Reason why a kingside attack is not justified
Given my lead in development in this game, the presence of an advanced pawn on the 5th rank and the arrangement of the pieces toward Black king, I think that an immediate kingside attack is justified.
In the game I ended up playing a move which I do not like very much now that I think about it (6.Bg5).
However, thinking about it now, I believe it would be best if I had started playing g3 with the idea of defending the knight in my next move (Nh4) as well as to support an upcoming advance f2-f4.
However, Stockfish seems to prefer to slowly manoeuvre on the other side of the board with b3, Nc3... but all of these moves seem to ignore White's lead in development. I can see that moving my pawn to b3 will eventually allow my light-squared bishop to be placed on d3. But I believe that is too slow.
Why is a kingside attack not justified here?
analysis
add a comment |
Given my lead in development in this game, the presence of an advanced pawn on the 5th rank and the arrangement of the pieces toward Black king, I think that an immediate kingside attack is justified.
In the game I ended up playing a move which I do not like very much now that I think about it (6.Bg5).
However, thinking about it now, I believe it would be best if I had started playing g3 with the idea of defending the knight in my next move (Nh4) as well as to support an upcoming advance f2-f4.
However, Stockfish seems to prefer to slowly manoeuvre on the other side of the board with b3, Nc3... but all of these moves seem to ignore White's lead in development. I can see that moving my pawn to b3 will eventually allow my light-squared bishop to be placed on d3. But I believe that is too slow.
Why is a kingside attack not justified here?
analysis
add a comment |
Given my lead in development in this game, the presence of an advanced pawn on the 5th rank and the arrangement of the pieces toward Black king, I think that an immediate kingside attack is justified.
In the game I ended up playing a move which I do not like very much now that I think about it (6.Bg5).
However, thinking about it now, I believe it would be best if I had started playing g3 with the idea of defending the knight in my next move (Nh4) as well as to support an upcoming advance f2-f4.
However, Stockfish seems to prefer to slowly manoeuvre on the other side of the board with b3, Nc3... but all of these moves seem to ignore White's lead in development. I can see that moving my pawn to b3 will eventually allow my light-squared bishop to be placed on d3. But I believe that is too slow.
Why is a kingside attack not justified here?
analysis
Given my lead in development in this game, the presence of an advanced pawn on the 5th rank and the arrangement of the pieces toward Black king, I think that an immediate kingside attack is justified.
In the game I ended up playing a move which I do not like very much now that I think about it (6.Bg5).
However, thinking about it now, I believe it would be best if I had started playing g3 with the idea of defending the knight in my next move (Nh4) as well as to support an upcoming advance f2-f4.
However, Stockfish seems to prefer to slowly manoeuvre on the other side of the board with b3, Nc3... but all of these moves seem to ignore White's lead in development. I can see that moving my pawn to b3 will eventually allow my light-squared bishop to be placed on d3. But I believe that is too slow.
Why is a kingside attack not justified here?
analysis
analysis
edited 2 hours ago
Brian Towers
16.2k33070
16.2k33070
asked 11 hours ago
Maths64Maths64
401111
401111
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
There is no king on the kingside yet to attack. Black might very well castle long in which case your attack is aimed at nothing and might potentially weaken your own king's safety.
5....c4 is premature and unnecessary. It loses the pressure on the d4 pawn and loses a tempo for development.
A very typical reply to such pawn structure is b3, which is based on the fact that black cannot stabilize the pawn on c4 as after 7. b3 b5 8. a4, a6 is not an option because of the potentially hanging rook on the a file (after axb5 axb5).
The situation would be different if black had for instance already played Bb7 which would defend the rook.
So all in all, b3 is a natural plan, which will in the short term weaken black's pawn structure and give white an advantage.
The other option, kingside attack, with f5 eventually is not bad per se, but you should probably wait until black has castled short. Also it takes a lot of moves to get any kind of attack going.
add a comment |
Why is a kingside attack not justified here?
Because the center is closed.
You need to start by undermining black's center pawn chain. That means either the e6 pawn, the c4 pawn or both. The computer's suggestion of b3 undermines c4 immediately and makes a lot of sense. Undermining e6 will take a lot of moves by which time will likely be much better developed and prepared.
Because Black is much less well developed and his king is still in the middle while your king is safely castled kingside your best plan is to open the center first. It will be very hard for black to survive.
