no-castling.
>
> There is something wrong with your analysis.
> Most of us dont play > 2500
No, James's analysis is exactly right. He was addressing the question of
non-castling in GM games, as quoted above.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Impossible Edible Tongs (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a pair of tongs but you can eat
it and it can't exist!
|
| | |
Date: 26 Aug 2005 08:24:21
From: Terry
Subject: Re: Could non-castling be a viable strategy?
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bs'd
>
> I have A LOT of succes with the tactic of preparing the castling to
> both sides, but not actually castling.
> I wait until my opponent did the (usually short) castling, and then I
> start to attack his king side with my king side pawns.
>
> In the mean while, I still didn't castle.
>
> Usually I manage to break open his pawn structure in front of his king,
> and get open rook lines right into his king side, which is really a
> killer.
>
> By the time my attack is well on the way, I somewhere do the long
> castling, and get 2 rooks to attack his kingside, supported by my queen
> and light pieces.
> This is usually a killer.
>
> It is important not to do the long castling to early, because then the
> opponent might start to attack your kingside with his pawns, creating
> an about equal situation.
> When you wait with the long castling until he is under heavy attack, he
> is so busy defending he will not have any time to attack you.
>
> All the talk about controlling the center is undoubtely true, but only
> when you play on master level or higher.
>
> On my patzer level a brutal attack is worth much more then controlling
> the center.
>
> You don't win the game by mating the center.
>
>
> Eliyahu
>
Controlling the center is important at all levels.
All this depends on the strength of your opposition. If you are playing
patzers then they wont have the skills to show you the error of your
ways. To improve you need to play better players then yourself mixed
with players of your own strength to retain confidence.
Regards
|
| |
Date: 25 Aug 2005 10:05:45
From: knucmo
Subject: Re: Could non-castling be a viable strategy?
|
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 05:53:15 +0000 (UTC), Warp <[email protected] > wrote:
> I suppose I'm a rather beginner (although I don't have much concrete
>data on my own strength because of lack of playing in the past 15 years),
>so don't take this too seriously.
>
> Anyways, in a couple of games I have played in the internet I noticed
>one interesting thing:
> I lost my right to castling (more because of my own mistakes than
>anything else) so in order to compensate I started a strong attack
>with all my pawns towards both enemy wings, backed up with both rooks.
>I kept my king in the middle of the first or second line, protected
>by minor pieces.
>
> This kind of strategy felt interesting. Instead of castling and
>subsequently greatly diminishing the attacking power of the pawns
>in the castled wing, I made a full-scale attack on both wings using
>the pawns on both sides backed up with both rooks. This attack felt
>especially poweful in the wing where my opponent had castled, as it
>caused him a lot of pressure to defend it.
>
> The problem of this strategy was, naturally, that even though I tried
>to protect the king with the minor pieces, it was still a lot more
>vulnerable to attack. Another problem was that the rooks were not
>connected, which caused problems eventually. Moving the king to the
>second row connects the rooks but makes the king even more vulnerable
>to attack...
> One advantage, though, is that if the game proceeds quickly to the
>endgame, you already have the king in a good position instead of having
>to waste several moves to get it into play from the corner.
>
> Anyways, I was wondering if not castling can be a viable strategy.
>Are there any websites discussing this?
'Castle when you will, or if you must, but not when you can' - William
Napier
|
| |
Date: 25 Aug 2005 08:59:07
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Could non-castling be a viable strategy?
|
> I suppose I'm a rather beginner (although I don't have much concrete
> data on my own strength because of lack of playing in the past 15 years),
> so don't take this too seriously.
>
> Anyways, in a couple of games I have played in the internet I noticed
> one interesting thing:
> I lost my right to castling (more because of my own mistakes than
> anything else) so in order to compensate I started a strong attack
> with all my pawns towards both enemy wings, backed up with both rooks.
> I kept my king in the middle of the first or second line, protected
> by minor pieces.
>
> This kind of strategy felt interesting. Instead of castling and
> subsequently greatly diminishing the attacking power of the pawns
> in the castled wing, I made a full-scale attack on both wings using
> the pawns on both sides backed up with both rooks. This attack felt
> especially poweful in the wing where my opponent had castled, as it
> caused him a lot of pressure to defend it.
>
> The problem of this strategy was, naturally, that even though I tried
> to protect the king with the minor pieces, it was still a lot more
> vulnerable to attack. Another problem was that the rooks were not
> connected, which caused problems eventually. Moving the king to the
> second row connects the rooks but makes the king even more vulnerable
> to attack...
> One advantage, though, is that if the game proceeds quickly to the
> endgame, you already have the king in a good position instead of having
> to waste several moves to get it into play from the corner.
>
> Anyways, I was wondering if not castling can be a viable strategy.
> Are there any websites discussing this?
Not castling is always an option, especially in these situations:
1. Your opponent has castled prematurely, based on the expectation that you
will follow suit, and you can instead get an attack along the rook-file
against his castled king.
2. Your king gets pressured early by a check, and blocking would lead to
your pieces being pinned and/or tied up in knots (often in the king-pawn
games you'll see White's king duck to f1 to avoid a check rather than
block).
3. Your rooks are already developed on or near their original squares, and
castling would disrupt that.
4. The queens are off the board and you are close enough to an endgame that
you want the king centralized. This also happens a lot when there is one
open file in the center and the king is used to support doubled rooks on the
file.
