Answers.Body: <p>First, although it is hard to disagree with the computer there, it is interesting that 8...c4 scores quite well for black in the Mega 2019 database (only a 43.8% for white).</p>
  
  <p>The first obvious thing that comes to mind is that anytime you change the base of attack on the pawn chain like that it does two related things (right now the base of attack is at d4 and black can attack it with c5...after c4 the new base is c3, and black will need to attack it with b5-b4): Typically when you push, it often makes the later break with b5-b4 stronger, but of course it does not come without a price...it is much slower so you may never get to play that break, or it might be ineffectual by then, especially on the q-side since with similar advances on the k-side threats to the king cannot be ignored. A very common example of this is in the King's Indian Classical Variation, when black plays f5-f4. It is slower, but there are countless examples showing just how dangerous black's attack may become if white's counterplay is not very active. Sometimes, white's q-side counterplay can even be ignored, even if it costs a rook or other significant material due to unstoppable mating threats.</p>
  
  <p>In this position, specifically, you are already behind in development, so slowing your counterplay on the q-side may well be fatal. Right now, until you are better developed, and can see if white might somehow not continue to develop effectively, it is too early to change the attack point of white's pawn chain. If you catch up in development, and see that white cannot attack your castled king with impunity, then maybe later you can opt for c4.</p>
  
  <p>A better plan is to play Ne7-c6 (it may also go to f5) and pressure d4. Other common moves in that plan will be Be7, 0-0, and possibly cd and Qb6 with Rc8 to follow.</p>
  
  <p>In the line that you gave, after 8...c4; 9 Qc2 b5, instead of immediately taking on black's q-side, I think white should just continue developing to make your lack of development more pronounced. I even suggest the very "sophisticated" 10.Bg5! Be7; 11. Be3! when black has to figure out how to finish developing his k-side since 11....Nh6 is just bad there as is 11....f6. I think black is in trouble in the long run.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-09-26T10:09:54.900Z
Answers.Text: I like your opening paragraph, because there is a human element here that should not be entirely discounted, in my opinion. See [my other comment](https://chess.stackexchange.com/posts/comments/39882).
Answers.UserDisplayName: user21820
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-09-27T11:55:41.900Z
Answers.Text: The accepted answer about releasing the tension early is correct, but what does that really mean in practice? That is what my answer really explains... the why it is bad, and how it really affects the position.
Answers.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-09-28T17:02:36.387Z
Answers.Text: That's why I upvoted your answer, not the accepted one.
Answers.UserDisplayName: user21820
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-09-28T18:09:06.337Z
Answers.Text: @user21820 Thank you. My comment was to help future readers understand more. It is very easy to cite a rule or principle, but people need to understand why it is a rule, and how to judge when to accept it, or ignore it.
Answers.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-09-30T16:16:42.930Z
Answers.Text: @PhishMaster. I actually liked both of the answers very much, but I am forced to only pick one.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Maths64
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-09-30T16:28:28.290Z
Answers.Text: @Maths64, you are free to pick whatever answer you want, and there are no hard feelings, but I do want people to understand the difference in the answers, and that there really was more depth to my explanation. It is easy to cite a principle, but why is it a principle? How does it work in a real game? If one does not know the ideas behind a principle, then in a case of tension, how would one know when it is OK to release it, or not, and moreover, why is OK or not? Understanding a principle is much more important than being able to cite it. Some are easy like "A knight on the rim is dim".
Answers.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-09-30T16:28:42.623Z
Answers.Text: This one is MUCH more complex.
Answers.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-09-30T16:31:11.070Z
Answers.Text: P.S. I do appreciate the answers of mine that you have accepted which is one of the reasons I try to add more substance when you ask a question.
Answers.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-09-30T19:48:13.690Z
Answers.Text: @Maths64 First, I did not know that you could change your accepted answer, but I really was not lobbying for that. I was just trying to explain it, and it did not bother me. Nevertheless, thank you. I just upvoted three of Brian Tower's questions/answers to make up for the lost points.
Answers.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-09-30T21:41:07.927Z
Answers.Text: @PhishMaster. Both of your answers mentioned the underdevelopment and while Brian’s answer made a great point mentioning that my Queen does not belong to the c file, it is true that you made a deeper explanation about how slow the Q-side attack can get and about the targets on the pawn chain. After reconsidering, I have regarded that maybe the latter was very relevant to the question. Again, I thank you both for your answer and hope that you are both OK with my decision
Answers.UserDisplayName: Maths64
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-10-01T01:49:51.627Z
Answers.Text: @Maths64 one last thing: I still think that Qc2 was absolutely fine, and to me, it is more natural than the suggested Qe2 since the Rf1 may want the e-file, and the Q would just be in the way. The Qc2 is every bit as active, and very safe and stable on c2. It was only the plan with the early a4 leading to trades that seemed faulty. Again, look at the plan I suggested that keeps your comment lead, and makes it very hard for black to finish developing. One thing I learned years ago reading Kasparov's notes in Informants, and that was that his more subtle eval of +- was often only += to me, but
Answers.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-10-01T01:53:03.453Z
Answers.Text: Of course, he would be correct. What I am getting at is that players of different strengths need more, or less if very strong, to win a game, or to feel it is "won". My opinion is that after Bg5 Be7; Be3, between two strong GMs, black is already on the verge of losing there.
Answers.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-09-25T15:52:12.890Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-09-25T15:52:12.890Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Answers.Body: <p>c4 is the usual beginner's mistake of releasing the tension unnecessarily. With the pawn on c5 you exert some pressure on d4 which can be increased with moves like Ne7-c6. When the pawn moves to c4 that pressure disappears. </p>
  