2
I am a bit confused by your answer. Isn't a closed center what you usually (exceptions occur of course) want when doing a pawn-storm/kingside attack? Converesely a kingside attack is often countered by opening up the center.
– user1583209
10 hours ago
@user1583209 "Isn't a closed center what you usually (exceptions occur of course) want when doing a pawn-storm/kingside attack?" No. You want to control the center which neither side does. Furthermore Black's king is not committed to the kingside.
– Brian Towers
9 hours ago
2
Ok, let's call it "control" the center. In any case I don't follow your logic: "closed center" -> "kingside attack is not justified". There are plenty of examples (e.g. KID) where you do a kingside attack from a closed center, don't you?
– user1583209
7 hours ago
add a comment |
I believe white has to strike now on c4 pawn otherwise black can consolidate the position of that pawn. As it stands with b3, b5, a4 black cannot maintain his structure with a6.
I'm not sure why you would consider g3 or Nh4, it has no squares to go to. g3 weakens your position for pretty much no reason. Even with a bunch of free tempos it accomplishes nothing. Like if your knight was on h4, pawn on g3 and pawn on f4 in this position, you still can't push f5 and if bg4 it can easily be stopped with nf5 or g6. You would need to play g4, which does nothing against ng6.
If I truly want to attack the king side, I would be looking for moves like Ng5 and f4.
Sorry, I explained my kingside plan quite vaguely. I was thinking of playing g3 so my knight can later go to g2 (jumping first to h4) where it can support the advance f4.
– Maths64
6 hours ago
So you can play Nf4 or f4? Because Ng2 has absolutely nothing to do with f4, and Nf4 doesn't do anything either. Your plan just makes no sense whatsoever, even if you wanted to attack the king side.
– Matthew Liu
5 hours ago
You are right. I was just playing what I did In some similar positions, in which a knight on g2 does suport f4 but in this game there is no opponent piece controling f4.
– Maths64
5 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "435"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fchess.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f23985%2freason-why-a-kingside-attack-is-not-justified%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
There is no king on the kingside yet to attack. Black might very well castle long in which case your attack is aimed at nothing and might potentially weaken your own king's safety.
5....c4 is premature and unnecessary. It loses the pressure on the d4 pawn and loses a tempo for development.
A very typical reply to such pawn structure is b3, which is based on the fact that black cannot stabilize the pawn on c4 as after 7. b3 b5 8. a4, a6 is not an option because of the potentially hanging rook on the a file (after axb5 axb5).
The situation would be different if black had for instance already played Bb7 which would defend the rook.
So all in all, b3 is a natural plan, which will in the short term weaken black's pawn structure and give white an advantage.
The other option, kingside attack, with f5 eventually is not bad per se, but you should probably wait until black has castled short. Also it takes a lot of moves to get any kind of attack going.
add a comment |
There is no king on the kingside yet to attack. Black might very well castle long in which case your attack is aimed at nothing and might potentially weaken your own king's safety.
5....c4 is premature and unnecessary. It loses the pressure on the d4 pawn and loses a tempo for development.
A very typical reply to such pawn structure is b3, which is based on the fact that black cannot stabilize the pawn on c4 as after 7. b3 b5 8. a4, a6 is not an option because of the potentially hanging rook on the a file (after axb5 axb5).
The situation would be different if black had for instance already played Bb7 which would defend the rook.
So all in all, b3 is a natural plan, which will in the short term weaken black's pawn structure and give white an advantage.
The other option, kingside attack, with f5 eventually is not bad per se, but you should probably wait until black has castled short. Also it takes a lot of moves to get any kind of attack going.
add a comment |
There is no king on the kingside yet to attack. Black might very well castle long in which case your attack is aimed at nothing and might potentially weaken your own king's safety.
5....c4 is premature and unnecessary. It loses the pressure on the d4 pawn and loses a tempo for development.
A very typical reply to such pawn structure is b3, which is based on the fact that black cannot stabilize the pawn on c4 as after 7. b3 b5 8. a4, a6 is not an option because of the potentially hanging rook on the a file (after axb5 axb5).
The situation would be different if black had for instance already played Bb7 which would defend the rook.
So all in all, b3 is a natural plan, which will in the short term weaken black's pawn structure and give white an advantage.
The other option, kingside attack, with f5 eventually is not bad per se, but you should probably wait until black has castled short. Also it takes a lot of moves to get any kind of attack going.
