[thechat] email chess

[Luther, Ron]

Morgan Kelsey noted lots of good stuff on chess strategy:

>>openings:
>>- if you castle queenside, make sure the rook pawn is covered! (see my game with
>>mr luther for the why).

;-P    Oh pshaw, that was just my _last_ mistake.

>>- try to gain control of the center four squares of the board.

Can't stress this one enough.  *This* is where I _really_ lost the game. 
Probably on the 2nd or 3rd move. If you don't have control or fight hard 
for control of these squares at the very beginning of the game, then your 
opponent has 'position' and dictates the pace and direction of the rest 
of the game.  Can you lose a game on the very 1st move? Yes - if you don't 
use your very first move to attack the center of the board ... then any 
decent opponent is going smile wide.  They can smell the blood, They know 
the game is already over. (Dang it!  I _know_ this one and still got 
taken to school over it! Rats!)


>>- position aside, piece values are generally accepted to be:
>>bishop or knight - 3pts
>>two bishops is generally preferable to two knights 

I've seen it put this way. But I've also seen a line of thought, (maybe 
"old school"), that puts the knight value at 3 pawns and the bishop 
value at 3 & 1/3 pawns ... to show that it is slightly more valuable 
than a knight.


One more 'strategic' mid-game note:

If you are facing a 'stronger' player in a game and get a chance to 'trade 
even', (like trade queens for instance), take it.  The better player will 
see more possibilities with the piece than you will - so trading even 
actually improves your odds. And a stronger player will see more potential 
combinations with many pieces on the board - so removing pieces puts more 
'restrictions' on your opponent than on you.


RonL.
('Bad Bishop'? Oh sorry, I was reading the news ..... If you reach 
a level where you can consciously think about trading away a 'bad bishop' 
during a game ... you are probably already a pretty advanced player.)