user12604: [Title "The knight on f5"] 
[FEN "1r1qr1k1/2pb1pp1/2np1n1p/ppb1p3/4P2N/2PP2NP/PPB1QPP1/R1B1K2R b KQ - 5 13"]

I recently played a Blitz game that perfectly underlines my biggest weakness: I don't know how to handle outposts I cannot get rid of. In the position above, white will plonk a knight on f5 and black cannot do anything about it. Yet, black is fine. Kicking the knight away with g6 never works because h6 will be hanging. The engine suggests expanding in the center with d5 and at some point play b4 to open things on the queenside. That makes sense, of course, but white could just sit there and do nothing. My feeling is that I cannot make progress in this position. And, to be honest, the psychological effect of not having achieved anything while my opponent will get an outpost is also quite significant. Of course, I know that, objectively speaking, black has fine development and a good position. But the fact that I cannot force the center to open and basically have to wait is quite uncomfortable for me (against moves like d5 or b4, white can just refuse to take the pawn, and taking on e4 or c3 myself doesn't feel like it achieves much). So, I have a number of questions regarding this position (and playing around outposts in general):

How do you play around outposts?
Do you know any famous grandmaster games that illustrate the concept of playing around an outpost?
What is black's best plan in the position above?


user9684: The easiest way to deal with an outpost is to avoid it in the first place.  (Sorry.  I hate answers like this, but half of chess is anticipating what your opponent is going to do.)  Of course, an outpost on b6 is easier to play around than a more centralized one.  
http://billwall.phpwebhosting.com/dvoretsky/dvoretsky108.pdf is a little article about the second knight becoming superfluous.
In this position, I wouldn't be looking to prevent the knight moving to the outpost, but to provide enough defenders to ensure that a pawn will be forced to recapture.  This would involve Ne7 and Kh7.  If needed, I would even go so far as to force g6 (with or without h5 and a Ng8 to protect the h6 square.  However, more importantly, I don't really see any danger from a knight on f5, so I would play d5 here to put pressure on white's king.  I'm more worried about the destruction the white LSB would do on the a2-g8 diagonal.

user23058: I think the main idea od .. d5 here is to undermine the outpost.  Hence the followup should not be a quick .. d4, but rather trying to keep pressure on e4.  I don't like .. d4 for more than one reason: it makes Bc5 bad, and it tempts White to Bc2-b3 returning to the best diagonal.  My plan would be:

.. d5 motivated as above
.. Bf8 to shore up the kingside and to avoid a hit with tempo on Bc5
.. b4 starting to open lines on queenside and taking aim at White's center from the side
if White does nothing, .. a4 and then .. a3 will break up her pawn chain, eventually gaining the d4 square for Black.  White can counter this by plaing a3 herself but that creates more scope for Black counterplay on the queenside like maybe Nf6-d7-c5-b3.

Now, of course White also moves, and the best use of that will be to cook something up on the kingside.  The side who gets there first will rule the game, and that's how it should be.  Human compatible, 20th century chess :-)

12604: <pre><code>[Title "The knight on f5"] 
[FEN "1r1qr1k1/2pb1pp1/2np1n1p/ppb1p3/4P2N/2PP2NP/PPB1QPP1/R1B1K2R b KQ - 5 13"]
</code></pre>

<p>I recently played a Blitz game that perfectly underlines my biggest weakness: I don't know how to handle outposts I cannot get rid of. In the position above, white will plonk a knight on f5 and black cannot do anything about it. Yet, black is fine. Kicking the knight away with g6 never works because h6 will be hanging. The engine suggests expanding in the center with d5 and at some point play b4 to open things on the queenside. That makes sense, of course, but white could just sit there and do nothing. My feeling is that I cannot make progress in this position. And, to be honest, the psychological effect of not having achieved anything while my opponent will get an outpost is also quite significant. Of course, I know that, objectively speaking, black has fine development and a good position. But the fact that I cannot force the center to open and basically have to wait is quite uncomfortable for me (against moves like d5 or b4, white can just refuse to take the pawn, and taking on e4 or c3 myself doesn't feel like it achieves much). So, I have a number of questions regarding this position (and playing around outposts in general):</p>

<ul>
<li>How do you play around outposts?</li>
<li>Do you know any famous grandmaster games that illustrate the concept of playing around an outpost?</li>
<li>What is black's best plan in the position above?</li>
</ul>
 9684: <p>The easiest way to deal with an outpost is to avoid it in the first place.  (Sorry.  I hate answers like this, but half of chess is anticipating what your opponent is going to do.)  Of course, an outpost on b6 is easier to play around than a more centralized one.  </p>

<p><a href="http://billwall.phpwebhosting.com/dvoretsky/dvoretsky108.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">http://billwall.phpwebhosting.com/dvoretsky/dvoretsky108.pdf</a> is a little article about the second knight becoming superfluous.</p>

<p>In this position, I wouldn't be looking to prevent the knight moving to the outpost, but to provide enough defenders to ensure that a pawn will be forced to recapture.  This would involve Ne7 and Kh7.  If needed, I would even go so far as to force g6 (with or without h5 and a Ng8 to protect the h6 square.  However, more importantly, I don't really see any danger from a knight on f5, so I would play d5 here to put pressure on white's king.  I'm more worried about the destruction the white LSB would do on the a2-g8 diagonal.</p>
 23058: <p>I think the main idea od <code>.. d5</code> here is to undermine the outpost.  Hence the followup should <em>not</em> be a quick <code>.. d4</code>, but rather trying to keep pressure on <code>e4</code>.  I don't like <code>.. d4</code> for more than one reason: it makes <code>Bc5</code> bad, and it tempts White to <code>Bc2-b3</code> returning to the best diagonal.  My plan would be:</p>

<ul>
<li><code>.. d5</code> motivated as above</li>
<li><code>.. Bf8</code> to shore up the kingside and to avoid a hit with tempo on <code>Bc5</code></li>
<li><code>.. b4</code> starting to open lines on queenside and taking aim at White's center from the side</li>
<li>if White does nothing, <code>.. a4</code> and then <code>.. a3</code> will break up her pawn chain, eventually gaining the <code>d4</code> square for Black.  White can counter this by plaing <code>a3</code> herself but that creates more scope for Black counterplay on the queenside like maybe <code>Nf6-d7-c5-b3</code>.</li>
</ul>

<p>Now, of course White also moves, and the best use of that will be to cook something up on the kingside.  The side who gets there first will rule the game, and that's how it should be.  Human compatible, 20th century chess :-)</p>