There is no king on the kingside yet to attack. Black might very well castle long in which case your attack is aimed at nothing and might potentially weaken your own king's safety.
5....c4 is premature and unnecessary. It loses the pressure on the d4 pawn and loses a tempo for development.
A very typical reply to such pawn structure is b3, which is based on the fact that black cannot stabilize the pawn on c4 as after 7. b3 b5 8. a4, a6 is not an option because of the potentially hanging rook on the a file (after axb5 axb5).
The situation would be different if black had for instance already played Bb7 which would defend the rook.
So all in all, b3 is a natural plan, which will in the short term weaken black's pawn structure and give white an advantage.
The other option, kingside attack, with f5 eventually is not bad per se, but you should probably wait until black has castled short. Also it takes a lot of moves to get any kind of attack going.
answered 10 hours ago
user1583209user1583209
12.5k21756
12.5k21756
add a comment |
add a comment |
Why is a kingside attack not justified here?
Because the center is closed.
You need to start by undermining black's center pawn chain. That means either the e6 pawn, the c4 pawn or both. The computer's suggestion of b3 undermines c4 immediately and makes a lot of sense. Undermining e6 will take a lot of moves by which time will likely be much better developed and prepared.
Because Black is much less well developed and his king is still in the middle while your king is safely castled kingside your best plan is to open the center first. It will be very hard for black to survive.
2
I am a bit confused by your answer. Isn't a closed center what you usually (exceptions occur of course) want when doing a pawn-storm/kingside attack? Converesely a kingside attack is often countered by opening up the center.
– user1583209
10 hours ago
@user1583209 "Isn't a closed center what you usually (exceptions occur of course) want when doing a pawn-storm/kingside attack?" No. You want to control the center which neither side does. Furthermore Black's king is not committed to the kingside.
– Brian Towers
9 hours ago
2
Ok, let's call it "control" the center. In any case I don't follow your logic: "closed center" -> "kingside attack is not justified". There are plenty of examples (e.g. KID) where you do a kingside attack from a closed center, don't you?
– user1583209
7 hours ago
add a comment |
Why is a kingside attack not justified here?
Because the center is closed.
You need to start by undermining black's center pawn chain. That means either the e6 pawn, the c4 pawn or both. The computer's suggestion of b3 undermines c4 immediately and makes a lot of sense. Undermining e6 will take a lot of moves by which time will likely be much better developed and prepared.
Because Black is much less well developed and his king is still in the middle while your king is safely castled kingside your best plan is to open the center first. It will be very hard for black to survive.
2
I am a bit confused by your answer. Isn't a closed center what you usually (exceptions occur of course) want when doing a pawn-storm/kingside attack? Converesely a kingside attack is often countered by opening up the center.
– user1583209
10 hours ago
@user1583209 "Isn't a closed center what you usually (exceptions occur of course) want when doing a pawn-storm/kingside attack?" No. You want to control the center which neither side does. Furthermore Black's king is not committed to the kingside.
– Brian Towers
9 hours ago
2
Ok, let's call it "control" the center. In any case I don't follow your logic: "closed center" -> "kingside attack is not justified". There are plenty of examples (e.g. KID) where you do a kingside attack from a closed center, don't you?
– user1583209
7 hours ago
add a comment |
Why is a kingside attack not justified here?
Because the center is closed.
You need to start by undermining black's center pawn chain. That means either the e6 pawn, the c4 pawn or both. The computer's suggestion of b3 undermines c4 immediately and makes a lot of sense. Undermining e6 will take a lot of moves by which time will likely be much better developed and prepared.
Because Black is much less well developed and his king is still in the middle while your king is safely castled kingside your best plan is to open the center first. It will be very hard for black to survive.
Why is a kingside attack not justified here?
Because the center is closed.
You need to start by undermining black's center pawn chain. That means either the e6 pawn, the c4 pawn or both. The computer's suggestion of b3 undermines c4 immediately and makes a lot of sense. Undermining e6 will take a lot of moves by which time will likely be much better developed and prepared.
Because Black is much less well developed and his king is still in the middle while your king is safely castled kingside your best plan is to open the center first. It will be very hard for black to survive.
edited 9 hours ago
answered 11 hours ago
Brian TowersBrian Towers
16.2k33070
16.2k33070
2
I am a bit confused by your answer. Isn't a closed center what you usually (exceptions occur of course) want when doing a pawn-storm/kingside attack? Converesely a kingside attack is often countered by opening up the center.
