pawn up or down rook missing or hanging , whats more important rather then a fixated knight on F5 for instance top of my head?
basically some sort of bricked structure where black immobilized his pieces so they cant be gone through or
check your opinion and get a winning piece as white?
MATERIAL OR POSITION?
The objective of chess is neither material nor position. It is CHECKMATE. Having more material is useless unless it leads to checkmate. Having a positional advantage is useless unless it leads to checkmate.
@lizani said in #2:
> The objective of chess is neither material nor position. It is CHECKMATE. Having more material is useless unless it leads to checkmate. Having a positional advantage is useless unless it leads to checkmate.
True I have also read this in a chess book I was 40 pages in and I lost the book , it also spoke about the importance of checks.
The only position that matters is your foot on your opponents neck. The only material that matters is any last remnants of his/her hopes and dreams firmly in your possession. Hope this helps !
Well, material advantage is also (in the majority of cases) a positional advantage. :)
After 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 Bg4 4 dxe5 Bxf3 5 Qxf3 dxe5 6 Bc4 Nf6 7 Qb3 Qe7 8 Nc3 c6 9 Bg5 b5 10 Nxb5 cxb5 11 Bxb5+ Nbd7 12 O-O-O Rd8 13 Rxd7 Rxd7 14 Rd1 Qe6 15 Bxd7+ Nxd7 16 Qb8+ Nxb8, position was somewhat more important than material. After 1 e4 e5 2 Bc4 Nf6 3 Qh5 Nxh5, material is somewhat more important than position.
Hard to tell. For me and most others, it is difficult to evaluate a positional advantage that compensates for having less material.
Is my positional advantage worth the pawn or the exchange?
Only when you start playing a gambit, only then you know you have compensation (you are in book knowledge), but sacrificing material for a positional advantage is an art.
A lot of people are over-philosophizing to sound smart instead of answering OP's question, which is actually very simple and down-to-earth.
@BOTBEEPBOOP Material almost always outweighs positional advantage. A lot of attention is drawn to the cases where positional features overshadow the missing material because they are so exceptional and, therefore, instructive. The technical term for positional features that (sometimes only partially) make up for a material deficit is "compensation." You sacrificed the exchange, but cracked open the opp's g-file in front of his king, making a checkmating attack more likely to succeed. You have *compensation* for the exchange. You sacrificed your piece, but as a consequence that pawn on the end of the chain can move forward and promote unhindered. You have *full compensation* for the missing piece because the positional features—the unstoppable pawn—have you winning in spite of the missing piece. You sacrifice a pawn, but the time your opponent spends taking the pawn lets you get a lead in development and control of important lines. You have *partial compensation* because it is not yet clear whether the development lead and central control is "good enough" to make up for the extra pawn your opponent has.
Learning chess should start with assuming a material advantage is just an advantage and then progress to learning when it isn't and why.
It depends on the position.
Ever heard this before?
@BOTBEEPBOOP said in #1:
> pawn up or down rook missing or hanging , whats more important rather then a fixated knight on F5 for instance top of my head?
>
> basically some sort of bricked structure where black immobilized his pieces so they cant be gone through or
>
> check your opinion and get a winning piece as white?
>
> MATERIAL OR POSITION?
Id prefer to play with a positional advantage while being down a pawn than being up a pawn and being in a positional disadvantage
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.