At a basic level, what we want from an opening and a defense, is: we want to be fighting for the center squares (1), we're trying to develop our pieces and get good squares for them (2), and thirdly, we want to have a safe king (3). This is as modest a expectation as one can have for a good opening.
Now roughly speaking, there are two types of defenses (say ...
Some things that are probably part of the answer, but probably not complete and concrete enough:
1...a6 won't come. There is no threat to a pawn on e5, the knight isn't pinned, the only point of 3.Bb5 is to exchange it on c6. So black doesn't waste a tempo on forcing white to do what he was already going to do.
On the other hand, black has a choice to make,...
I do not know that I would say "happy", but in chess, there are pluses and minuses to every move we make, and on top of that, there are exceptions to many positional concepts. We see GMs move pieces twice in the opening all the time when there is a good reason.
Now, as to that specific position, black is, indeed, somewhat behind in development, but has ...
Obviously black has violated principles such as:
don't move a piece twice
However opening principles are just general guidelines and in very concrete positions like the one at hand they are of little use. There are many established openings where opening principles are broken, so nothing wrong with that.
In the final position it is white's ...
The main reasons it is OK for black is that he is still down only one tempo in piece development, but he has traded off his bad bishop for white's good bishop, and his position is still very solid so he will catch up in development eventually. The downside is that white has more space. Black can eventually fight back with c5 after finishing his development, ...
One way NOT to develop rooks in the opening is via something like
I (a duffer) played a series of twenty or so games against someone who insisted on opening like this. He never won a game against me.
Best advice is to follow the common wisdom that rooks are usually developed last.
A few things:
1) White's actually not wasting any tempi. He has to move his bishop out anyway (in order to castle). Then, once on b5, taking on c6 doesn't waste a tempo since Black has to spend a tempo recapturing.
2) The doubled c-pawns are more of a big deal than they'd be in, say, the Ruy Lopez Exchange variation. Since Black has a pawn on c5 instead of ...
Commitment (versus flexibility) indeed is the main reason for this piece of advice. In particular:
The first moves are (usually) all about fighting for control over the center. The knights are superior to the bishops in that regard because from their "natural" development squares, they have access to 2 of the central squares (e.g. a knight on f3 reaches ...
This is an example for how it can go wrong for Black side.
[White "Jacques Mieses"]
[Event "Monte Carlo"]
[Black "Frank James Marshall"]
[FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/ b - - 0 1"]
1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Bc4 cxb2 5.Bxb2 d6 6.Ne2 Nc6
7.O-O Be6 8.Bd5 Nf6 9.Qb3 Qc8 10.Nf4 Nd8 11.Bxf6 gxf6 12.Nh5
c6 13.Re1 ...
The main reason is that White does not want to face Nd4in many lines. They want to make sure they will "hurt" Black's pawn structure with Bxc6.
Compare this line with others where the Black knight is actually pinned, like 3...d6 for instance. There, White has no reason to hurry and trade so quickly
A lot of it is simply to create an imbalance. Nakamura has mentioned this before about a different opening B-for-N trade, and sometimes it is done without even getting doubled pawns in return, like an early Bg4 in the Slav then putting the pawns on c6 d5 and e6 to retain some control of the light squares.
Even in the Caro-Kan Two-Knights variation you see ...
This position is still very far from having a definitive character that would dictate the nature of best play. That is still perhaps twenty moves away. If you are already thinking that you have an advantage and just need to find a way in, you will not be playing objectively. Your position is fine, you will be able to develop easily, you have two Bishops, but ...
If your opponent is the type to bring his own rope to commit a suicide, I would certainly go for Rb8 d6 Bd7 c5 and later a5 a4 setup, hoping knights will go off the board (on d5) as soon as possible ruining white's gueenside later in the style of Benko gambit, with equal material and stupid (but nice looking) bishop on g2 aiming to nowhere. Reasonable ...
This does not seem symmetrical to me.
After 8...dxc6 you could have reached a symmetrical and very drawish position.
