PilateBlue: I haven't read the Chernev book you mentioned, but I imagine Chernev was talking about cases where a player mindlessly pushes his/her h-pawn forward (h4, h5, h6, etc.). Although it is often a bad idea to do that, the "every position must be evaluated individually" principle applies here, as h-pawn pushes by white are part of standard game plans in the Grünfeld and the Pirc, among other openings.
Advancing the h-pawn
Sort:
Jan 23, 2015
0
#3
I think it makes a difference in which phase of the game you are, and whether you're talking about P-R3 or P-R4. Absolute beginners like to open with P-R4 (1. a4 or 1. h4) which is ridiculously poor, but later in the opening P-R3 (a3, h3, a6, h6) is sometimes necessary, especially to remove pieces like bishops and knights camping out on your N4 square(s). However, moving *any* pawn in front of your castled king creates a potential weakness, so such a move should be done with wisdom and caution. This double-edged positional move is sometimes mentioned in various books as having an inherent tradeoff, as in the book below.
----------
(p. 238)
86
AILMENT:
Letting enemy units camp out in your
position.
Many players telegraph their intentions by moving
a piece into your half of the board to prepare for
future operations. Because there is no immediate
threat, you let the piece sit uncontested. This gives
your opponent time to reinforce his beachhead with
other forces, and suddenly you're caught napping
and are besieged.
Rx
1. Don't let enemy pieces sit in your half of the
board.
2. Especially watch out for skulking knights.
3. If the situation permits, play P-R3 and drive back
the intruder.
4. Make sure you can survive the weakness of this
advance.
5. Don't make unnecessary defensive moves.
6. Be psychologically prepared for surprise inva-
sions.
7. If you're hit with an unexpected move in the
opening, keep or fight for the initiative.
8. Be willing to accept a problem for a greater good.
Schackoo wrote:
I believe those are called "prophylactic moves". As a preemptive act when anticipating future attacks, I don't see any majore negative aspects in those moves.
They were invented for the longterm thinker, and blitzplayers seem to hate prophylaxis. They stop lots of nasty bishop-pins too.
Yes, the objective is to prevent or stop a pin and to provide a luft, but Chernev quotes Publius Syrus: "There are some remedies worse than the disease." Chernev adds, "All chess theorists affirm the validity of the concept of leaving the kingside pawns unmoved" because it causes an "organic weakness." He writes quite a bit about how terrible of a move h3/h6 is. This is absolutely perplexing to me that one of the most well-respected chess writers of all time would be completely at odds with seemingly all great players on this issue.
I always play queens gambit bc I've gotten good with the lines but I just walked my H pawn all the way down sacrificing it when my opponent captured it with his pawn he double his pawns infront of rook then I played d4 he took d5e5 I played e3…..then a nice queen check on file and after u take e5 free rook
Depending on how they Play
In Logical Chess: Move by Move, Irving Chernev claims that moving the h-pawn is almost always an error (a "coffehouse" move, as he says) when you intend to or have already castled king-side, because it weakens your King's position. However I've noticed that players such as Carlsen, Kasparov, Karpov, et al. have no issues with playing h3/h6. Is this a rule for amateurs only? Does his advice have any merit at all?