Why do people pin down knights?

like that i dont understand cant the pawn  be pushed forward to h6 and move the bishop back and then just play a chase away game by moving the pawn on g7 up? pleae explain this it seems like a waste of a move to me

First off, nobody that understands chess plays the line you have displayed above.  Far more common is 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5, which makes far more sense.

Secondly, why on earth would you push h6?  You sure you don't mean a6?

The logic behind 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 is very simple.

1.e4 - Take control of the central squares d5 and f5

1...e5 - Black does the same taking control of d4 and f4 and preventing White from having a pawn duo in the center

2.Nf3 - White goes first, so White attacks Black's e-pawn.

2...Nc6 - Black Defends the pawn

3.Bb5 - White attacks the defender.  However, this is not a threat as 3...a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6! (ABSOLUTLEY NOT 4...bxc6 because of 5.Nxe5) and now 5.Nxe5 does not win a pawn as 5...Qd4 forks the Knight and e-pawn and so the e-pawn will drop.

All of that said, the fact that you view it as chasing down Knights and not as trying to gain control over certain squares tells me you aren't ready for opening theory anyway.  Study tactics, endgames, and strategy/positional play.

Many people think that a Light-Squared Bishop can only impact light squares.  WRONG!  A knight that sits on a light square controls dark squares, and so if you are under a lot of pressure on the dark squares, you can allieviate the issue by giving up your light-squared bishop for a knight, so yes, the Light-Squared Bishop can have immediate impact on the dark squares.

lol i wasnt worried about the line...i was just trying to show the position of the bishop and knight with as little moves as possbile...i didnt say anything about chasing down a knight, i was asking why pin down the knight if the bishop can just be chased out, do you understand now?

I think the idea is you don't let him get chased out, you swap pieces.  This forces black a bit away from whatever he was planning, plus gives him a doubled pawn weekening his pawn line.

Just my two cents...

Sometimes the bishop is used to eliminate the knight (with a capture) or temporarily (with a pin, and no intention of capturing) and so permanently or temporarily affect two central squares (in your diagram d4 and e5).  It's not always about central squares... but often is... anyway...

But it's interesting.  Other times you're just getting it off your back rank to castle.  It's in the way, and the best square to move it out of the way happens to be on the 5th rank.

In your specific example, which is almost a ruy lopez, sometimes white chooses to capture the knight.  When white chooses to avoid capturing and lets the bishop be chased away (often all the way down to c2) there is a trade off going on.  Black's early advances on the queenside gain space, but are also weakening.  Both the squares they leave behind and the pawns themselves may prove to be a weakness.  Meanwhile the bishop heads for c2 which supports white's pawn on e4 and allows the d pawn to not worry about supporting from d3 (so it can challenge black's center and claim more space by going to d4 and sometimes d5).

If you're thinking about a gain of time, it's not really gaining time to move pawns.  Falling behind in developing the knights and bishops off your back rank (and castling) is what will get you in trouble.  Pawn moves aren't development and are always two sided.  They gain space, but they create weakness at the same time.  In the ruy lopez (as in many openings) both players agree to a set a weaknesses and strengths.

shagreezz3 wrote:

ThrillerFan wrote:

First off, nobody that understands chess plays the line you have displayed above.  Far more common is 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5, which makes far more sense.

Secondly, why on earth would you push h6?  You sure you don't mean a6?

The logic behind 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 is very simple.

1.e4 - Take control of the central squares d5 and f5

1...e5 - Black does the same taking control of d4 and f4 and preventing White from having a pawn duo in the center

2.Nf3 - White goes first, so White attacks Black's e-pawn.

2...Nc6 - Black Defends the pawn

3.Bb5 - White attacks the defender.  However, this is not a threat as 3...a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6! (ABSOLUTLEY NOT 4...bxc6 because of 5.Nxe5) and now 5.Nxe5 does not win a pawn as 5...Qd4 forks the Knight and e-pawn and so the e-pawn will drop.

All of that said, the fact that you view it as chasing down Knights and not as trying to gain control over certain squares tells me you aren't ready for opening theory anyway.  Study tactics, endgames, and strategy/positional play.

