Reason why a kingside attack is not justifiedAnalysis of positional play by a very aggressive playerVariation of Attack besides Center Control and FlankingCan Black save this Knight vs Bishop endgame with a pawn down?In the Damiano Variation of Petrov's Defense, should white play d4 or f4?Should white be able to win this endgame?Why did this guy resign, was there a strategic reason?How to survive a Kingside Attack in Chess?Formulating a Precise Definition of “Space” in ChessWhy I can not improve in chess & why I can not see the things?Reason why Kasparov resigned in the “Enrage the Beast” game

What's the meaning of "what it means for something to be something"?

Center page as a whole without centering each element individually

I keep switching characters, how do I stop?

Weird lines in Microsoft Word

Did I make a mistake by ccing email to boss to others?

How can I, as DM, avoid the Conga Line of Death occurring when implementing some form of flanking rule?

What is the purpose of using a decision tree?

"Oh no!" in Latin

Taking my research idea outside my paid job

categorizing a variable turns it from insignificant to significant

Travelling in US for more than 90 days

Hashing password to increase entropy

Why is "la Gestapo" feminine?

How do you say "Trust your struggle." in French?

Make a Bowl of Alphabet Soup

PTIJ: Which Dr. Seuss books should one obtain?

How to preserve electronics (computers, ipads, phones) for hundreds of years?

Could a welfare state co-exist with mega corporations?

Should a narrator ever describe things based on a character's view instead of facts?

Extract substring according to regexp with sed or grep

Why do Radio Buttons not fill the entire outer circle?

Asserting that Atheism and Theism are both faith based positions

Why doesn't Gödel's incompleteness theorem apply to false statements?

Started in 1987 vs. Starting in 1987



Reason why a kingside attack is not justified


Analysis of positional play by a very aggressive playerVariation of Attack besides Center Control and FlankingCan Black save this Knight vs Bishop endgame with a pawn down?In the Damiano Variation of Petrov's Defense, should white play d4 or f4?Should white be able to win this endgame?Why did this guy resign, was there a strategic reason?How to survive a Kingside Attack in Chess?Formulating a Precise Definition of “Space” in ChessWhy I can not improve in chess & why I can not see the things?Reason why Kasparov resigned in the “Enrage the Beast” game













3















Given my lead in development in this game, the presence of an advanced pawn on the 5th rank and the arrangement of the pieces toward Black king, I think that an immediate kingside attack is justified.



enter image description here



In the game I ended up playing a move which I do not like very much now that I think about it (6.Bg5).



However, thinking about it now, I believe it would be best if I had started playing g3 with the idea of defending the knight in my next move (Nh4) as well as to support an upcoming advance f2-f4.



However, Stockfish seems to prefer to slowly manoeuvre on the other side of the board with b3, Nc3... but all of these moves seem to ignore White's lead in development. I can see that moving my pawn to b3 will eventually allow my light-squared bishop to be placed on d3. But I believe that is too slow.



Why is a kingside attack not justified here?










share|improve this question




























    3















    Given my lead in development in this game, the presence of an advanced pawn on the 5th rank and the arrangement of the pieces toward Black king, I think that an immediate kingside attack is justified.



    enter image description here



    In the game I ended up playing a move which I do not like very much now that I think about it (6.Bg5).



    However, thinking about it now, I believe it would be best if I had started playing g3 with the idea of defending the knight in my next move (Nh4) as well as to support an upcoming advance f2-f4.



    However, Stockfish seems to prefer to slowly manoeuvre on the other side of the board with b3, Nc3... but all of these moves seem to ignore White's lead in development. I can see that moving my pawn to b3 will eventually allow my light-squared bishop to be placed on d3. But I believe that is too slow.



    Why is a kingside attack not justified here?










    share|improve this question


























      3












      3








      3








      Given my lead in development in this game, the presence of an advanced pawn on the 5th rank and the arrangement of the pieces toward Black king, I think that an immediate kingside attack is justified.



      enter image description here



      In the game I ended up playing a move which I do not like very much now that I think about it (6.Bg5).