  <p>If you played Ne7 instead then taking the c5 pawn is bad for white. You are not going to retake immediately but instead play Nc6. This gives white the choice between allowing you to recapture on c5 with the bishop with gain of tempo or allowing you to take the more important e5 pawn. Instead of taking on c5 white will want to develop his queenside pieces but this is awkward in the current position. His dark squared bishop is problematic.</p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>After 9. Qc2 b5 10. a4 a6 11. axb5 axb5 12. Rxa8</p>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>This is "hope" chess. You "hope" your opponent is going to make some bad moves and then your bad move magically becomes a good move. If you want to improve then you have to stop doing this. </p>
  
  <p>Your opponent is not going to play Qc2 because if the c file opens then he wants a rook on that file not the queen. Qe2 is better. He is also not going to play 10. a4. He is going to play 10. b3, immediately attacking the front of your pawn chain.</p>
  
  <p>Furthermore you are a long way behind in development with your king still stuck in the middle. You should not be wasting time on further pawn moves, particularly ones which threaten to open the position leaving your king exposed to attack. Ne7 is more to the point, developing a piece and getting you one move closer to being able to castle.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-09-26T10:08:50.093Z
Answers.Text: But isn't "hope" chess an important part of human chess? See [this post](https://chess.stackexchange.com/q/23916) where the asker wishes to find chess engines that don't merely prolong a lost game as long as possible but rather plays "hope" chess and try to make the opponent make a mistake.
Answers.UserDisplayName: user21820
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-09-25T15:42:51.687Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-09-25T15:42:51.687Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Brian Towers
Body: <p>I am having trouble understanding why the push c4 here is incorrect for Black.</p>
  
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/IfwhY.jpg" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/IfwhY.jpg" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>
  
  <p>After 9. Qc2 b5 10. a4 a6 11. axb5 axb5 12. Rxa8 can be recaptured with the Queen and the pawn chain is stable.</p>
  