Playing 8...bxc6 seems more ambitious. Seems like black will want to play d5 sooner or later to get rid of that backward pawn on d7 and to limit the white bishop on g2. Depending on what white does, this might require to play e6 and/or to ...
Knights are better "skirmish" pieces than bishops. They are "powerful" (compared to pawns), but operate at short range. They typically need two moves to get to their best (strategic) locations. So they need to get an early start.
Bishops are "distance" pieces. I compare them to archers (and rooks to artillery). They can have a powerful impact on the board ...
What pops to mind are the Natural looking c6/Qc7; Nc6/Ne7/Ng6 and Bg4 is another development plan. Black needs to coordinate his pieces and place them on good squares to complete his development - as a Cat A player, that is how I look at it. The position is a little flat.
Part of me is not crazy about 10...Bf5 11.Qb3 b6 12.c4!? c6 13.Nf1 Bg4 14. Bg5 and ...
I would also add to what you wrote that you start with less valuable pieces, so you don't have to worry about them being exchanged. You wouldn't probably start with Rf3 if Bg4 pin was possible. Also bishop on c1 is active even from that square and it's often developed mainly because of the rook on a1. In quite some lines of Ruy-Lopez the rook is developed ...
In their recent book The Modern English 1.c4 e5, GM Kiril Georgiev and Semko Semkov consider the line 1.c4 e5 2.Nc3 Bb4 3.Nd5 (considered better than 3.Qc2) Bc5 (the alternative is 3...a5) 4.Nf3 e4, although their main variation continues with 4...c6.
They now recommend 5.Ng5! because
5.d4 is also possible, but after 5...Be7 we cannot put the knight on ...
Besides the fact of keeping options for the development square of your bishops, another reason lies in the fact that you prefer to use knights right away for center control because if you use bishop and have some reason to trade it against an opponent's knight, you lost the bishop pair.
Yet another reason though is the fact that the bishop can't control the ...
Of course it is absolutely playable -- Kasparov played it against Karpov!
2...h3 doesn't improve for White as the comments have noted. As for Nh4 -- you are misplacing the Knight, besides Be4, Black could even play Bd7-b5.
a) Is 2. Nh4 a threat?
No, because black can play 2. .. Be4 which makes the knight on h4 look a bit silly. Note that 3. f3 does not work because of 3. ... Bxd5 and if 4. Qxd5 Rxe3
b) In the game Karpov-Kasparov, White played 2. 0-0 (after 1... Bf5) Nd7 3. h3 Nb6 4. g4 Bd7. Should Karpov have played 2. h3 instead?
Probably it would lead to the same ...
This is the french exchange variation, and as far as I see it, the game is still in its opening phase. And we know what that means: development, development, development! Neither player has finished deploying their pieces to their most effective squares, and they should focus on doing this to begin with.
Therefore I think that your suggested 10...Bf5 is a ...
What I see is not a light square weakness, but a bad dark square bishop. You first need is to catch up in development.
My plan would be to play c6 to prevent the d pawn from moving, Bg4 to exchange off my bad bishop, (I don't play well with bishops, so this is very subjective.) and h6 to restrict his bishop. Due to only open file, the rooks and probably ...
Start by making a plan based on the assumption that your opponent will "waste" moves, e.g. by moving the same piece back and forth between two squares until directly threatened. Opponents have been know to do this, especially novices.
For instance, in the first position shown in Bad Bishop's answer, White has several things he wants to do. 1) "Connect" his ...
The reponse for this situation you described, in which every chess player found himself, shoud be learning how to make a strategy
As GM Savielly Tartakower said :
Tactics is knowing what to do when there is something to do; strategy is knowing what to do when there is nothing to do
You have to ask yourself "What am I going to do to win this game ?"
Go to Amazon and do a search for "Complete Chess Course" and purchase a used copy of either Fred Reinfeld's or I.A. Horowitz' book. It is right up your alley. They teach you classic chess in a course format and that gives you a good footing. You'll make simple moves that make sense.
You gotta walk before you run.
Recommended - Link: https://www....