lichess.org
Donate

Closed vs Open center

Hello. When I play a game of chess and my opponent plays a pawn break, should I close the center (push the pawn) or open the center (take the pawn)?
<Comment deleted by user>
If you close the center, you are Magnus, and if you open, you're Duda.
It depends upon the position, ur plans and playing style

Suppose if u have 2 bishops u might wanna take it
If u have knights u may push it
If u are a tactical player u may wanna take it
If u are a positional player you may push it
Idk but I am a closed position liker. So at most of the times I closes the center by pushing the pawn. But if needed I also open the centre. I plays the Stonewall opening, so in that players try to close the position and attacks the kingside.
@TheKingClash said in #2:
> All depends on the placement of the pieces. If you are attacking you want to open the centre, if you are being attacked you may prefer to close the centre. If your opponent's pieces are active and yours are undeveloped, it is usually preferable to close the centre to give yourself more time to activate your pieces. If you have a knight vs bishop, close the centre, if you have a bishop against a knight, open the centre. Finally, try to place your pawns on the opposite colour of your bishop, if you only have one.

I don't understand, I'm supposed to close the center when attacking because it's harder for the opponent to transfer his pieces to defend in a closed center, and when I'm attacked, I've heard that I should strike in the center. And when we're both well developed, should I strike in the center or attack on one side? which side?
Man when you are attacking you should try to open the centre so that you can bring all your pieces in play and crush the opponent. But there are some openings even in which you are attacking 'do not try to open the centre'. Such as the London system, Stonewall Bird these both have a specific ideas in the middlegame.
And when you are defending most of them says to close the centre because if you close the centre opponents cannot bring their troops such as the sneaky knight or they will need a lot of moves.
When you are at equal, try to find the imbalances in the game and form a plan and o according to that idea As the legend Mikhail Tal said,. “You must take your opponent into a deep dark forest where 2+2=5, and the path leading out is only wide enough for one.”
<Comment deleted by user>
Depends on the position.
If you give us exact positions, we will give you exact answers.

For example 1.e4 d5 (pawn strike!):
e5 is a positional mistake, Black gets a good position with Bf5 or c5.
Taking the pawn is good.

Another example:
1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 (pawn strike!)
You can take, you can push the pawn, you can "do nothing" and play Nc3 or Nd2.

When you push the pawn, you weaken two squares and you get control of two other squares.
When you take the pawn, you open the file and you have the initiative at that moment (your opponent has to do something, or they just lose a pawn).

"when I'm attacked, I've heard that I should strike in the center"
Depends on position. In general it is much better to be the attacker, because defending is harder.

"And when we're both well developed, should I strike in the center or attack on one side? which side?"
My answer will not surprise you: it depends on the position.
In general, you either attack weak squares or the enemy's King.
So you attack wherever the weak squares are and wherever the King is.

Give us some examples and we can work with them.
There is a third option: keep the tension. For instance in the Caro-Kann 1.e4 c6 2.d4 after the pawn break 2...d5 all options are perfectly playable: 3.exd5 (take pawn), 3.e5 (close center) and 3.Nc3 (keep tension)

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