I mention this because I think I know how to search my games database (currently over 2 million) for the pawn on the 6th vs pawn on the 2nd.

As a test, I asked for games with a White pawn at g6, a Black pawn at g7, and no Black pawns on either f7 or h7. That gave me 11K hits. Restricting it to games that White won brought it down to 6K. Here's a sample game:

Leko vs Van Wely, 2002

Now some of these are going to be endings where the pawn is not very restrictive or where its advanced position may not be that relevant. Still, it's a start.

I'm very grateful and excited about your search capability here.

Also, you understand the concept well.

What intrigues me most about the FAWN PAWN is that you can't really tell when or if it will become important in the game.

But when it does become important, it's almost always decisive.

It's like a little ticking bomb thay may or may not explode.

The most "true" FAWN PAWN positions, IMO, and the kind I'm most interested in exploring, are the ones where someone manages to push a pawn to the FAWN PAWN position in the early Middle Game.

Sometimes it looks like this is an ill-advised idea, since a prematurely advanced FAWN PAWN can sometimes just be "picked off."

But that's why I like these kinds of games the most.

In the game I played last Saturday, I managed to do just that- pushed a pawn prematurely (in some variations) to the FAWN PAWN rank and it won the game for me.

I'm going to post that part in <Niels'? forum after work today.

In the meantime, I now have TWO games for my collection, thanks to you and <Howard>.

My research "plan" remains playing through every single game in the database backwards, one at a time.

It also struck me:

<Kingscrusher> has posted a few FAWN PAWN games from his career- but he's not a Grandmaster.

I've managed to win several games with the FAWN PAWN plan as well, but I'm not a Grandmaster.

Maybe the Masters are too smart to let someone push a FAWN PAWN on them?

I'm very grateful and excited about your search capability here.>

I thought the first place to look would be in front of the most common castled position. The other pattern would be on one of the central files (e6/d6).

Here's another:

Judit Polgar vs Topalov, 2008

<My research "plan" remains playing through every single game in the database backwards, one at a time.>

1) Both players rated 2400+

2) White pawn on d6, Black pawn on d7, no Black pawns on either c7 or e7

3) This configuration reached by move 25 and maintained for at least 10 ply

4) White wins

This gave me a much more manageable number of 209 games. Here's one for your viewing pleasure:

Bareev vs A Korotylev, 2004

I thought I would try one of the central pawns because that is not just about an assault on the King as with the pawn on g6, but more likely to be about cramping the opponent's position.

Yes, i am aware of that.

Thanks so much for digging up <game 3>-

Also, your post reminded me- and it's driving me crazy because I can't remember it well enough to find it-

One of <AA Alekhine's> immortals, one of his best known games involves the use of a <fawn pawn> on the enemy Queenside after a Queenside castle.

Actually I can probably find that one on my own now that it's the weekend.

Embarrassingly, I've actually studied that game in some detail, and still can't find it off "the top of my head."

I figure if we can find even <five> fawn pawn games we can start the games collection.

I really think it's an underrated idea to push a pawn in the Middle Game, with the idea of restricting the enemy King, or maybe exchange itself off to damage pawn structure--

Something about the perilousness of a premature pawn advance.

The solo adventurer striking attacking the enemy army single handedly.

Often, the pawn can just get picked off.

Also, as a kingside pawn advances, obviously it is weakening it's own kingside in it's quest.

It is a romantic idea to me.

And though rare- so beautiful.

It's fun to laugh at <political correctness> as a concept- it's so very easy to parody, for one.

Too easy.

But there is something to be angry about here. I was angry all day today and I blame <Brown "University">.

I thought about this all day today at work, "writing" several essays in my head- all incoherent.

I don't know what to post- Or send to you in and EMU- or maybe publish.

Although how does one publish now?

I have a few publications and a few CBC radio "airings" in my "writing career," but I think the future of publishing is on the Internet, like it or not.

That's a whole other topic.

Anyhoo I'm still gathering thoughts here, but there is something seriously wrong and I need to say something about it.