      However, thinking about it now, I believe it would be best if I had started playing g3 with the idea of defending the knight in my next move (Nh4) as well as to support an upcoming advance f2-f4.



      However, Stockfish seems to prefer to slowly manoeuvre on the other side of the board with b3, Nc3... but all of these moves seem to ignore White's lead in development. I can see that moving my pawn to b3 will eventually allow my light-squared bishop to be placed on d3. But I believe that is too slow.



      Why is a kingside attack not justified here?










      share|improve this question
















      Given my lead in development in this game, the presence of an advanced pawn on the 5th rank and the arrangement of the pieces toward Black king, I think that an immediate kingside attack is justified.



      enter image description here



      In the game I ended up playing a move which I do not like very much now that I think about it (6.Bg5).



      However, thinking about it now, I believe it would be best if I had started playing g3 with the idea of defending the knight in my next move (Nh4) as well as to support an upcoming advance f2-f4.



      However, Stockfish seems to prefer to slowly manoeuvre on the other side of the board with b3, Nc3... but all of these moves seem to ignore White's lead in development. I can see that moving my pawn to b3 will eventually allow my light-squared bishop to be placed on d3. But I believe that is too slow.



      Why is a kingside attack not justified here?







      analysis






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 35 mins ago









      Brian Towers

      16.2k33070




      16.2k33070










      asked 9 hours ago









      Maths64Maths64

      396111




      396111




















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          6














          There is no king on the kingside yet to attack. Black might very well castle long in which case your attack is aimed at nothing and might potentially weaken your own king's safety.



          5....c4 is premature and unnecessary. It loses the pressure on the d4 pawn and loses a tempo for development.



          A very typical reply to such pawn structure is b3, which is based on the fact that black cannot stabilize the pawn on c4 as after 7. b3 b5 8. a4, a6 is not an option because of the potentially hanging rook on the a file (after axb5 axb5).



          The situation would be different if black had for instance already played Bb7 which would defend the rook.



          So all in all, b3 is a natural plan, which will in the short term weaken black's pawn structure and give white an advantage.



          The other option, kingside attack, with f5 eventually is not bad per se, but you should probably wait until black has castled short. Also it takes a lot of moves to get any kind of attack going.






          share|improve this answer






























            2















            Why is a kingside attack not justified here?




            Because the center is closed.



            You need to start by undermining black's center pawn chain. That means either the e6 pawn, the c4 pawn or both. The computer's suggestion of b3 undermines c4 immediately and makes a lot of sense. Undermining e6 will take a lot of moves by which time will likely be much better developed and prepared.



            Because Black is much less well developed and his king is still in the middle while your king is safely castled kingside your best plan is to open the center first. It will be very hard for black to survive.






            share|improve this answer




















            • 2





              I am a bit confused by your answer. Isn't a closed center what you usually (exceptions occur of course) want when doing a pawn-storm/kingside attack? Converesely a kingside attack is often countered by opening up the center.

              – user1583209
              7 hours ago











            • @user1583209 "Isn't a closed center what you usually (exceptions occur of course) want when doing a pawn-storm/kingside attack?" No. You want to control the center which neither side does. Furthermore Black's king is not committed to the kingside.

              – Brian Towers
              6 hours ago






            • 1





              Ok, let's call it "control" the center. In any case I don't follow your logic: "closed center" -> "kingside attack is not justified". There are plenty of examples (e.g. KID) where you do a kingside attack from a closed center, don't you?

              – user1583209
              5 hours ago


















            0














            I believe white has to strike now on c4 pawn otherwise black can consolidate the position of that pawn. As it stands with b3, b5, a4 black cannot maintain his structure with a6.



            I'm not sure why you would consider g3 or Nh4, it has no squares to go to. g3 weakens your position for pretty much no reason. Even with a bunch of free tempos it accomplishes nothing. Like if your knight was on h4, pawn on g3 and pawn on f4 in this position, you still can't push f5 and if bg4 it can easily be stopped with nf5 or g6. You would need to play g4, which does nothing against ng6.



            If I truly want to attack the king side, I would be looking for moves like Ng5 and f4.






            share|improve this answer























            • Sorry, I explained my kingside plan quite vaguely. I was thinking of playing g3 so my knight can later go to g2 (jumping first to h4) where it can support the advance f4.

              – Maths64
              4 hours ago











            • So you can play Nf4 or f4? Because Ng2 has absolutely nothing to do with f4, and Nf4 doesn't do anything either. Your plan just makes no sense whatsoever, even if you wanted to attack the king side.

              – Matthew Liu
              3 hours ago












            • You are right. I was just playing what I did In some similar positions, in which a knight on g2 does suport f4 but in this game there is no opponent piece controling f4.

              – Maths64
              3 hours ago










            Your Answer








            StackExchange.ready(function()
            var channelOptions =
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "435"
            ;
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
            createEditor();
            );

            else
            createEditor();

            );

            function createEditor()
            StackExchange.prepareEditor(
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader:
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            ,
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            );



            );













            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fchess.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f23985%2freason-why-a-kingside-attack-is-not-justified%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            3 Answers
            3






            active

            oldest

            votes








            3 Answers
            3






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            6














            There is no king on the kingside yet to attack. Black might very well castle long in which case your attack is aimed at nothing and might potentially weaken your own king's safety.



            5....c4 is premature and unnecessary. It loses the pressure on the d4 pawn and loses a tempo for development.



            A very typical reply to such pawn structure is b3, which is based on the fact that black cannot stabilize the pawn on c4 as after 7. b3 b5 8. a4, a6 is not an option because of the potentially hanging rook on the a file (after axb5 axb5).



            The situation would be different if black had for instance already played Bb7 which would defend the rook.



            So all in all, b3 is a natural plan, which will in the short term weaken black's pawn structure and give white an advantage.



            The other option, kingside attack, with f5 eventually is not bad per se, but you should probably wait until black has castled short. Also it takes a lot of moves to get any kind of attack going.






            share|improve this answer



























              6














              There is no king on the kingside yet to attack. Black might very well castle long in which case your attack is aimed at nothing and might potentially weaken your own king's safety.



              5....c4 is premature and unnecessary. It loses the pressure on the d4 pawn and loses a tempo for development.



              A very typical reply to such pawn structure is b3, which is based on the fact that black cannot stabilize the pawn on c4 as after 7. b3 b5 8. a4, a6 is not an option because of the potentially hanging rook on the a file (after axb5 axb5).



              The situation would be different if black had for instance already played Bb7 which would defend the rook.



              So all in all, b3 is a natural plan, which will in the short term weaken black's pawn structure and give white an advantage.



              The other option, kingside attack, with f5 eventually is not bad per se, but you should probably wait until black has castled short. Also it takes a lot of moves to get any kind of attack going.






              share|improve this answer

























                6












                6








                6







                There is no king on the kingside yet to attack. Black might very well castle long in which case your attack is aimed at nothing and might potentially weaken your own king's safety.



                5....c4 is premature and unnecessary. It loses the pressure on the d4 pawn and loses a tempo for development.



                A very typical reply to such pawn structure is b3, which is based on the fact that black cannot stabilize the pawn on c4 as after 7. b3 b5 8. a4, a6 is not an option because of the potentially hanging rook on the a file (after axb5 axb5).



                The situation would be different if black had for instance already played Bb7 which would defend the rook.



                So all in all, b3 is a natural plan, which will in the short term weaken black's pawn structure and give white an advantage.



                The other option, kingside attack, with f5 eventually is not bad per se, but you should probably wait until black has castled short. Also it takes a lot of moves to get any kind of attack going.






                share|improve this answer













                There is no king on the kingside yet to attack. Black might very well castle long in which case your attack is aimed at nothing and might potentially weaken your own king's safety.



