I see a lot of my opponents (relative server ratings around 1500), usually when playing black, bump a pawn up to a6 or h6, usually early in the opening and often in response to Nf3 or Nc3. It seems to me that it’s a wasted move. I understand that it keeps the knights off b5 and g5 but serves no other purpose i can see and I can’t link the moves to any subsequent moves. It also seems to me there are more productive ways to defend those squares. Am I missing the point or are my weak opponents misusing some opening concept intended for stronger players?
Moderators, please delete this post of mine. (The OP made corrections to the original post.) Thanks,
Bill Smythe
Your best bet is Dan Heisman’s Novice Nook column, A Guide to P-R3, at http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman48.pdf. The very short answer is that there are times when a pre-emptive move like a3/a6 or h3/h6 is appropriate, but it should pnly be used to prevent actual danger.
One of the most common sound cases is the Najdorf Sicilian: 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6, where 5. … a6 is used to prevent tactics involving Nb5 or Bb5 after 6. … e5, and prepare for a later push to b5 and b4 (as black targets white’s pawn on e4 in many variations).
Thanks for the link and the example. I’ve bookmarked it and will read it as soon as I can.
Thank you, Mr. Smythe, for the correction. My ignorance of this game clearly and knows no bounds.
One of the most basic principles of chess emphasizes the importance of the center. The opening moves of a game should either occupy the center or fight for it.
What do the moves a6 and h6 do to occupy or fight for the center? Nothing. Now you know why those moves are weak. And you also know what your next move should be.
1.e4 a6 and you play 2.d4 (best) or 2.Nf3 (acceptable) or 2.Bc4 (weaker)
1.d4 h6 and you play 2.e4 (best) or 2.Nf3 (good) or 2.c4 (good)
Michael Aigner
P.S. 2.Bc4 is weaker because it breaks another basic opening rule: move knights before bishops.
I told someone recently that a “mistake” in the opening, according to the books or Chessbase, could just be new theory. Time, tempo, speed of development are all similar terms for what you need to accomplish for the pieces at the beginning of the game. Bayonet moves like g4 and b4, and their counterparts by Black, were all the rage in the 1990’s as a means to speed up the attack. Maybe it is time to look at the “creeping” moves a3, h3, …h6, and …a6 that were popular in Paul Morphy’s time in the mid-1800’s. There are a number of opening variations that feature these moves to thwart the play of the bishops to strong squares.
For what it’s worth (and given the near-infinitesimal sample size, that’s probably not much), 1 … a6 does have at least one big-time scalp.
I’d say 2.Bc4 is weaker because it makes 1…a6 less irrelevant, in that …b7-b5 is now with tempo. And …a6 is definitely a useful move: it’s just not worth a full tempo on move 1. (…a6 can contribute to the fight for the center, as the Najdorf example above demonstrates. And in the Spanish, …a6 makes it easier to strongpoint e5 and undermine d4.)
But we want to make essential moves before optional ones.
Has anybody experimented with 1.e4 a6 2.d4 c5? I’d be inclined to play 3.c3.
Chernev’s Logical Chess: Move by Move is very entertaining, but it’s sometimes infuriatingly misleading in the way it demonizes P-R3.
See this earlier post (Chernev claimed that White was busted because of h2-h3).
The TV news anchor in San Diego chose to play 1.h3 against a 2300 rated 9th grader. After black replied with the strongest move … e5, the anchor found one of the two worst moves on the board. Adults, please don’t try this against your kids.
Michael Aigner
Maybe the anchor was being polite?
Michael’s point is that h3 (or …h6) weakens the dark (or light) squares around the king. 1.h3 e5 2.f3 (or 2.f4) Qh4+ 3.g3 Qxg3 mate. I confess I’ve never seen the Fool’s Mate Deferred (Fool’s Mate Gambit?) before.
For that matter, I’ve never seen the Fool’s Mate played unintentionally. It takes a lot of bad luck to pick moves randomly and get 1. h3 and 2. f3!
-
c3 goes to a French-like position after Black plays … e6 and then … d5. Generally a6 is a useful (whether it’s best is a matter of taste) move in those positions.