Very briefly-

"Political Correctness" is most objectionable as a concept, IMO, in that it not only totally contradicts itself- it also works AGAINST, rather than IN AID OF, a society that is freer of discrimination, a society that is more tolerant, liberal, and enlightened.

That's how bad a concept it is.

It's also intellectually flabby.

Really, really flabby.

Flabbier than most of the "intellectual" concepts promulgated by <religious doctrines>.

This state of affairs is not even close to good enough.

Ok- See how I've made a list of charges, a list of truth claims, and not provided evidence or any kind of analytical rationale for those charges?

I will be back with the goods after some more thinking.

Both a public post and an EMU to you.

Ok can't sign off this post without one more gratuitous bit of libel-

To the <Brown "University" Administration and Faculty>:

You are GUTLESS, GUTLESS, GUTLESS.

Shame on all of you.

And a pox on all your houses.

(I'm not sure what that last one means).

Alekhine vs Perello + 3 players, 1935

or this one?

Alekhine vs Reshevsky, 1937

or was Alekhine Black?

If you're going to start looking for these kinds of things, it may be time to set you up with a database program. I recommend SCID http://scid.sourceforge.net/.

It's in your price range (FREE).

It will handle big databases. Mine is currently over 2 million games. For the AA games it was faster for me to search for them in SCID, then pop over to CG so I could hyperlink them for you.

I recently got <hms> to try it. You'd have a couple of people you could ask when you have questions.

OK well you know I understand why you are angry by the recent decision of Brown University.>

Perhaps a better example...no clearly a better example of PC is the lowering of flags which bring unpleasant memories. The Nazi swastika and the Confederate battle flags come to mind. Should these flags be outlawed? Or should the swastika and St. George's Cross be returned to their previously benign status? Is that even possible? After 150 years, the Confederate flag still raises hackles. And the poor swastika may forever be consigned to the dustbin, at least in the West.

Which brings us to Charlie Brown U. How many Mohawks attend, I wonder? Although the idea of Columbus discovering America is silly and makes as much sense as saying Alexander the Great discovered India, it hardly rises to the level of obscenity.

<They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance... They would make fine servants... With 50 men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want.>

<"Let us in the name of the Holy Trinity," Columbus later wrote, "go on sending all the slaves that can be sold.">

<Nazism and slavery were obscenities.> and you really can't talk about Columbus without talking about slavery.

Reshevsky vs Botvinnik, 1948

click for larger view

Capablanca vs Ragozin, 1935

click for larger view

–

K Treybal vs H Wolf, 1922

click for larger view

Yates vs S Takacs, 1927

click for larger view

Remember that certain historical cases of political outrage- IE- your examples-- themselves can become dehistoricized when they become <emblematic> of a binary opposition between <right/wrong>.

That's why we invented a justice system- to <quantify> ethics, both synchronically (he stole my Battsford!) and diachronically (pay the Japanese back who got their property stolen in BC during WWII).

Point is that this quantification is both historical and imperfect-

And I mean always imperfect.

But it's wisdom actually lies in that very imperfection, because it resists ahistorical, grand, absolutiest ethical binary oppositions in the ideal realm by rendering concretely- and, always, provisionally- in the imperfect realm of "the courts"-- domestic and international.

Mainly, one must be really specific about what historical event one wishes to label as an <obscenity>. Because it's a very strong and loaded term that lends itself to the (often unwitting) process of dehistoricization, which is bad science and leads to bad pubic policy, frankly.

The label of <politically "correct"> is both amorphous and woefully simplistic. The urge to right past wrongs of past sociopolitical discrimation, racism, unwarranted violence, is a good one. However, when the <brigade> goes forth- so often foolishly, rashly, and inaccurately- on their quest to "right historical wrongs", often, unfortunately, all they do is end up aiding the putative enemy.

That is, they help create a climate which is univocal, unliberal, unfree, and intolerant.

Cortez the Killer, Pizarro, Columbus. They all conquered societies that themselves were Empires forged through conquest. And which featured, rather saliently, slavery. Oh yes and human sacrifice.

You can't just indiscriminately be "pointing the historical finger" with a brush labeled "politically correct."

You have to actually get down to cases in order to make historical ehtical judgments.