                5....c4 is premature and unnecessary. It loses the pressure on the d4 pawn and loses a tempo for development.



                A very typical reply to such pawn structure is b3, which is based on the fact that black cannot stabilize the pawn on c4 as after 7. b3 b5 8. a4, a6 is not an option because of the potentially hanging rook on the a file (after axb5 axb5).



                The situation would be different if black had for instance already played Bb7 which would defend the rook.



                So all in all, b3 is a natural plan, which will in the short term weaken black's pawn structure and give white an advantage.



                The other option, kingside attack, with f5 eventually is not bad per se, but you should probably wait until black has castled short. Also it takes a lot of moves to get any kind of attack going.







                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered 7 hours ago









                user1583209user1583209

                12.5k21756




                12.5k21756





















                    2















                    Why is a kingside attack not justified here?




                    Because the center is closed.



                    You need to start by undermining black's center pawn chain. That means either the e6 pawn, the c4 pawn or both. The computer's suggestion of b3 undermines c4 immediately and makes a lot of sense. Undermining e6 will take a lot of moves by which time will likely be much better developed and prepared.



                    Because Black is much less well developed and his king is still in the middle while your king is safely castled kingside your best plan is to open the center first. It will be very hard for black to survive.






                    share|improve this answer




















                    • 2





                      I am a bit confused by your answer. Isn't a closed center what you usually (exceptions occur of course) want when doing a pawn-storm/kingside attack? Converesely a kingside attack is often countered by opening up the center.

                      – user1583209
                      7 hours ago











                    • @user1583209 "Isn't a closed center what you usually (exceptions occur of course) want when doing a pawn-storm/kingside attack?" No. You want to control the center which neither side does. Furthermore Black's king is not committed to the kingside.

                      – Brian Towers
                      6 hours ago






                    • 1





                      Ok, let's call it "control" the center. In any case I don't follow your logic: "closed center" -> "kingside attack is not justified". There are plenty of examples (e.g. KID) where you do a kingside attack from a closed center, don't you?

                      – user1583209
                      5 hours ago















                    2















                    Why is a kingside attack not justified here?




                    Because the center is closed.



                    You need to start by undermining black's center pawn chain. That means either the e6 pawn, the c4 pawn or both. The computer's suggestion of b3 undermines c4 immediately and makes a lot of sense. Undermining e6 will take a lot of moves by which time will likely be much better developed and prepared.



                    Because Black is much less well developed and his king is still in the middle while your king is safely castled kingside your best plan is to open the center first. It will be very hard for black to survive.






                    share|improve this answer




















                    • 2





                      I am a bit confused by your answer. Isn't a closed center what you usually (exceptions occur of course) want when doing a pawn-storm/kingside attack? Converesely a kingside attack is often countered by opening up the center.

                      – user1583209
                      7 hours ago











                    • @user1583209 "Isn't a closed center what you usually (exceptions occur of course) want when doing a pawn-storm/kingside attack?" No. You want to control the center which neither side does. Furthermore Black's king is not committed to the kingside.

                      – Brian Towers
                      6 hours ago






                    • 1





                      Ok, let's call it "control" the center. In any case I don't follow your logic: "closed center" -> "kingside attack is not justified". There are plenty of examples (e.g. KID) where you do a kingside attack from a closed center, don't you?

                      – user1583209
                      5 hours ago













                    2












                    2








                    2








                    Why is a kingside attack not justified here?




                    Because the center is closed.



                    You need to start by undermining black's center pawn chain. That means either the e6 pawn, the c4 pawn or both. The computer's suggestion of b3 undermines c4 immediately and makes a lot of sense. Undermining e6 will take a lot of moves by which time will likely be much better developed and prepared.



                    Because Black is much less well developed and his king is still in the middle while your king is safely castled kingside your best plan is to open the center first. It will be very hard for black to survive.






                    share|improve this answer
















                    Why is a kingside attack not justified here?