– user1583209
10 hours ago
@user1583209 "Isn't a closed center what you usually (exceptions occur of course) want when doing a pawn-storm/kingside attack?" No. You want to control the center which neither side does. Furthermore Black's king is not committed to the kingside.
– Brian Towers
9 hours ago
2
Ok, let's call it "control" the center. In any case I don't follow your logic: "closed center" -> "kingside attack is not justified". There are plenty of examples (e.g. KID) where you do a kingside attack from a closed center, don't you?
– user1583209
7 hours ago
add a comment |
2
I am a bit confused by your answer. Isn't a closed center what you usually (exceptions occur of course) want when doing a pawn-storm/kingside attack? Converesely a kingside attack is often countered by opening up the center.
– user1583209
10 hours ago
@user1583209 "Isn't a closed center what you usually (exceptions occur of course) want when doing a pawn-storm/kingside attack?" No. You want to control the center which neither side does. Furthermore Black's king is not committed to the kingside.
– Brian Towers
9 hours ago
2
Ok, let's call it "control" the center. In any case I don't follow your logic: "closed center" -> "kingside attack is not justified". There are plenty of examples (e.g. KID) where you do a kingside attack from a closed center, don't you?
– user1583209
7 hours ago
2
2
I am a bit confused by your answer. Isn't a closed center what you usually (exceptions occur of course) want when doing a pawn-storm/kingside attack? Converesely a kingside attack is often countered by opening up the center.
– user1583209
10 hours ago
I am a bit confused by your answer. Isn't a closed center what you usually (exceptions occur of course) want when doing a pawn-storm/kingside attack? Converesely a kingside attack is often countered by opening up the center.
– user1583209
10 hours ago
@user1583209 "Isn't a closed center what you usually (exceptions occur of course) want when doing a pawn-storm/kingside attack?" No. You want to control the center which neither side does. Furthermore Black's king is not committed to the kingside.
– Brian Towers
9 hours ago
@user1583209 "Isn't a closed center what you usually (exceptions occur of course) want when doing a pawn-storm/kingside attack?" No. You want to control the center which neither side does. Furthermore Black's king is not committed to the kingside.
– Brian Towers
9 hours ago
2
2
Ok, let's call it "control" the center. In any case I don't follow your logic: "closed center" -> "kingside attack is not justified". There are plenty of examples (e.g. KID) where you do a kingside attack from a closed center, don't you?
– user1583209
7 hours ago
Ok, let's call it "control" the center. In any case I don't follow your logic: "closed center" -> "kingside attack is not justified". There are plenty of examples (e.g. KID) where you do a kingside attack from a closed center, don't you?
– user1583209
7 hours ago
add a comment |
I believe white has to strike now on c4 pawn otherwise black can consolidate the position of that pawn. As it stands with b3, b5, a4 black cannot maintain his structure with a6.
I'm not sure why you would consider g3 or Nh4, it has no squares to go to. g3 weakens your position for pretty much no reason. Even with a bunch of free tempos it accomplishes nothing. Like if your knight was on h4, pawn on g3 and pawn on f4 in this position, you still can't push f5 and if bg4 it can easily be stopped with nf5 or g6. You would need to play g4, which does nothing against ng6.
If I truly want to attack the king side, I would be looking for moves like Ng5 and f4.
Sorry, I explained my kingside plan quite vaguely. I was thinking of playing g3 so my knight can later go to g2 (jumping first to h4) where it can support the advance f4.
– Maths64
6 hours ago
So you can play Nf4 or f4? Because Ng2 has absolutely nothing to do with f4, and Nf4 doesn't do anything either. Your plan just makes no sense whatsoever, even if you wanted to attack the king side.
– Matthew Liu
5 hours ago
You are right. I was just playing what I did In some similar positions, in which a knight on g2 does suport f4 but in this game there is no opponent piece controling f4.
– Maths64
5 hours ago
add a comment |
I believe white has to strike now on c4 pawn otherwise black can consolidate the position of that pawn. As it stands with b3, b5, a4 black cannot maintain his structure with a6.
I'm not sure why you would consider g3 or Nh4, it has no squares to go to. g3 weakens your position for pretty much no reason. Even with a bunch of free tempos it accomplishes nothing. Like if your knight was on h4, pawn on g3 and pawn on f4 in this position, you still can't push f5 and if bg4 it can easily be stopped with nf5 or g6. You would need to play g4, which does nothing against ng6.
