Skip to main content
4 votes
Accepted

Is it ever advantageous to make a trade that loses material for the sake a positional advantage?

Yes! It is. One common example of giving up material for positional reasons is the exchange sacrifice. See Laszlo Szabo vs Tigran Petrosian. On move 14 Petrosian sacrifices the rook for the knight in ...
Awalrod's user avatar
  • 199
4 votes
Accepted

What's the benefit to attacking f7 or f2 during the opening?

Thumbnail of really good video: Attacking f7 by thechesswebsite The point of attacking Black's f7 (and White's f2 respectively) is that only the king starts off defending that square! Every other ...
qwr's user avatar
  • 3,902
3 votes
Accepted

Why do some common openings move a pawn in front a bishop prior to moving the king's or queen's pawn?

First off: please use algebraic notation to denote moves. This will not only help whoever is answering you to better understand your question but also yourself because it is the common way to describe ...
bakunin's user avatar
  • 477
3 votes

As a beginner, should I concern myself with pawn structure during opening, or just focus on developing my knights and bishops and winning time?

The following is a crash-course in - general - opening theory. It is less about the concrete position but about general principles and their application. I hope it will indirectly answer your ...
bakunin's user avatar
  • 477
2 votes

For a beginner focused on reducing blunders, should I study positional theory or tactics more?

The real problem you face as a beginner is that you are overwhelmed: there are 32 pieces on the board and you need to be aware of any possible interaction between any number of them - a gargantuan ...
bakunin's user avatar
  • 477
2 votes

For a beginner focused on reducing blunders, should I study positional theory or tactics more?

You should train tactics more. Any positional move or longer strategy is useless if the position on the board allows you or your opponent to finish the game in a few moves by a forced continuation, so ...
MikeTrans's user avatar
2 votes
Accepted

When is it worth it to sacrifice a knight or bishop in order to force the opponent to move the king down a rank and lose castling rights?

This question requires concrete calculation. When you play moves like this, you lose material, but you force your opponent's king to move. Which is worth more? Well, forcing your opponent's king to ...
Allure's user avatar
  • 27.9k
2 votes

When is it worth it to sacrifice a knight or bishop in order to force the opponent to move the king down a rank and lose castling rights?

To voluntarily sacrifice a piece you need either a concrete tactical justification (regaining material or checkmating by force) or enough positional compensation. Here you have neither. True, Black ...
Noam D. Elkies's user avatar
1 vote
Accepted

As a beginner, should I concern myself with pawn structure during opening, or just focus on developing my knights and bishops and winning time?

This is a good question that won't be answered the same way by every chess player or coach. I personally belive that an healthy mix between looking at openings, solving tactic puzzles and knowing some ...
OneTrickDragon's user avatar
1 vote

Is it ever advantageous to make a trade that loses material for the sake a positional advantage?

Yes. Here is a trivial example: [FEN "4k3/8/1p1p1p1p/pPpPpPpP/P1P1P1P1/8/8/R2QK2R w - - 0 1"] White to move can't make progress except by sacrificing their queen against one of Black's pawns....
Polytropos's user avatar

Only top scored, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible