This also reminds me of a Martin Amos novel "the information" (based on the publication date, I'd guess I read it around the same time I was learning the stonewall attack). There's a section where one writer is determined to defeat his friend at everything (tennis, chess, a few others), and he hires people to help him.
The chess teacher, I believe, teaches him something that sounds like the stonewall defense, and reflects that it almost feels like he's teaching someone to cheat at chess rather than play it. The writer isn't cheating of course (at all), but I think it feels this way to the chess master/instructor because he's learning the stonewall because he doesn't really want to engage in the actual competition. He wants to sidestep it in order to win.
I'm not trying to knock the queen's pawn defense, more the way I (and this writer) were trying to use it. I'm sure queen's pawn openings can be very creative. But in my case, this is why I considered my buddy's play of the kind's pawn a "satisfying ending." I was (to use the tennis analogy) using a pusher's approach. When you watch two people playing a game, and it's clear that one person is trying to win by shutting down the game rather than really playing it, you tend to root for the person going for creative play.
This also reminds me of a Martin Amos novel "the information" (based on the publication date, I'd guess I read it around the same time I was learning the stonewall attack). There's a section where one writer is determined to defeat his friend at everything (tennis, chess, a few others), and he hires people to help him.
The chess teacher, I believe, teaches him something that sounds like the stonewall defense, and reflects that it almost feels like he's teaching someone to cheat at chess rather than play it. The writer isn't cheating of course (at all), but I think it feels this way to the chess master/instructor because he's learning the stonewall because he doesn't really want to engage in the actual competition. He wants to sidestep it in order to win.
I'm not trying to knock the queen's pawn defense, more the way I (and this writer) were trying to use it. I'm sure queen's pawn openings can be very creative. But in my case, this is why I considered my buddy's play of the kind's pawn a "satisfying ending." I was (to use the tennis analogy) using a pusher's approach. When you watch two people playing a game, and it's clear that one person is trying to win by shutting down the game rather than really playing it, you tend to root for the person going for creative play.