Its a choice they make, they either call your bluff (its not, but you have play accurately or you lose) or they let the chance go and castle. And that one is for real, the opponent can push to get the material advantage willingly, but the drawbacks are at face value also, king stuck in the center against 2 rooks in open files. That one is a fluke, but there are lines in the modern scandinavian where you offer a piece and a pawn, but you have a vicious attack and you wouldnt want to be on the receiving end. That piece can come into play in 2 moves, or 10, it always applies on situational basis, but you do need to use your advantage either to mate your opponent or say promote a pawn and recover the piece, while maintaining the positional advantage, or turning the material advantage in your favor, even some cases where that extra rook they have is a glorified "goalkeeper", dedicated solely to block a defended pawn in the 7th rank.įor instance, the halloween gambit is easy to refute, but if your opponent doesnt respond accurately in a key move, you get massive advantage. Positional advantage is better so long you have an attack and can actually end the game before the extra material they have on you enters the play, else, you are donzo. It doesnt matter if you have a rook advantage and the rook is tucked in the corner. I have games where i either willingly accepted a lesser exchange, when they actually got the better exchange by force or i just outright blundered a piece, but i had positional advantage and won the game.Ĭonversely, i have a lot of games when either side has material advantage and still lost by force. I have games where i have merely position advantage with minimum piece exchanges and 0 extra material, and the engine has given me +7 or more Is there any answer in chess theory? For instance, isn't it true in terms of chess theory that if both sides play perfect because of first move advantage white will win? I think 80% of chess tactics/puzzles is about material advantage. Question: Should I play my natural, carefree style where I KNOW it is my weakness and just go with it or should I use EFFORT to retain that extra pawn and improve my gamesmanship of material advantage if I wish to improve on the long run? My two greatest weakness are: pawn promotion and material pawn advtangage. As someone hovering rating between 1600-1800, I deliberately sacrifice pawn as an "investment" to "buy" positional advantage. Ultimately, the side which is up by a pawn will win.īut sometimes in timed game blunder happens and just like this example, people forget the ultimate point of the game. Generally in terms of chess theory, is material advantage always superior to positional advantage? Or does it depend on time? For instance, in an untimed game especially against a high level AI such as Stockfish 3000, it is all about rigor and precision. Of course even though the black has a queen advantage, it is white to move and win.
#FRITZ CHESS ADVANTAGE WHITE BLACK HOW TO#
I don't know how to embed but here is a classic example: For sub-2000 level, direct checkmate is always the name of the game. So my chess training and WIP has been influenced from the coach of a rival website that shall not be named.
0 kommentar(er)
