SF 16 · 7MBNNUE
in local browser
in local browser
White's wins in the Stonewall are often visually pleasing and positionally convincing. They are likely to be used in strategy books. This decision unintentionally conveys the idea that the Stonewall is positionally incorrect.
Black's wins are often based on tactical resources of some sort, hence they can often be considered "accidental" rather than meritorious.
White's plans :
- Obtaining firm control of the e5-square, placing a knight on this square.
- Trade dark-squared bishops to further weaken Black's dark-squares.
- Expand on the queenside or open the c-file at a favourable stage and pursue an invasion down file.
Black's plans :
- Create a kingside attack, but without completely losing control of the central squares.
- Improve the bad bishop with the manoeuvre ...Bd7-e8-h5 or sometimes ...b7-b6 followed by ...Ba6.
- Create a central tension with ...b7-b6 followed by ...c6-c5.
For the first Black's plan to succeed, the control of the central squares is essential. If White has undisputed control of the e5-square, then most of Black's attacking attempts will fail. A healthy attack for Black will keep a balance between fighting for the e5-square and advancing on the kingside. The second Black's plan is important and useful but not always necessary. Black can find a good position even with his bishop on the humble d7-square. Finally, Black's plan 1 and 3 should certainly not be combined. The point of plan 1 is that the Stonewall creates a solid central structure, making a flank attack possible. The attack would probably fail if the move ...c6-c5 had already been played.
Chat room