lichess.org
Donate

Don't Use the Queen to grab a Pawn in the Corner?

This kind of a pawn grab I would honestly prefer from white if I wasn't booked up.

It highly depends on the position, chess is a concrete game after all.
In the Najdorf poisoned pawn variation Black snatches the b2-pawn of the board and causes major disturbances in the White territory in the process. It seems on a theoretical level Black seems to hold the position level, which justifies the capture.
Although: Taking such a pawn is almost always super risky and one should be ready for a chaotic game with a long-lasting initiative by the opponent. I for myself rather decline such a pawn mostly. Only when I have the feeling the capture has no equivalent alternatives, then do I go after it.
@TheSettler no kidding right?

Its clear white has comp in the poisoned pawn najdorf but here wouldnt with black you just grab the pawn?



Sorry for the trolling my troll sense is heightened today :D
I repeat myself:

"It highly depends on the position, chess is a concrete game after all."

"Only when I have the feeling the capture has no equivalent alternatives, then do I go after it."

In other words: Taking an edge pawn can simply be the best move in a position, it can be losing or it can be highly unclear. Which of the three applies, depends on the concrete position. If I feel taking a side pawn with a queen is the best move, of course I play it. If I feel it's risky and I have a continuation that seems equally plausible and less of a gamble, I go for the safer choice.

And no need to apologize, a forum lives on the user's discussions and different opinions! :)
Steinitz grabbed any pawn het could get.
Fischer played 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 a6 6 Bg5 e6 7 f4 Qb6 8 Qd2 Qxb2 and Kasparov did so too.
Fischer called it positionally right.
Steinitz overstrained his concept of defense, that's why he lost to Chigorin. He thought he was able to defend everything when material ahead.
In Sankt-Petersburg 1895 when Steinitz was 59 years old and almost blind, he won an accepted Evans Gambit with black against Chigorin, though the Lasker defence was already known.

Nimzovich warned against grabbing pawns in the opening and stated only central pawns should be taken and gambit pawns should be returned with advantage. This advice did not stop him from playing 1 e4 Nc6 2 d4 d5 3 exd5 Qxd5 4 Be3 e6 5 Be2 Qxg2 against Brinkmann, Berlin 1927.

Fischer also played 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Ng5 d5 4 exd5 Na5 5 Bb5+ c6 6 dxc6 bxc6 7 Be2 h6 8 Nh3 in Steinitz' style.

Also in the French defence Qd1-g4xg7 is common. It is said that Qxg7 is a punishment for Bb4 and that Qxb2 is a punishment for Bg5. The absence of the Bishop justifies taking the pawn to weaken the squares of the bishop's colour.
According to my experience if you don't have much counterplay with bishop or rook loosing the g or b pawn can become very troublesome. If the opponent's pieces aren't well coordinated I think taking could be a good move, 'cause you may force him to defend something and loosing tempos in order to keep everything togheter. On the other end in some positions taking g or b pawn could be like opening a pressure cooker, and you'll get burnt from opponent's pieces gaining tempos on your queen and using the free diagonal and file.
@Sarg0n I definitely love the "would you have moved there if there hadn't been a pawn?" quote.
Recap: if taking exposes enemy's weaknesses take, else don't.
Anyway I'm no strong player, so don't give my words too much credit!
Sometimes it's virtually impossible, sometimes it's only-move. And in some case it's a matter of taste though. For example, here I refrained from taking on b2 (5. ... Qxb2, see below) because I was surprised by a strong FM in the opening and I didn't try to find the London theory otb.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.