                    Because the center is closed.



                    You need to start by undermining black's center pawn chain. That means either the e6 pawn, the c4 pawn or both. The computer's suggestion of b3 undermines c4 immediately and makes a lot of sense. Undermining e6 will take a lot of moves by which time will likely be much better developed and prepared.



                    Because Black is much less well developed and his king is still in the middle while your king is safely castled kingside your best plan is to open the center first. It will be very hard for black to survive.







                    share|improve this answer














                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer








                    edited 6 hours ago

























                    answered 9 hours ago









                    Brian TowersBrian Towers

                    16.2k33070




                    16.2k33070







                    • 2





                      I am a bit confused by your answer. Isn't a closed center what you usually (exceptions occur of course) want when doing a pawn-storm/kingside attack? Converesely a kingside attack is often countered by opening up the center.

                      – user1583209
                      7 hours ago











                    • @user1583209 "Isn't a closed center what you usually (exceptions occur of course) want when doing a pawn-storm/kingside attack?" No. You want to control the center which neither side does. Furthermore Black's king is not committed to the kingside.

                      – Brian Towers
                      6 hours ago






                    • 1





                      Ok, let's call it "control" the center. In any case I don't follow your logic: "closed center" -> "kingside attack is not justified". There are plenty of examples (e.g. KID) where you do a kingside attack from a closed center, don't you?

                      – user1583209
                      5 hours ago












                    • 2





                      I am a bit confused by your answer. Isn't a closed center what you usually (exceptions occur of course) want when doing a pawn-storm/kingside attack? Converesely a kingside attack is often countered by opening up the center.

                      – user1583209
                      7 hours ago











                    • @user1583209 "Isn't a closed center what you usually (exceptions occur of course) want when doing a pawn-storm/kingside attack?" No. You want to control the center which neither side does. Furthermore Black's king is not committed to the kingside.

                      – Brian Towers
                      6 hours ago






                    • 1





                      Ok, let's call it "control" the center. In any case I don't follow your logic: "closed center" -> "kingside attack is not justified". There are plenty of examples (e.g. KID) where you do a kingside attack from a closed center, don't you?

                      – user1583209
                      5 hours ago







                    2




                    2





                    I am a bit confused by your answer. Isn't a closed center what you usually (exceptions occur of course) want when doing a pawn-storm/kingside attack? Converesely a kingside attack is often countered by opening up the center.

                    – user1583209
                    7 hours ago





                    I am a bit confused by your answer. Isn't a closed center what you usually (exceptions occur of course) want when doing a pawn-storm/kingside attack? Converesely a kingside attack is often countered by opening up the center.

                    – user1583209
                    7 hours ago













                    @user1583209 "Isn't a closed center what you usually (exceptions occur of course) want when doing a pawn-storm/kingside attack?" No. You want to control the center which neither side does. Furthermore Black's king is not committed to the kingside.

                    – Brian Towers
                    6 hours ago





                    @user1583209 "Isn't a closed center what you usually (exceptions occur of course) want when doing a pawn-storm/kingside attack?" No. You want to control the center which neither side does. Furthermore Black's king is not committed to the kingside.

                    – Brian Towers
                    6 hours ago




                    1




                    1





                    Ok, let's call it "control" the center. In any case I don't follow your logic: "closed center" -> "kingside attack is not justified". There are plenty of examples (e.g. KID) where you do a kingside attack from a closed center, don't you?

                    – user1583209
                    5 hours ago





                    Ok, let's call it "control" the center. In any case I don't follow your logic: "closed center" -> "kingside attack is not justified". There are plenty of examples (e.g. KID) where you do a kingside attack from a closed center, don't you?

                    – user1583209
                    5 hours ago











                    0














                    I believe white has to strike now on c4 pawn otherwise black can consolidate the position of that pawn. As it stands with b3, b5, a4 black cannot maintain his structure with a6.