-
d5 is fairly attractive, you’ll get pawns on f4, e4, d5 which should beat his a6, b5, c5 lump. When he plays b5 you hit it with a4 and suck the energy out of it. If he doesn’t play b5 he just has a worse position. But he can take down your pawn center with e6, if you can’t play c4 because he’s got a pawn on b5. These plans don’t always work.
I most like 3. dxc5 since Black has weakened his dark squares with his first two moves esp. b6, and also wasted time so that the pawn can now be defended e.g. 3…e6 4. Be3 Qc7 5. b4. (or 4… Qa5+ 5. c3 Bxc5? 6. b4.) Also … Na6 aiming at c5 is now impossible for Black. Best may be 3…Qa5+ 4. Nc3, Qxc5 and I definitely prefer White who is now several tempi ahead in development. After 5. Be3 Black may be embarrassed, again because of the dark squares (5… Qb4 6. Qd2, Qxb2 (else a3 and the pawn becomes poisoned Qxb2 Ra2) 7. Rb1, Qa3 8. Nd5.) He can play 5… Qa5 but now White is way ahead in development. White can play f4, Nf3, Bd3, 0-0 and get a Pirc like position if Black fianchettoes his KB, but with several tempi ahead of the Pirc. But he could even play g3 (or g4) and Bg2 in that variation. White has time for all that.
a6 and h6 take a move, and they often weaken rather than help the position. It’s not a great idea to play them before you know if you’d rather have the pawn back on its original square to, say, protect b6 or g6.
In Karpov-Miles (e4, a6 … 0-1) Black doesn’t play c5 for a number of moves, so that the dark squares over there don’t get weak.
I used to play for Black the system 1. e4, c5 2. Nf3, a6 and all I can say in justification is that a6 is usually helpful in the Sicilian (I considered it less committal than d6 for example) and White doesn’t get time to exploit the dark squares because of, well, the incalculable exigencies of the Sicilian.
In OTB play, when I was active and younger (2000-2100 rating), I didn’t see this too much, I guess the level was too strong to make such mistakes. I do see it a lot on my lower (and much older) level at 5-min chess on ICC (I seem to linger around 1700). As black, I love to see such moves, usually it enables me to equalize (only to lose on time inevitably).
I guess there’s no set rule you can make, but it can be weakening to your castled king, can waste time. Unless there’s a darned good reason to do it, I’ve never been in favor of these overly cautious moves (one exception: Sicilian, black, when a6 seems to be almost a necessity).
Black’s move a76 prevents Bf1-b5, and thus prevents White from pinning Black’s c6N.
If Black’s c6N is pinned, then the c6N brings less real pressure to the center that it is fighting for.
I do not disagree with your main point of recommending against a76, esp against a very early a76. But your post does not illuminate any flaw in my little comment about a pin of c6N.
.
My comment here is only a glancing tangent, but I suspect that…
…This opening principle of chess, “move knights before bishops”, would not prove robust if tested in certain other setups (start positions) from FRC-chess960. In a sense, this is merely an esoteric tactical truth for the one traditional setup (and probably for a majority of other setups).
However, the principle of fighting for the center would hold up robustly in all chess960 setups. It is a true opening principle of these pieces on this board.
I’m not so sure.
If, from the standard starting position, you merely switch the knights and bishops, already the moves 1.e4 and 1.d4 look relatively pointless, as they do not help develop the bishops.
Or, if you try the fianchetto concept (putting a bishop on the long diagonal to control the center), the Bg1 would have to go to d4 (or the Bb1 to e4), where it is likely to be en prise or forced into tempo-losing retreats.
Bill Smythe
Yeah, but you could play … a6 and … h6 followed by … Ba7 and … Bh7, putting pressure on the center of your opponent. That would even belong in this thread! 
IMO pawn moves are not made lightly, for no reason. Playing h3/6 or a3/6 early in the game, and not in response to an opponent’s move (e.g. 3.Bb5 in the Spanish) is simply a waste of time. It doesn’t get you anything. You don’t know if you’ll actually need it later on.
Not all chess moves are in seemingly direct response to opp’s. That’s what separates success from failure.