It's better to speak specifically and historically than to invoke and use "ahistorical concepts" such as <political correctness>.

Ie- It's really obscene what the Nazis did. Hitler was a very bad leader. Maybe- maybe it's a good idea to remember this by not using the Swastika.

Ok- I agree with all of those points. But in order to do so, I don't need to use the term <politically correct>, nor do I have to invoke the concept- which is really my point.

The flat, declarative language of the <journalist> is best suited to articulating history.

Ie- "The Sioux perpetrated genocide on at least 14 fellow Plains Indian Tribes."

This is true- (and an "inconvenient truth" for the <politically correct brigade of the unlearned>, with their ahistorical binary rhetoric of <right/wrong> brandished as weapons)-

But a much less loaded, and more accurate, way to say it would be

"The Sioux deliberately killed all of the men, women and children of the following tribes < a, b, c, etc.> in order to take the land for their own use and to increase their own numbers. They did this between the following years, and were aided in this task through trade with Europeans, which gave them access to firearms that other Plains people lacked."

That's better history writing.

Telling what happened. Dispassionately.

What the <politically correct brigade of the confused and unlearned> like to do is employ highly charged rhetoric such as <colonialism> in order to denigrate a certain period of European colonialism while ignoring the colonizing pasts of the peoples who were colonized in their turn.

Consider this paradox in Pop Culture- The recent "Anti Columbus" film and "Apocalypto"- The first demonizes Columbus and the second demonizes the Mayans.

Both films, in terms of "history telling," are woefully dehistoricized by their <black/white> ethical vision.

Which is not true vision at all.

<Ghandi> had good (accurate) ethical vision, IMNSHO:

<Ghandi>: "There has never been a human action- no matter how trivial or grand- that has had either all good, or all bad consequences."

The very concept of <political correctness>- forget the "practice" of it- does not allow for the veracity of Ghandi's truth claim.

Which happens to be true.

And finally- the rhetorical trick of the <politically correct parade of the unlearned bullies> is that if you attempt to critique thier project, they can just accuse you of trying to defend Hitler or defend slavery.

I have more than enough now- thanks to you and <Big Crawdaddy> - to keep me busy for weeks..

heh

ALSO:::::

Will you please join our discussion of "political correctness" in general, and the <Brown "University"> decision in particular?

Really. Please join.

BECAUSE YOU STARTED IT!!!

heh

Doh!

Maybe I should have proof read this more carefully.

Or not! I can pretend I was referring to the inadequacy of the US Government to address the "STD" problem in that fine country.

after all, it's <Columbus> Day, not <European Discovery of the New World> Day.

if Brown had decided to stop teaching the events of Columbus's's's life and the significance of his actions, i would be the first to condemn them. but i can understand choosing not to <celebrate> him personally with a holiday in his name.

this is probably a bad analogy, but here goes nothing - Brown is obligated to teach history students about <Hitler>, but they have no reason to celebrate <Hitler Day>.

the vast majority of schoolchildren in this country, upon seeing that there is a <Columbus Day>, assume that the man should be revered and looked up to as some kind of saint, as they are taught this behavior in the case of <President's Day> or <Martin Luther King Jr. Day> or <Veteran's Day>. but this is inappropriate, IMHO.

every student of history must learn about Columbus. but that doesn't mean we should have a national holiday celebrating a man that was a slavedriver. a very ambitious and successful slavedriver, but a slavedriver nonetheless.

having a knowledge of Columbus's's's's significance and celebrating him as a hero with a national holiday are very different things.

there is a big difference between south carolina taking the confederate flag down from the state capitol building, and banning the flag from being displayed in the state.

if south carolinian folks were being arrested and forced to take down confederate flags from their <private> residences, this would be an example of <PC> run wild, and worthy of condemnation.

but the south carolina state capitol is a <public> building, paid for by taxpayer money, and is the seat of a representative government. and many of those taxpayers and constituents happen to be <black people> that don't appreciate the confederate flag being flown over a building that they paid for. the SC state government should not take down the flag because it is <PC>, but rather because it does not represent the people that paid for the building and who voted for the people that work there, and is downright repulsive to many of them.