chess question

[R Gibert]

The f-pawn "seems" to be the only pawn whose removal is not compensated by some speed up in development. I say "seems," because after K-side castling, the rook would find itself on the open f-file. This means the loss of any 1 pawn has some development compensation associated with it.

Still the f-pawn would be my choice. My experience as a chess master tells me it should be the most damaging choice, but don't ask me to prove it. The f-pawn has its defensive uses for the King which is quite important, but it possible some other pawn is a better choice for some really subtle reason. I can't rule that out.

[bigpooch]

If I understand the question correctly, your friend gets to
choose which of YOUR pawns to remove, right? His best is
very likely the f-pawn as another poster has mentioned.

It's true that removing a center pawn could make sense
since center pawns are the most valuable pawns, but in
compensation, a bishop can develop immediately.

[FatedEquity]

I am not certain whether you are playing black or white, but I will take white's perspective for simplicity:

In several opening systems, a central pawn is willingly sacrificed in exchange for speedy development. For instance, in the Scotch Gambit (1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 d4 exd4 4 Bc4) and Danish Gambit lines.

In chess, material advantage is merely one of many positional imbalances available to a player. If you are taking your opponent's central pawn, know that you are often offering easier development in return. Thus, it can be said that your gain is worth less than the value of the pawn itself.

Removing the f-pawn would cause several changes in the opening stages of the game:

[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] Kingside castling may become problematic if black places a bishop on the c5 diagonal.

[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] If castled kingside, the king's pawn cover is slightly weakened, thus, it may be necessary to move the king to h1 at some point.

[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] However, removing the f-pawn allows for an open file in the middle game for the rook as in several King's Gambit lines (1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4).

It is a mistake to state that central pawns are the most valuable merely because they are found in the center of the board. In open systems, these pawns are usually the first to be exchanged, thus their role is primarily to open lines for other pieces. Some theoretical perspectives, namely Hypermodernism, argue against the idea of placing pawns in the center, but encourage the opponent from doing so hoping that they may become targets to be attacked from the flanks.

My answer would be that you should take the exploitable route if possible: remove the pawn that hurts your opponent's preferred opening system the most. Some players routinely play the same openings and develop their pieces on the same squares because they are uncomfortable playing otherwise. A master would recognize that removing a pawn from the board alters the positional dynamics, and would thus tailor his strategy to compensate. Amateurs however, tend to stick to what they like best.

If your opponent likes to move his king's bishop and knight, then castle kingside (and dreads castling queenside) then removing pawns that harm his kingside cover would be a good strategy. However, against an opponent who likes to play an aggressive gambit-style open game, removing a central pawn may not be very wise.