In a game of chess, amateurs always misunderstand the importance of Pawns and tend to sacrifice Pawns to make way for other conventional openings and neglecting middlegame strategies. This is understandable, as amateur players need to experience the importance of Pawns as they gain experience in battles and competitions. Hence, the true abilities of Pawns will start to surface and appreciated by the very player whom has neglected it in the beginning.
Effective Frontal defence is achieved by depicting threatening frontal offence and this can only be accomplished with Pawns. As such, the last line of defence the King would have to the end is also a piece of Pawn. End for the Paws marks end of the game.
Thus comes an argument, is it logical to sacrifice major pieces of Pawns to secure one or two places for favourite Pawns? Could that gives the same impact if a Bishop or a Castle being sacrificed for a late middlegame strategy?
As specific i can be, but in a general issue. I do not wish to underestimate certain Pawns just because they are in front of a Bishop and can be eliminated, but i am seeing the Pawns position, although carries only one point, but it has the power to stop a three point Bishop. Where the power actually lies, then?
Point to ponder..
Don
Kill th "Kill"
No comments:
Post a Comment