ultimate chess

Ultimate Chess

Grant and you will unmask!
Strange name, real interests
[ Sign up | Log in | Guest ] (beta)
jhivebee 32 ( +1 | -1 )
Castling traps In a past game I fall into a very bad castling trap traping my king behing 3 prawns.
I made sure not to fall into that one again. But my memory tell me back from the days I played with my brother that you can't just have the 3 prawns.
So what do remend is castling
typefreak 36 ( +1 | -1 )
In my opinion, trapping your own King behind 3 pawns can be easily avoided, just move the pawn directly in front of your king 1 spot. Not only does this give your king some room, but it also gives that pawn a stronger position. (guarded by the other two). This helped me out on severall occasions.
misato 146 ( +1 | -1 )
No "best" solution Moving the g-pawn without reason weakens your position because you produce very ugly holes nearby you King, it's a typical "Swiss cheese position". You should avoid that unless you have a bishop to cover these holes. And be careful with that bishop, it should only be traded for the opposite bishop on the same colour, or the holes will soon become craters!
Some move the h-pawn (h7-h6), mostly to attack a bishop (on g5) which is pinning a knight (on f6) - not so bad. But experienced players may use this h6-pawn as a weak-point of attack (by moving their g-pawn) to open lines against your King. It depends on the situation, as always!
I wouldn't recommend to move the f-pawn generally either because you offer a perfect diagonal line to your opponent (bishop or Queen can be very uncomfortable on b3-c4-d5-e6-f7-g8). If you "hide" afterwards by Kg8-h8, you should be aware of the danger you initially wanted to avoid (trapping your King).

Conclusion:
First-best solution is always to be aware of this danger and take measures as soon as they become real/visible.
Second-best solution is to move the h-pawn.
Third-best solution is to fianchetto your bishop to g7.
Touching the f-pawn is courageous and optimistic.

Of course, this no over-all-truth (all players, all positions), the given sequence (priority 2-4) may differ from situation to situation.

Take care of yourself (and your King)
bucklehead 172 ( +1 | -1 )
Usually you want the three pawns... ...to serve as cover for your king. Perhaps what you mean is that with your king on g1, for instance, and pawns on f2, g2, and h2, that you can be easily checkmated should a black rook or queen slide down and attack you. This is called a "back-rank" checkmate and should be, of course, avoided. You can do this by keeping a rook or your queen on the same rank as your king (so that any attacking piece can be captured) or, as typefreak suggests, making a "window" in your pawn wall to be sure your king can escape if he needs to.

I don't think you need to make these kind of pawn preparations before you castle, however, since your rook will automatically be guarding the approach to your king. (DO make sure, however, to check for mating threats before you move this rook away from your king!). But if you absolutely *need* to to set your mind at ease, I'd recommend moving the h-pawn (after kingside castling). This may help hem in the opponent's queen bishop somewhat and not create too many holes. The problem with a move like g3 or g6 (assuming you don't follow it up by placing a bishop on g2 or g7, which is quite common) is that 1) it creates a nasty hole at h3/h6 where the enemy's bishop can slip in and 2) it's vulnerable to an attack from the enemy's advancing h-pawn, which can ultimately open up a painful hole right in front of your king.

Remember, pawns are at their strongest and most flexible on their home squares, and pawns cannot move backward. Because of this, no pawn move should be made without careful consideration.
ccmcacollister 10 ( +1 | -1 )
WHAT ??! The King is trapped behind Prawns ?!!
Oh my; those must have been ... King Prawns !? :))
* * *
}8-)
typefreak 7 ( +1 | -1 )
The biggest disadvantage of moving the G-pawn (as I suggested), is an opposing Knight at h3 or h6
gajolen 177 ( +1 | -1 )
Ahh the good old back rank mate strikes again, i think every chess player has fallen into that at some point :)

Misato gave a pretty good explanation why it is not good to move the pawns in the front of your king.

Usually in the opening or midle game moving any pawn in front of your king is a "weak" move. It Weakens your king safety, creating holes near your king where the oponent can safely place his pieces without being attacked by any of your pawns, it is also slow, it gives the oponent tempo he will be the one who direct the game in the direction he prefer, and you are just reacting to his moves. If you can force the oponent to move a pawn in front of his king you already have started to weaken his king position. Often strong players are willing to sacrifice stronger pieces just for a weakness in the pawn shield, so if you make those weakness your self, you should start to think about how you can avoid it.

You must control open files !

If you control the open files the oponent can not move his Queen or rook to your back rank and check mate you.

If you control Open files the oponent can not goto your second rank and grab your pawns.

If you control the open files you threaten the oponent with back rank mate, or you may force him to move pawns in front of his king , he has to react to your moves and you can dictate the game to go in the direction you like.

If you control open files you lock the oponents Rook's and Queen on the back rank, as they can not leave or you can give him a back rank mate !

If you control open files you threaten to go to the openents second rank, and fork his pawns, again he is on the defensive side.
misato 201 ( +1 | -1 )
example with a (too?) early h2-h3 In my opinion this game (Gioco pianissomo) is a good example for the weakness in the white King's position because of an early pawn move. I played this game recently at GK with the black tokens:

1. e4 e5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. Bc4 Nf6
4. d3 Bc5
5. O-O d6
6. h3
At this point I already decided not to castle on the King's side rather to attack his King's position. Of course, White didn't want to avoid any mate on the back rank, he only wanted to block the g4-square for my bishop.

6. - Na5
7. Bg5 Nxc4
8. dxc4 h6
This is no "weakening" move because of my decision after move #6. The plan still is to roll forward with my f-, g- and h-pawns destroying the white pawn-wall. 9. Bg5-h4 would allow me to play 9. g7-g5 winning another tempo.

9. Bxf6 Qxf6
10. Nc3 c6
11. Na4 Bb4
I wanted to keep the pair of bishops, even if his Queen's-side pawns will roll on. No decision yet whether to castle on that side or leave the black King in the center.

12. a3 Ba5
13. b4 Bc7
14. c5 dxc5
15. Nxc5 g5
Now it's my activity again. No need to change the initial plan.

16. Nh2 h5
17. Qf3 Qxf3
Probably 17. - Qf6-g6 is more dangerous for White, threatening 18. - g5-g4 (opening either the g- or h-file for the rook(s)). His two knights have very limited power, and my non-moved(!) bishop on c8 has already become a giant. I really don't know why I traded the Queens!! A good explanation might be that most of the games in this tournament group were running in my favour, so that I could live with a draw in a game versus the strongest opponent. So I was happy with a comfortable-looking endgame providing some winning-chances:

18. Nxf3 g4
19. hxg4 hxg4
20. Nd2
The rest of the game is not important in this context because after the Queens' exchange Black's attack has vanished. A draw would have been a fair result overall. Later on, first Black made a little inaccurancy which could be repaired, in the end White blundered heavily and lost.

I think I was too timid with my move #17. Maybe 17. - Qf6-g6 would have been a better proof for the weakness of his move 6. h2-h3.