Talk:Control of the centre

Can anyone give a better explanation of why control of the centre is considered so important? In particular it's not clear why controlling (i.e. attacking) the centre squares is apparently more important than pieces being on the centre, given that it's pieces on the centre that have most mobility. (Or is controlling the centre a first stage in attempting to put pieces on the centre from where they can control more of the board?) Ben Finn 14:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Pieces in the center are normally excellent if they can't be forced to move. If they can be forced away by the opponent then the advantage is only temporary. ChessCreator (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you control the center, you most likely have quick and easy access to all sides of the board, giving you a maneuverability that is coveted in a game of chess. GrandMattster 15:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge?
This article should not be merged with chess, which is a comprehensive overview. If it is to be merged, chess strategy would be better. Bubba73 (talk), 01:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree as above and, after reviewing both articles, have changed the proposal. Taheel95 Tar-talk
 * Agree. Although be aware of link from Chess_opening. SunCreator (talk) 00:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This subject is sufficiently important to give it its own page. Don't merge.  GrandMattster 21:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that unless someone is willing to expand this article into something of sufficient length, it should be merged into chess strategy and if it then is made longer could be remade into its own page. But in the meantime, I think that it would maintain good quality if they are merged.Chicagotrains (talk) 22:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, okay. Sounds alright to me.  Nobody seems to actually want to do the work and merge them, though... GrandMattster 15:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I merged it. Chess strategy still needs a lot of work, though.  Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 16:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for doing that. I'm too lazy.  =) GrandMattster 20:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)