Talk:Pawn structure
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Would "Pawn Power in Chess" by Hans Kmoch be a good reference? (I haven't read it.) Should the Soltis book be listed as a reference? Bubba73 (talk), 18:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
- I've listed Soltis as a reference. If you add some material from Kmoch's book you should list it as a reference too. If you generally feel it would be a useful book you could list it under Further reading. Arvindn 19:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Good work, 1.e4 e5
Good work on pawn structure - keep it up. 1. e4 e5 openings don't seem to be represented. Are they not considered "major" by Soltis? Bubba73 (talk), 04:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
- Thanks. Good point about 1. e4 e5. The Ruy Lopez is certainly well represented: the d5 chain and the Rauzer formation. Some of the 1. e4 e5 openings are too tactical for the pawn structure to actually matter. The major one that I think is missing is ---->
- Does it have a name? Can you think of any other formations? Arvindn 05:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- We could always call it the "boring" formation. J/k ;-) Dave
This is an idiosyncratic entry. There is no discussion of general pawn structure issues: backward, doubled, etc. pawns. I don't like the categorization according to Soltis' framework. I see there are separate links to the more traditional topics in any discussion of pawn structure, but I would think that would be the main focus on an encyclopedia entry. This is more advanced than a general introductory encyclopedia entry, which I would have found useless as an advancing player. (Blue Devil Knight)
