New answers tagged

2

First, I think that a lot of it is simply to get away from the heavier theory of other lines. Stockfish does not think highly of this move, and it does not make sense that such a move would be best from a purely theoretical standpoint. From a practical standpoint, that is another ball of wax since some of the positions get very messy. After all, who does not ...


3

With 9. dxc5, you are giving up your central pawn duo, taking on doubled pawns, fracturing your queenside pawn structure, etc. Obviously this is not ideal, and you would only do this if you get some kind of material compensation. But you don't get any material compensation. After 9...Qa5, you can't simultaneously defend the c3- and c5-pawns. You'd be stuck ...


1

When you get more experience and appreciate positional play instead of just slash and burn tactics and material advantage then you would see that the move is terrible bad and has no advantages for white. When the dust settles black will have the initiative and material will be even and white has a weak isolated pawn.


19

9.dxc5? is a horrible positional blunder. The Grunfeld for black allows white a big center, and his idea is to chip away at it, or force it to advance, and then chip away at it. That center controls a lot of nice squares, and is very desirable. 9.dxc5? by white voluntarily does what black is trying to achieve in a very bad way, and worse, it turns the Bg7 ...


8

it's actually impossible to keep the material advantage since after 9.dxc5 black has the move 9...Qa5 which puts a second attacker to the c3 pawn and also prepares to recapture the c5 pawn. All that white would be doing is giving up the strong center which is a huge deal in this line of the Grunfeld. Black, on the other hand, would be left with a more active ...


Top 50 recent answers are included