Talk:Isolated pawn

On an open file?

In Chessmaster, Josh Waitzkin talks about this in the Academy, and he states (at least in the "Pawn Structure" lesson) that isolated pawns are pawns with no adjacent pawns and that are on open files. Evidently, this was the first time I heard of this (the whole open file part), but I wondered if anyone else had heard of this before.

The lesson is directed mostly to beginners, with explanations of doubled pawns and whatnots; it follows his "opening principles" lesson, just to give you an idea.

Any comments? Any other sources use that open file definition?

Seigneur101 (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Without checking references, I don't think it has to be on a semi-open file to be isolated. Of course it is weaker on a semi-open file. Bubba73 (talk), 20:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete this sentence?

The comment "With four minor pieces each, an IQP is an advantage; with three minor pieces each, it is about even; and with two or fewer minor pieces each, it is a disadvantage" is much too arbitrary. It depends upon the position. This is just a rule of thumb Gallagher gives to lower-rateds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chessmasterguy (talk • contribs) 10:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Gallagher is suitably referenced, rather than it being put as a statement of fact. I understand your point, noted in the tags at the top of the article re Expert, more viewpoints. Jkmaskell (talk) 12:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

d4-d5 break

Also, it should be mentioned somewhere that the break d4-d5 can often be achieved advantageously, either to liquidate the weak pawn and end up with more active pieces with no compensatory weaknesses or to initiate a beneficial tactical sequence by disharmonizing the black pieces and opening the a2-g8 diagonal for the light-squared bishop (and likewise for Black, with the ...d4 break opening the a7-g1 diagonal for the dark-squared bishop). Example : http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1067631Chessmasterguy (talk) 11:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Chessmasterguy

I agree. I'm sure you'll understand, it's not just a matter of saying it. This article in particular needs specific illustrative positions. Jkmaskell (talk) 12:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)