                    I'm not sure why you would consider g3 or Nh4, it has no squares to go to. g3 weakens your position for pretty much no reason. Even with a bunch of free tempos it accomplishes nothing. Like if your knight was on h4, pawn on g3 and pawn on f4 in this position, you still can't push f5 and if bg4 it can easily be stopped with nf5 or g6. You would need to play g4, which does nothing against ng6.



                    If I truly want to attack the king side, I would be looking for moves like Ng5 and f4.






                    share|improve this answer























                    • Sorry, I explained my kingside plan quite vaguely. I was thinking of playing g3 so my knight can later go to g2 (jumping first to h4) where it can support the advance f4.

                      – Maths64
                      4 hours ago











                    • So you can play Nf4 or f4? Because Ng2 has absolutely nothing to do with f4, and Nf4 doesn't do anything either. Your plan just makes no sense whatsoever, even if you wanted to attack the king side.

                      – Matthew Liu
                      3 hours ago












                    • You are right. I was just playing what I did In some similar positions, in which a knight on g2 does suport f4 but in this game there is no opponent piece controling f4.

                      – Maths64
                      3 hours ago















                    0














                    I believe white has to strike now on c4 pawn otherwise black can consolidate the position of that pawn. As it stands with b3, b5, a4 black cannot maintain his structure with a6.



                    I'm not sure why you would consider g3 or Nh4, it has no squares to go to. g3 weakens your position for pretty much no reason. Even with a bunch of free tempos it accomplishes nothing. Like if your knight was on h4, pawn on g3 and pawn on f4 in this position, you still can't push f5 and if bg4 it can easily be stopped with nf5 or g6. You would need to play g4, which does nothing against ng6.



                    If I truly want to attack the king side, I would be looking for moves like Ng5 and f4.






                    share|improve this answer























                    • Sorry, I explained my kingside plan quite vaguely. I was thinking of playing g3 so my knight can later go to g2 (jumping first to h4) where it can support the advance f4.

                      – Maths64
                      4 hours ago











                    • So you can play Nf4 or f4? Because Ng2 has absolutely nothing to do with f4, and Nf4 doesn't do anything either. Your plan just makes no sense whatsoever, even if you wanted to attack the king side.

                      – Matthew Liu
                      3 hours ago












                    • You are right. I was just playing what I did In some similar positions, in which a knight on g2 does suport f4 but in this game there is no opponent piece controling f4.

                      – Maths64
                      3 hours ago













                    0












                    0








                    0







                    I believe white has to strike now on c4 pawn otherwise black can consolidate the position of that pawn. As it stands with b3, b5, a4 black cannot maintain his structure with a6.



                    I'm not sure why you would consider g3 or Nh4, it has no squares to go to. g3 weakens your position for pretty much no reason. Even with a bunch of free tempos it accomplishes nothing. Like if your knight was on h4, pawn on g3 and pawn on f4 in this position, you still can't push f5 and if bg4 it can easily be stopped with nf5 or g6. You would need to play g4, which does nothing against ng6.



                    If I truly want to attack the king side, I would be looking for moves like Ng5 and f4.






                    share|improve this answer













                    I believe white has to strike now on c4 pawn otherwise black can consolidate the position of that pawn. As it stands with b3, b5, a4 black cannot maintain his structure with a6.



                    I'm not sure why you would consider g3 or Nh4, it has no squares to go to. g3 weakens your position for pretty much no reason. Even with a bunch of free tempos it accomplishes nothing. Like if your knight was on h4, pawn on g3 and pawn on f4 in this position, you still can't push f5 and if bg4 it can easily be stopped with nf5 or g6. You would need to play g4, which does nothing against ng6.



                    If I truly want to attack the king side, I would be looking for moves like Ng5 and f4.







                    share|improve this answer












                    share|improve this answer



                    share|improve this answer










                    answered 6 hours ago









                    Matthew LiuMatthew Liu

                    839157




                    839157












                    • Sorry, I explained my kingside plan quite vaguely. I was thinking of playing g3 so my knight can later go to g2 (jumping first to h4) where it can support the advance f4.

