I had never heard it that simply stated before! But thinking back on it I do remember strong chess streamers making offhand comments often about being frustrated a high value piece needed to defend a pawn, them explaining in some situations that they'd rather sacrifice a pawn then have their rook tied down to its defense, etc. It all just clicked for me!
Proud to say I got the puzzles right each time; the specific move and the basic reason why :)
I had never heard it that simply stated before! But thinking back on it I do remember strong chess streamers making offhand comments often about being frustrated a high value piece needed to defend a pawn, them explaining in some situations that they'd rather sacrifice a pawn then have their rook tied down to its defense, etc. It all just clicked for me!
Proud to say I got the puzzles right each time; the specific move and the basic reason why :)
That part where white plays Kf3 is actually pretty funny!
That part where white plays Kf3 is actually pretty funny!
Wow, you covered a very unique topic. I am interested in learning about this more. PLEASE SEND THESE TYPES OF ARTICLES FREQUENTLY.
Wow, you covered a very unique topic. I am interested in learning about this more. PLEASE SEND THESE TYPES OF ARTICLES FREQUENTLY.
Haha, I'd play Kf3 in the second position! The main reason is that this looks like a Makogonov that black horribly misplayed. So he has just no way to make progress on the kingside. He can get a knight on f4 and we won't be able to take it since that'd both revive black's dead bishop and give him some useful squares/lines. But that's it. Trying to play h5 probably only helps white.
The perks are that our king gets a bit closer to the center, and the queenside in particular. It's kind-of-sort-of arguably prophylactic against Nf4, and pawns don't go backwards. I mean it's entirely conceivable that Be3 being protected could be useful in some situations.
I don't think the king getting closer to the center is entirely hand-wavy either. Because black can't really make progress on the kingside he may well look to oppose us on the c-file, and if heavies start getting lopped off, then being one square closer could be a very big deal.
Haha, I'd play Kf3 in the second position! The main reason is that this looks like a Makogonov that black horribly misplayed. So he has just no way to make progress on the kingside. He can get a knight on f4 and we won't be able to take it since that'd both revive black's dead bishop and give him some useful squares/lines. But that's it. Trying to play h5 probably only helps white.
The perks are that our king gets a bit closer to the center, and the queenside in particular. It's kind-of-sort-of arguably prophylactic against Nf4, and pawns don't go backwards. I mean it's entirely conceivable that Be3 being protected could be useful in some situations.
I don't think the king getting closer to the center is entirely hand-wavy either. Because black can't really make progress on the kingside he may well look to oppose us on the c-file, and if heavies start getting lopped off, then being one square closer could be a very big deal.
Allah Allah sanki bizde hiç bilmiyorduk
Allah Allah sanki bizde hiç bilmiyorduk
I've also heard this countless times from watching Naroditsky, thankfully!
I've also heard this countless times from watching Naroditsky, thankfully!
A related concept by Nimzovich ... if you have to defend a strategic point with pieces, it can be worthwhile to overprotect it. If two pieces are required to defend e4 (suppose the f-pawn is not available) then two pieces defending that point are completely tied down, but if three pieces defend that point, each of the three pieces is free to move. He called it "overprotection" or something like that. It seems inefficient, but makes some sense.
A related concept by Nimzovich ... if you have to defend a strategic point with pieces, it can be worthwhile to overprotect it. If two pieces are required to defend e4 (suppose the f-pawn is not available) then two pieces defending that point are completely tied down, but if three pieces defend that point, each of the three pieces is free to move. He called it "overprotection" or something like that. It seems inefficient, but makes some sense.
This rule is due to Steinitz, I think. One example is Lasker - Steinitz, 1894, 7th matchgame (...Nh8!?).
This rule is due to Steinitz, I think. One example is Lasker - Steinitz, 1894, 7th matchgame (...Nh8!?).
<Comment deleted by user>
This rule has been written about in chess books. In particular: New Art of Defense by Andy Soltis. In it he writes: "THE PRINCIPLE OF ECONOMY - Wilhelm Steinitz is credited with this advice: Try to find a way to meet a threat in the least ‘expensive’ way. That means without giving up material or making major positional concessions."
This rule has been written about in chess books. In particular: New Art of Defense by Andy Soltis. In it he writes: "THE PRINCIPLE OF ECONOMY - Wilhelm Steinitz is credited with this advice: Try to find a way to meet a threat in the least ‘expensive’ way. That means without giving up material or making major positional concessions."