5. You are Sam Sloan and follow up 1...f6 with 2...Kf7.
|
| |
Date: 25 Aug 2005 06:35:18
From: Ron
Subject: Re: Could non-castling be a viable strategy?
|
In article <[email protected] >, Warp <[email protected]> wrote:
> Anyways, I was wondering if not castling can be a viable strategy.
There are times when not castling is appropriate. Usually this happens
when the center is closed (no pawns have been exchanged, and there is no
easy way for your opponent to force the exchange of central pawns.)
The problem is that, in chess, pieces in the center of the board are
more powerful than pieces on the wings. A central attack generally beats
a wing attack. This is, in fact, one of the most important principles of
chess strategy: he who controls the center, wins.
At the same time, castling robotically can be a big mistake. You see
people "castle into it" all the time - when their opponents only logical
strategy, given the position, is to attack the kingside. And then they
castle kingside right into the firing line. That's no good.
But by and large, you need to understand that while everything in chess
has exceptions, the following is as true as anything:
The game of chess is dominated a battle for control of the center. The
player with central control is usually free to initiate the type of
action he wants to initiate, on the section of the board he wants to
initiate it.
Because of this, players will develop their pieces towards the center. A
tremendous amount of firepower from both players will gravitate towards
the center, and players will look for pawn breaks to activiate the
latent power of all their pieces ... in the center.
You do not want you king around when that happens. You want your king
as far away as possible.
Generally, you can avoid castling when
a) the position in the center is closed and will remain such
b) you can control of the center and are initiating play on the wings
c) the game will shortly be transitioning to an endgame where you want
to use your king as an active fighting piece.
Now "b" sounds a little like what you're describing, but you've got to
be really careful. Almost every book on attack opens with a chapter on
attacking a king in the center of the board, and for good reason: those
kings are easy targets, relatively speaking.
Be very careful.
Good luck.
-Ron
|
| | |
Date: 28 Aug 2005 20:45:20
From: Few Good Chessmen
Subject: Re: Could non-castling be a viable strategy?
|
"Ron" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Warp <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Anyways, I was wondering if not castling can be a viable strategy.
>
>
> There are times when not castling is appropriate. Usually this happens
> when the center is closed (no pawns have been exchanged, and there is no
> easy way for your opponent to force the exchange of central pawns.)
>
> The problem is that, in chess, pieces in the center of the board are
> more powerful than pieces on the wings. A central attack generally beats
> a wing attack. This is, in fact, one of the most important principles of
> chess strategy: he who controls the center, wins.
How secure is an uncastled King comparing to castled King in the Closed
Center (Perplexing indeed)? With Closed Center - he who controls the center
thru Castling (Adding a new force into Closed Center now imbalanced), wins
(Knowing a Central Attack generally beats a Wing Attack)...Ding Dong!
As usual Stass tip over the scale (Never cease to amuse by his
fallency)...don't scratch your head now. LOL
>
> At the same time, castling robotically can be a big mistake. You see
> people "castle into it" all the time - when their opponents only logical
> strategy, given the position, is to attack the kingside. And then they
> castle kingside right into the firing line. That's no good.
OMG, good OTB Psychological Tactic (Keep looking tensely other side of the
board leaving your opponent to believe that side only welcome troubles)!
Bloody two-timer...
>
> But by and large, you need to understand that while everything in chess
> has exceptions, the following is as true as anything:
>
> The game of chess is dominated a battle for control of the center. The
> player with central control is usually free to initiate the type of
> action he wants to initiate, on the section of the board he wants to
> initiate it.
>
> Because of this, players will develop their pieces towards the center. A
> tremendous amount of firepower from both players will gravitate towards
> the center, and players will look for pawn breaks to activiate the
> latent power of all their pieces ... in the center.
>
> You do not want you king around when that happens. You want your king
> as far away as possible.
>
> Generally, you can avoid castling when
>
> a) the position in the center is closed and will remain such
Errr...but shouldn't castling (Queenside Castling comes into mind as the
King is better positioned towards the Center readying for Endgame) distances
the King further away (double protection since the Center is now locked)
while pressuring and controlling the center with a new fighting force?
> b) you can control of the center and are initiating play on the wings
Seriously, castling connects both Rooks (More firepower) or switches the
Rook to the other side if you already have the Center and Wings to your
pocket and are initiating play on the favorable wing.
> c) the game will shortly be transitioning to an endgame where you want
> to use your king as an active fighting piece.
Again, Queeenside Castling bears the weight for Endgame consideration in
this regard.
How about all that for exceptions? Just my two cents...if worth any.
>
> Now "b" sounds a little like what you're describing, but you've got to
> be really careful. Almost every book on attack opens with a chapter on
> attacking a king in the center of the board, and for good reason: those
> kings are easy targets, relatively speaking.
To Castle or not to Castle as a viable strategy? That is the question OP is
asking. Stass only see Castling as Defensive short falls and neglected
its Attacking possibilities.
Here is a game to demostrate Castling Attacking possibilities.
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 d6 5. Bc6 bc6 6. d4 f6 7. Nc3 Rb8 8.
Be3 Rb2 9. de5 fe5 10. Ne5 de5 11. Qd8 Kd8 12. OOO and White is Exchange
ahead.
To prime for castling at the last moment might be too late - Bruce
Pandolfini, The Chess Doctor
|
|