  <p>What is wrong then with this push?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-09-28T22:55:38.057Z
Comments.Text: Closing up the centre releases the pressure on White, allowing him to attack on the kingside.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Inertial Ignorance
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-09-30T11:33:49.147Z
Comments.Text: Why are you assuming White will play ```a4```?
Comments.UserDisplayName: David
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-09-30T12:40:49.887Z
Comments.Text: @David. It was simply to prove that if White attempts to break the pawns chain, they will not suceed.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Maths64
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-09-30T15:44:40.447Z
Comments.Text: @Maths64 OK, but please also include a line where White makes a somewhat accurate play
Comments.UserDisplayName: David
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-09-30T16:16:33.053Z
Comments.Text: @David. I think PhishMaster’s line is a perfect continuation.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Maths64
Tags: <pawns><caro-kann>
Title: Caro-Kann c5-c4 push
ThreadText: # Caro-Kann c5-c4 push
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2019-09-25)
  
  I am having trouble understanding why the push c4 here is incorrect for Black.
  
  [![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/IfwhY.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/IfwhY.jpg)
  
  After 9. Qc2 b5 10. a4 a6 11. axb5 axb5 12. Rxa8 can be recaptured with the Queen and the pawn chain is stable.
  
  What is wrong then with this push?
  
  **Tags:** pawns, caro-kann
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Closing up the centre releases the pressure on White, allowing him to attack on the kingside.  
  > **username_2**: Why are you assuming White will play ```a4```?  
  > **username_0**: @username_2. It was simply to prove that if White attempts to break the pawns chain, they will not suceed.  
  > **username_2**: @username_0 OK, but please also include a line where White makes a somewhat accurate play  
  > **username_0**: @username_2. I think username_3’s line is a perfect continuation.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2019-09-25. Score: 6 | Accepted answer
  
  First, although it is hard to disagree with the computer there, it is interesting that 8...c4 scores quite well for black in the Mega 2019 database (only a 43.8% for white).
  
  The first obvious thing that comes to mind is that anytime you change the base of attack on the pawn chain like that it does two related things (right now the base of attack is at d4 and black can attack it with c5...after c4 the new base is c3, and black will need to attack it with b5-b4): Typically when you push, it often makes the later break with b5-b4 stronger, but of course it does not come without a price...it is much slower so you may never get to play that break, or it might be ineffectual by then, especially on the q-side since with similar advances on the k-side threats to the king cannot be ignored. A very common example of this is in the King's Indian Classical Variation, when black plays f5-f4. It is slower, but there are countless examples showing just how dangerous black's attack may become if white's counterplay is not very active. Sometimes, white's q-side counterplay can even be ignored, even if it costs a rook or other significant material due to unstoppable mating threats.
  
  In this position, specifically, you are already behind in development, so slowing your counterplay on the q-side may well be fatal. Right now, until you are better developed, and can see if white might somehow not continue to develop effectively, it is too early to change the attack point of white's pawn chain. If you catch up in development, and see that white cannot attack your castled king with impunity, then maybe later you can opt for c4.
  
  A better plan is to play Ne7-c6 (it may also go to f5) and pressure d4. Other common moves in that plan will be Be7, 0-0, and possibly cd and Qb6 with Rc8 to follow.
  
