lichess.org
Donate

Named pawn structures page - need review

TotalNoob69

@RuyLopez1000 said ^

This doesn't make sense.

You list the Najdorf as a pawn structure...

I was sure you're going to say that :D The data I extracted is from the Wikipedia Pawn structure article, Andrew Soltis’s Pawn Structure Chess, Mauricio Flores Rios’s Chess Structures - a Grandmaster Guide, and opening theory. I am not going to say I am smarter than Soltis and Rios, even if I would disagree with their naming convention. But I will not exacerbate the problem.

But thanks to @ChessPriyome I am now researching the Euwe Kramer taxonomy.

@RuyLopez1000 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/08khDt25) > This doesn't make sense. > > You list the Najdorf as a pawn structure... I was sure you're going to say that :D The data I extracted is from the Wikipedia Pawn structure article, Andrew Soltis’s Pawn Structure Chess, Mauricio Flores Rios’s Chess Structures - a Grandmaster Guide, and opening theory. I am not going to say I am smarter than Soltis and Rios, even if I would disagree with their naming convention. But I will not exacerbate the problem. But thanks to @ChessPriyome I am now researching the Euwe Kramer taxonomy.
TotalNoob69

@ChessPriyome said ^

Besides that, it's not pronounced "reacher" in english. It is Phonetic: ˈrk.tər (RICK-tur).

His original spelling was Ritcher. Can we stop focusing on RuyLopez1000's spelling, though? :)

@ChessPriyome said [^](/forum/redirect/post/fVjvKL11) > Besides that, it's not pronounced "reacher" in english. It is Phonetic: ˈrk.tər (RICK-tur). His original spelling was Ritcher. Can we stop focusing on RuyLopez1000's spelling, though? :)
TotalNoob69

@ChessPriyome said ^

"I am beginning to think that pawn structures is a nebulous and not really scientifically researched subject."

You'd be wrong. Pawn Structures have been heavily studied; Books have been written about them:

I think you pasted the wrong link.

@ChessPriyome said [^](/forum/redirect/post/sxFrCCyD) > "I am beginning to think that pawn structures is a nebulous and not really scientifically researched subject." > > You'd be wrong. Pawn Structures have been heavily studied; Books have been written about them: I think you pasted the wrong link.
TotalNoob69

@RuyLopez1000 said ^

The Ritcher-Rauzer.

Guys, I know who the guy is. This whole deal relates to the first reply from RuyLopez1000. Let's drop it.

@RuyLopez1000 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/1Pe3uzGI) > > The Ritcher-Rauzer. Guys, I know who the guy is. This whole deal relates to the first reply from RuyLopez1000. Let's drop it.
fwh2026edited

In the diagram the OP posted, imo calling it the Richter-Rauzer formation is not helpful. Perhaps more appropriate would be calling it a Scheveningen formation, which to my mind is characterized by Black's e6,d6 pawn center. Then the Najdorf formation is defined by ...d6, ...e5.

Naming them after openings is just a convention, When the Najdorf variation is played 6.Bg5 e6, then it is a Scheveningen structure.

In the diagram the OP posted, imo calling it the Richter-Rauzer formation is not helpful. Perhaps more appropriate would be calling it a Scheveningen formation, which to my mind is characterized by Black's e6,d6 pawn center. Then the Najdorf formation is defined by ...d6, ...e5. Naming them after openings is just a convention, When the Najdorf variation is played 6.Bg5 e6, then it is a Scheveningen structure.
RuyLopez1000

@fwh2026 said ^

In the diagram the OP posted, imo calling it the Richter-Rauzer formation is not helpful. Perhaps more appropriate would be calling it a Scheveningen formation

This is back to front.

This is like saying "The Nadjorf structure is not helpful. More appropriate would be the Sicilian structure."

which to my mind is characterized by Black's e6,d6 pawn center.

If two positions have pawns on d6 and e6, that doesn't make it the same. The doubled f-pawns change the position.

@fwh2026 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/e8FVq1JI) > In the diagram the OP posted, imo calling it the Richter-Rauzer formation is not helpful. Perhaps more appropriate would be calling it a Scheveningen formation This is back to front. This is like saying "The Nadjorf structure is not helpful. More appropriate would be the Sicilian structure." >which to my mind is characterized by Black's e6,d6 pawn center. If two positions have pawns on d6 and e6, that doesn't make it the same. The doubled f-pawns change the position.
RuyLopez1000

@TotalNoob69 said ^

it's not a pawn structure, but a Sicilian variation.

You don't apply this to the Winawer variation for some reason.

The data I extracted is from the Wikipedia Pawn structure article, Andrew Soltis’s Pawn Structure Chess, Mauricio Flores Rios’s Chess Structures - a Grandmaster Guide, and opening theory. I am not going to say I am smarter than Soltis and Rios, even if I would disagree with their naming convention. But I will not exacerbate the problem.

I don't see what your response is here.

It is a pawn structure which you discriminate against simply because it's not common, and seemingly because it's not in those books/articles.

And if those articles/book are the gold standard then why make a thread asking for advice.

@TotalNoob69 said [^](/forum/redirect/post/ZiFSSvH7) >it's not a pawn structure, but a Sicilian variation. You don't apply this to the Winawer variation for some reason. >The data I extracted is from the Wikipedia Pawn structure article, Andrew Soltis’s Pawn Structure Chess, Mauricio Flores Rios’s Chess Structures - a Grandmaster Guide, and opening theory. I am not going to say I am smarter than Soltis and Rios, even if I would disagree with their naming convention. But I will not exacerbate the problem. I don't see what your response is here. It is a pawn structure which you discriminate against simply because it's not common, and seemingly because it's not in those books/articles. And if those articles/book are the gold standard then why make a thread asking for advice.