                      – Maths64
                      4 hours ago











                    • So you can play Nf4 or f4? Because Ng2 has absolutely nothing to do with f4, and Nf4 doesn't do anything either. Your plan just makes no sense whatsoever, even if you wanted to attack the king side.

                      – Matthew Liu
                      3 hours ago












                    • You are right. I was just playing what I did In some similar positions, in which a knight on g2 does suport f4 but in this game there is no opponent piece controling f4.

                      – Maths64
                      3 hours ago

















                    • Sorry, I explained my kingside plan quite vaguely. I was thinking of playing g3 so my knight can later go to g2 (jumping first to h4) where it can support the advance f4.

                      – Maths64
                      4 hours ago











                    • So you can play Nf4 or f4? Because Ng2 has absolutely nothing to do with f4, and Nf4 doesn't do anything either. Your plan just makes no sense whatsoever, even if you wanted to attack the king side.

                      – Matthew Liu
                      3 hours ago












                    • You are right. I was just playing what I did In some similar positions, in which a knight on g2 does suport f4 but in this game there is no opponent piece controling f4.

                      – Maths64
                      3 hours ago
















                    Sorry, I explained my kingside plan quite vaguely. I was thinking of playing g3 so my knight can later go to g2 (jumping first to h4) where it can support the advance f4.

                    – Maths64
                    4 hours ago





                    Sorry, I explained my kingside plan quite vaguely. I was thinking of playing g3 so my knight can later go to g2 (jumping first to h4) where it can support the advance f4.

                    – Maths64
                    4 hours ago













                    So you can play Nf4 or f4? Because Ng2 has absolutely nothing to do with f4, and Nf4 doesn't do anything either. Your plan just makes no sense whatsoever, even if you wanted to attack the king side.

                    – Matthew Liu
                    3 hours ago






                    So you can play Nf4 or f4? Because Ng2 has absolutely nothing to do with f4, and Nf4 doesn't do anything either. Your plan just makes no sense whatsoever, even if you wanted to attack the king side.

                    – Matthew Liu
                    3 hours ago














                    You are right. I was just playing what I did In some similar positions, in which a knight on g2 does suport f4 but in this game there is no opponent piece controling f4.

                    – Maths64
                    3 hours ago





                    You are right. I was just playing what I did In some similar positions, in which a knight on g2 does suport f4 but in this game there is no opponent piece controling f4.

                    – Maths64
                    3 hours ago

















                    draft saved

                    draft discarded
















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Chess Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid


                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function ()
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fchess.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f23985%2freason-why-a-kingside-attack-is-not-justified%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Are there any AGPL-style licences that require source code modifications to be public? Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?Force derivative works to be publicAre there any GPL like licenses for Apple App Store?Do you violate the GPL if you provide source code that cannot be compiled?GPL - is it distribution to use libraries in an appliance loaned to customers?Distributing App for free which uses GPL'ed codeModifications of server software under GPL, with web/CLI interfaceDoes using an AGPLv3-licensed library prevent me from dual-licensing my own source code?Can I publish only select code under GPLv3 from a private project?Is there published precedent regarding the scope of covered work that uses AGPL software?If MIT licensed code links to GPL licensed code what should be the license of the resulting binary program?If I use a public API endpoint that has its source code licensed under AGPL in my app, do I need to disclose my source?

                    2013 GY136 Descoberta | Órbita | Referências Menu de navegação«List Of Centaurs and Scattered-Disk Objects»«List of Known Trans-Neptunian Objects»

                    Metrô de Los Teques Índice Linhas | Estações | Ver também | Referências Ligações externas | Menu de navegação«INSTITUCIÓN»«Mapa de rutas»originalMetrô de Los TequesC.A. Metro Los Teques |Alcaldía de Guaicaipuro – Sitio OficialGobernacion de Mirandaeeeeeee