  In the line that you gave, after 8...c4; 9 Qc2 b5, instead of immediately taking on black's q-side, I think white should just continue developing to make your lack of development more pronounced. I even suggest the very "sophisticated" 10.Bg5! Be7; 11. Be3! when black has to figure out how to finish developing his k-side since 11....Nh6 is just bad there as is 11....f6. I think black is in trouble in the long run.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_4**: I like your opening paragraph, because there is a human element here that should not be entirely discounted, in my opinion. See [my other comment](https://chess.stackexchange.com/posts/comments/39882).  
  > **username_3**: The accepted answer about releasing the tension early is correct, but what does that really mean in practice? That is what my answer really explains... the why it is bad, and how it really affects the position.  
  > **username_4**: That's why I upvoted your answer, not the accepted one.  
  > **username_3**: @username_4 Thank you. My comment was to help future readers understand more. It is very easy to cite a rule or principle, but people need to understand why it is a rule, and how to judge when to accept it, or ignore it.  
  > **username_0**: @username_3. I actually liked both of the answers very much, but I am forced to only pick one.  
  > **username_3**: @username_0, you are free to pick whatever answer you want, and there are no hard feelings, but I do want people to understand the difference in the answers, and that there really was more depth to my explanation. It is easy to cite a principle, but why is it a principle? How does it work in a real game? If one does not know the ideas behind a principle, then in a case of tension, how would one know when it is OK to release it, or not, and moreover, why is OK or not? Understanding a principle is much more important than being able to cite it. Some are easy like "A knight on the rim is dim".  
  > **username_3**: This one is MUCH more complex.  
  > **username_3**: P.S. I do appreciate the answers of mine that you have accepted which is one of the reasons I try to add more substance when you ask a question.  
  > **username_3**: @username_0 First, I did not know that you could change your accepted answer, but I really was not lobbying for that. I was just trying to explain it, and it did not bother me. Nevertheless, thank you. I just upvoted three of Brian Tower's questions/answers to make up for the lost points.  
  > **username_0**: @username_3. Both of your answers mentioned the underdevelopment and while Brian’s answer made a great point mentioning that my Queen does not belong to the c file, it is true that you made a deeper explanation about how slow the Q-side attack can get and about the targets on the pawn chain. After reconsidering, I have regarded that maybe the latter was very relevant to the question. Again, I thank you both for your answer and hope that you are both OK with my decision  
  > **username_3**: @username_0 one last thing: I still think that Qc2 was absolutely fine, and to me, it is more natural than the suggested Qe2 since the Rf1 may want the e-file, and the Q would just be in the way. The Qc2 is every bit as active, and very safe and stable on c2. It was only the plan with the early a4 leading to trades that seemed faulty. Again, look at the plan I suggested that keeps your comment lead, and makes it very hard for black to finish developing. One thing I learned years ago reading Kasparov's notes in Informants, and that was that his more subtle eval of +- was often only += to me, but  
  > **username_3**: Of course, he would be correct. What I am getting at is that players of different strengths need more, or less if very strong, to win a game, or to feel it is "won". My opinion is that after Bg5 Be7; Be3, between two strong GMs, black is already on the verge of losing there.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_5 on 2019-09-25. Score: 8
  
  c4 is the usual beginner's mistake of releasing the tension unnecessarily. With the pawn on c5 you exert some pressure on d4 which can be increased with moves like Ne7-c6. When the pawn moves to c4 that pressure disappears.
  
  If you played Ne7 instead then taking the c5 pawn is bad for white. You are not going to retake immediately but instead play Nc6. This gives white the choice between allowing you to recapture on c5 with the bishop with gain of tempo or allowing you to take the more important e5 pawn. Instead of taking on c5 white will want to develop his queenside pieces but this is awkward in the current position. His dark squared bishop is problematic.
  
  > After 9. Qc2 b5 10. a4 a6 11. axb5 axb5 12. Rxa8
  
  This is "hope" chess. You "hope" your opponent is going to make some bad moves and then your bad move magically becomes a good move. If you want to improve then you have to stop doing this.
  
  Your opponent is not going to play Qc2 because if the c file opens then he wants a rook on that file not the queen. Qe2 is better. He is also not going to play 10. a4. He is going to play 10. b3, immediately attacking the front of your pawn chain.
  
  Furthermore you are a long way behind in development with your king still stuck in the middle. You should not be wasting time on further pawn moves, particularly ones which threaten to open the position leaving your king exposed to attack. Ne7 is more to the point, developing a piece and getting you one move closer to being able to castle.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_4**: But isn't "hope" chess an important part of human chess? See [this post](https://chess.stackexchange.com/q/23916) where the asker wishes to find chess engines that don't merely prolong a lost game as long as possible but rather plays "hope" chess and try to make the opponent make a mistake.  
  
  ---
  
  