15

tl;dr: "Yes." Discussion: Technically, this position is governed by the basic concept of the "Outside Passed Pawn" and the winning method is to use that pawn to restrict the opposing king's ability to defend the other pawns on the board. The purest expression of that concept is in David's answer, which is to just use the one pawn and leave the other as a ...


14

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,...


13

You've given some good, very long-term reasons not to play e5. But in this position, dynamic considerations outweigh these long-term reasons. Look again at the position: you have developed (if you have not encountered this term before, it means moving your pieces from their starting squares so they can participate in the game) two knights, a bishop, and ...


12

Overall, that is totally fine, and it worked great. That said, without a detailed calculation of any promotion and stalemate possibilities on the k-side, the easiest win will be running to b2 and just queening the a-pawn since you may well have to do that anyway. That is best done with the p on g6 still far away, and white cannot ignore it, so he has to go ...


9

White is in zugzwang so the basic idea of forcing white back using the pawns for extra tempos is perfectly correct. You still need to figure out how to queen without stalemating but you have the right idea.


9

In this particular position both ...ab6 and ...cb6 are reasonable. Generally speaking I would prefer to take toward the center because the doubled pawns are not weak at all when they have neighbours and the enhanced control of the center might prove useful. Here however ab6 has the minus that it allows White counterplay thanks to the outside passed pawn ...


8

Isolated double pawns like in your example are considered to be both a static and a dynamic weakness. It is a static weakness since the pawns can no longer defend each other or be defended by other pawns. It is a dynamic weakness since the front pawn is blocking the advance of the pawn behind. It is strategically important for the opposing player to control ...


7

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 ...


6

Bad: They can't defend each other like adjacent pawns can. Good: They give you an extra open file for your rooks. Usually the bad outweighs the good, but there are a zillion exceptions. Most beginners are overly afraid of having doubled pawns.


6

It's always a matter of tradeoff. You an find plenty of IM & GM games where a player accepts doubled pawns because they feel it's worth it in that position. In this position, the doubled pawn is lending support to the center, is not making the king weak, and provides an open file for the rook. The black d pawn is restricted, and trading on d5 would ...


6

I first need to note that there is a fairly large difference between the structure in your first diagram and the one reached in the Nimzo-Indian line: in the first diagram, white has not yet played d4. This gives him the option of playing c4 and c3, which is actually quite a strong structure as the d4 square, which would normally be weak with pawns on c4, d3 ...


6

It is a solid structure indeed, avoiding one of the most important weaknesses of doubled pawns, which is that they're generally hard to protect. Also, they're less easy to block than just a c- and d-pawn, since the backward pawns can attack enemy pieces on the blocking squares. However, this structure only influences the b-, c-, d- and e-files, while a '...


6

It was OK, but unnecessary. You could have left your "back" pawn on the starting square to make your opponent lose more time while going to capture it. Then you are free to go into the queenside to take all of his pawns. The endgame is easily won anyway so there is no one road do victory, though. For instance, you could end up with your pawns leaving the ...


5

The structure itself isn't weak, since as you mentioned all of the pawns are solid and protecting each other. The problem is that you can't do much offensively with these pawns. Take the following example: Black has his c-, d-, e-, f- pawns. White has the pawn structure you mentioned. Notice how White is unable to block Black's f-pawn. Also, how is White ...


4

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


4

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 ...


4

In general, the two bishop advantage is worth half a pawn, while double pawns are only a minor disadvantage. Sometimes doubled pawns can be an advantage if they do not block your pieces and control important squares. OTOH, creating doubled isolated pawns on a half open file is likely to be worth the loss of a two bishop advantage. Long term imbalances that ...


4

In order to answer your question, pros and cons of the doubled pawns must be listed. I shall start with pros: You get additional open file; You get additional diagonal; you get addition protective or attacking power; Let me explain the last statement with the example from football. Imagine you have 2 players standing in a line, one being in front and the ...


3

It is just a matter of taste. There are pluses and minuses to the move, but the strategic idea is gaining a better pawn structure. I have played the Exchange 4.Bxc6; the Deferred Exchange 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.Bxc6; and the Double-Deferred Exchange 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.0-0 Be7 6.Bxc6. All have unique flavors and Black has to know the ideas in each or risks a very bad game. ...


3

Isolated double pawns are considered as weakness in general except rare occasions where they play a crucial role in defending important squares. There is no general rule of pawn islands with double pawns close to the centre and each case should be analyzed separately. These pawns are not considered as a weakness since they can either establish a strong ...


3

I take it that you feel that you are at a disadvantage because you have a bishop and a knight against a bishop pair in a reasonably open position. (If the position were closed, having the knight might be an ADvantage.) Most likely, your knight would be pinned by one of the opposing bishops, and this pin would result in a doubled pawn. I can think of two ...


3

There are a few disadvantages: You trade your light-squared bishop, your best attacking piece. You give Black the bishop pair. The likely followup is an exchange of queens and an early endgame. If you like to attack and don't like to play against bishop pairs, don't play this variation. Do play this variation if you are confident in your play with two ...


3

More often than not, the Bishop pair will compensate for doubled pawns in an endgame. Your unopposed bishop would have to be pretty bad (and therefore your overall position) if it's influence did not compensate. In general doubled-pawns are not that bad if you have active piece play. Look at the games from the Kasparov-Short world championship match. ...


2

Let's see, what is the original question? The poster thinks that taking a knight with a bishop should be good if it results in the opponent getting doubled pawns. And the poster also specifically asks about bishop takes knight. I will address both parts of the question. Of course, everything depends on the position. So it is difficult to give a general ...


2

The bishop pair is usually stronger than B+N or N+N. While doubled pawns are usually weaker than two adjacent pawns. My advice is to look at the pawn structure and king placement to guide your decision whether to allow your opponent to exchange a bishop for your knight and leave you with a doubled pawn. Let's start with the Spanish system [FEN ""] 1.e4 e5 2....


2

This reminds me of this article by Jeremy Silman. The position you discuss is difficult to evaluate, as both parties have assets and drawbacks. The first thing to notice is that the position is closed. Thus, if it doesn't open up, certainly black is not standing worse because of the two knights. However, these knights are severely restricted, and if you ...


2

ad 1: Partially, yes. Ng6 is a good move but it will get surely met by white's g3. That's natural. Still u want to move your knight from f8, this square is for your rook. ad 2: Of course c5 was a good move. You played the opening correctly! ad 3: Yes, the natural plan is to prepare f5 break. Something like Ng6, Rf8, Nh7, f5 ad 4: I would say rather equals....


2

There are two important things to note about doubled pawns. 1: They are good at defense. 2: They are bad at moving forward. [fen "8/5p2/6p1/ppp5/5PP1/1P4P1/1P6/8 w - - 0 1"] In this diagram from A practical guide to Rook endgames by Nikolay Minev. The author shows that on the kingside the extra doubled pawn is a weakness because White is not able to ...


2

Here all is about whether white a-pawn will be strong passed pawn or weakness on semi open file. Possible undoubling is just a side effect of more important consideration. If you can blow the kingside, make your center as solid as possible and wait a3 will become a serious weakness with white pieces tied to defense. If you can't, you will have to deal with ...


2

The structure lacks mobility and is therefore inherently weak. The c2 and d2 pawns can not advance if attacked.


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