Talk:Pawn structure

Pawn Power in Chess
Would "Pawn Power in Chess" by Hans Kmoch be a good reference? (I haven't read it.) Should the Soltis book be listed as a reference? Bubba73 (talk), 18:34, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I've listed Soltis as a reference. If you add some material from Kmoch's book you should list it as a reference too. If you generally feel it would be a useful book you could list it under Further reading. Arvindn 19:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I was given Kmoch's book years ago, but I haven't read it. I need to.   Bubba73 (talk), 19:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Good work, 1.e4 e5
Good work on pawn structure - keep it up. 1. e4 e5 openings don't seem to be represented. Are they not considered "major" by Soltis? Bubba73 (talk), 04:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Good point about 1. e4 e5. The Ruy Lopez is certainly well represented: the d5 chain and the  Rauzer formation. Some of the  1. e4 e5 openings are too tactical for the pawn structure to actually matter. The major one that I think is missing is &gt;


 * Does it have a name? Can you think of any other formations? Arvindn 05:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * We could always call it the "boring" formation. J/k ;-) Dave

This is an idiosyncratic entry. There is no discussion of general pawn structure issues: backward, doubled, etc. pawns. I don't like the categorization according to Soltis' framework. I see there are separate links to the more traditional topics in any discussion of pawn structure, but I would think that would be the main focus on an encyclopedia entry. This is more advanced than a general introductory encyclopedia entry, which I would have found useless as an advancing player. (Blue Devil Knight)

Removed content
Removed this for excessive conjecture, lack of citations, and frankly because a lot of the statements are BS.

"Philidor was the first chess player to recognize the importance of pawn structure. Before him, pawns were considered a hindrance to the development of the pieces, to be freely sacrificed for as little as a tempo."

Good Work!
Excellent page. Lots of useful and informative information :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.79.72.41 (talk) 08:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Wyvill Formation?
This is missing the well known Wyvill Formation, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.10.207.140 (talk) 00:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Wedge Formation?
This is missing but includes a piece that has replaced a pawn in the pawn structure. Perhaps pawn formations could be part of a larger concern of using formations for positional analysis MichaelBaun (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC) Michael Baun

Missing distinction between pawn formation and a typical position in which it arises
I think some of the descriptions are lacking a specification with regard to the color that defines or characterizes the respective formation. E.g. to my knowledge, the Maróczy Bind is characterized by the white pawns, whereas the Hedgehog is characterized by the black pawns as depicted in the diagram. In these cases, the corresponding opposite color pawns are only typical opponent’s structures which may arise from specific openings. Therefore I would even go further and say that the statement “Typically, the Maróczy bind would transpose into the Hedgehog formation.” is inaccurate, as the formation depicted for Hedgehog is actually still a Maróczy Bind (for white) but now with a Hedgehog formation (for black). This is actually supported by the respective main articles. In the article on the Maróczy Bind it says: “Black often employs a Hedgehog formation against the Bind.” (Which means it’s not defined by the black pawns; they just indicate a typical setup.) And vice versa, in the main article on the Hedgehog it says: “... White usually places their own pawns on c4 and e4 (the Maróczy Bind).” As I’m not an English native speaker I would appreciate if someone else could change the article accordingly. Otherwise I may give it a try ;-) --Der Zahir (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)