Many people think that a Light-Squared Bishop can only impact light squares.  WRONG!  A knight that sits on a light square controls dark squares, and so if you are under a lot of pressure on the dark squares, you can allieviate the issue by giving up your light-squared bishop for a knight, so yes, the Light-Squared Bishop can have immediate impact on the dark squares.

lol i wasnt worried about the line...i was just trying to show the position of the bishop and knight with as little moves as possbile...i didnt say anything about chasing down a knight, i was asking why pin down the knight if the bishop can just be chased out, do you understand now?

The other idea is that chasing out the bishop will severely weaken your pawn structure in some cases, pawn to b5 can sometimes be answered with a very strong a4!

Pinning a knight is not always the best move.  However, as pointed out by others, if you can exchange and double your opponent's pawns to create a positional weakness, then that could result in an endgame advantage and a win.  Even if your bishop is "chased away" as you put it, that could also create pawn chain weaknesses and opportunity for counterplay.  Notably, if your opponent has castled kingside, advancing the pawns to "chase" the bishop will expose his king to attack.

I guess question is knight worth bishop. some cases you play what the position demands. pins have to be effective. what you describe is a perpetuate pin; meaning it is a possibility.

AKAL1 - Unless a game is being played between two complete patzers, there is a reason for moves that are played.  It's not just about pinning Knights.  If that's your view of chess, you have a LOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGG way to go before you'll be remotely respectable at the chess board.

In openings where Bishops pinning or attacking Knights early, note how each of them has a purpose behind it:

Ruy Lopez - 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 (attack e5) Nc6 3.Bb5 (Attack the defender of e5 - I don't care about the Knight, I want to win the e5-pawn!) a6 (tactics show White can't win the pawn yet) 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 (now e4 is guarded, I better prevent White from taking on e5 now) b5! 7.Bb3 d6

Nimzo-Indian - 1.d4 Nf6 (The reason 1...d5, 1...Nf6, and 1...f5 are the most popular moves are because they are the ONLY 3 moves that specifically prevent White from getting the other central pawn on its ideal square, e4) 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 (Threatening to play 4.e4 - This must be stopped) Bb4 (Black has a couple of options - 3...d5 is the Queen's Gambit Declined, and adds another controller of e4.  3...Bb4 is an indirect approach where instead of adding another piece to the control of e4, you pin the Knight on c3 to the King so that it no longer fights for the e4-square, but again, it's about that e4 square, not the Knight itself!

Classical French - 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 (Black threatens e4) 4.Bg5 (Instead of advancing it or playing an inferior move like 4.f3, White pins the Knight to the Queen so that the Knight no longer attacks e4.  Well, he could take one 4, but it now would cost him his Queen!)  So once again, the Pinning of the Knight by the Bishop is not to grab the Knight, but to regain control of a central square, in this case, e4.

Chess is about the big picture, and control of territory, not about creating pins and eliminating specific pieces.  Those that go into a game pre-meditating "I hate dealing with Knights, so I'll eliminate his Knights as quickly as possible", are idiots!

There can be several different reasons for doing this:

1: In openings such as the Ruy Lopez (AKA The Spanish Game), this bishop move aims to pin down the knight on c6, which could be defending the e5 pawn. The plan is to take control of the centre.

2: Your opponent may be attempting to play a closed game, in which knights are often better than bishops, so by exchanging their bishop for your knight they are giving themselves an advantage.

3: Your opponent may feel that your knight is a valuable attacker for you, so by pinning it or taking it they are removing the threat.

4: Your opponent is inexperienced and just playing that move because it looks good.

What I said was that kicking out the bishop can cause a weak pawn structure, ThrillerFan. Sorry, my quotes sometimes don't format properly

Not all doubled pawns are weak.  Sometimes they can be really strong as they control key central squares.

I was referring to say, an h6-g5-f7 pawn formation where h4 can cause black difficulties

Thanks ThrillerFan. I like your comment about the light-squared bishops and knights on a light-coloured square controlling only dark-coloured squares.

your opponent pinned your knight because you allowed them to

The position you posted does not contain a pin.
But to answer your question, people don't pin for fun.

So "why do people pin knights?"
Well, same reason they pin other pieces: because it's provident

Perhaps you'd care to take a look at this here game:
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1761734

Which I think makes the merit of pinning pieces obvious.

thank you everybody