Article: 4197 of rec.games.chess.analysis Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.analysis Path: info!dregis From: dregis@exeter.ac.uk (D.Regis) Subject: Re: A couple of questions for KID enthusiasts.... Message-ID: Organization: University of Exeter, UK. References: <54af4g$c3k$1@zeus.crosslink.net> <553gtk$gru$1@zeus.crosslink.net> Date: Fri, 1 Nov 1996 14:41:40 GMT >In article , dregis@exeter.ac.uk says... >> >>Did that help at all? If not, where did you fall off? In article <553gtk$gru$1@zeus.crosslink.net> treehaus@crosslink.net (MLK and RJP) writes: >Mostly when I play the KID, I get the Saemisch,4-pawns (yuk), or fianchetto >var. But in studying the opening, it became apparent that the backward d-pawn >could result. It's one thing to read an explanation of why the pawn is not >weak, it's another to actually *see* why it isn't. Unfortunately, it was never >really clear to me even from observing the games that had the backward pawn. [gist below also e-mailed] I know what you mean, I think: in the 1953 games both Black and White know that the d-Pawn isn't really weak, so they don't try to attack it directly, and don't fail in the attempt. Does anyone have a canonical Bronstein or Bondarevsky game from, say, the 1940s, where someone had a go at the d-Pawn and came unstuck? If not you can try playing-out the position (from both sides) - maybe against a computer or against someone on FICS. If you try to attack it and don't succeed in showing that it is weak, you'll maybe know why - and if you try to attack it and succeed, we'll have to let Bronstein know! -- May your pieces harmonise with your Pawn structure and your sacrifices be sound in all variations D _ / "()/~ Dave Regis &8^D* WWW: http://www.ex.ac.uk/~dregis/DR/chess.html || \_/| = DrDave on BICS ~\ / "...what else exists in the world but chess?" _|||__SHEU: ~/sheu.html -- NABOKOV From info!dregis Fri Nov 1 16:54:27 GMT 1996