If I truly want to attack the king side, I would be looking for moves like Ng5 and f4.
Sorry, I explained my kingside plan quite vaguely. I was thinking of playing g3 so my knight can later go to g2 (jumping first to h4) where it can support the advance f4.
– Maths64
6 hours ago
So you can play Nf4 or f4? Because Ng2 has absolutely nothing to do with f4, and Nf4 doesn't do anything either. Your plan just makes no sense whatsoever, even if you wanted to attack the king side.
– Matthew Liu
5 hours ago
You are right. I was just playing what I did In some similar positions, in which a knight on g2 does suport f4 but in this game there is no opponent piece controling f4.
– Maths64
5 hours ago
add a comment |
I believe white has to strike now on c4 pawn otherwise black can consolidate the position of that pawn. As it stands with b3, b5, a4 black cannot maintain his structure with a6.
I'm not sure why you would consider g3 or Nh4, it has no squares to go to. g3 weakens your position for pretty much no reason. Even with a bunch of free tempos it accomplishes nothing. Like if your knight was on h4, pawn on g3 and pawn on f4 in this position, you still can't push f5 and if bg4 it can easily be stopped with nf5 or g6. You would need to play g4, which does nothing against ng6.
If I truly want to attack the king side, I would be looking for moves like Ng5 and f4.
I believe white has to strike now on c4 pawn otherwise black can consolidate the position of that pawn. As it stands with b3, b5, a4 black cannot maintain his structure with a6.
I'm not sure why you would consider g3 or Nh4, it has no squares to go to. g3 weakens your position for pretty much no reason. Even with a bunch of free tempos it accomplishes nothing. Like if your knight was on h4, pawn on g3 and pawn on f4 in this position, you still can't push f5 and if bg4 it can easily be stopped with nf5 or g6. You would need to play g4, which does nothing against ng6.
If I truly want to attack the king side, I would be looking for moves like Ng5 and f4.
answered 9 hours ago
Matthew LiuMatthew Liu
839157
839157
Sorry, I explained my kingside plan quite vaguely. I was thinking of playing g3 so my knight can later go to g2 (jumping first to h4) where it can support the advance f4.
– Maths64
6 hours ago
So you can play Nf4 or f4? Because Ng2 has absolutely nothing to do with f4, and Nf4 doesn't do anything either. Your plan just makes no sense whatsoever, even if you wanted to attack the king side.
– Matthew Liu
5 hours ago
You are right. I was just playing what I did In some similar positions, in which a knight on g2 does suport f4 but in this game there is no opponent piece controling f4.
– Maths64
5 hours ago
add a comment |
Sorry, I explained my kingside plan quite vaguely. I was thinking of playing g3 so my knight can later go to g2 (jumping first to h4) where it can support the advance f4.
– Maths64
6 hours ago
So you can play Nf4 or f4? Because Ng2 has absolutely nothing to do with f4, and Nf4 doesn't do anything either. Your plan just makes no sense whatsoever, even if you wanted to attack the king side.
– Matthew Liu
5 hours ago
You are right. I was just playing what I did In some similar positions, in which a knight on g2 does suport f4 but in this game there is no opponent piece controling f4.
– Maths64
5 hours ago
Sorry, I explained my kingside plan quite vaguely. I was thinking of playing g3 so my knight can later go to g2 (jumping first to h4) where it can support the advance f4.
– Maths64
6 hours ago
Sorry, I explained my kingside plan quite vaguely. I was thinking of playing g3 so my knight can later go to g2 (jumping first to h4) where it can support the advance f4.
– Maths64
6 hours ago
So you can play Nf4 or f4? Because Ng2 has absolutely nothing to do with f4, and Nf4 doesn't do anything either. Your plan just makes no sense whatsoever, even if you wanted to attack the king side.
– Matthew Liu
5 hours ago
So you can play Nf4 or f4? Because Ng2 has absolutely nothing to do with f4, and Nf4 doesn't do anything either. Your plan just makes no sense whatsoever, even if you wanted to attack the king side.
– Matthew Liu
5 hours ago
You are right. I was just playing what I did In some similar positions, in which a knight on g2 does suport f4 but in this game there is no opponent piece controling f4.
– Maths64
5 hours ago
You are right. I was just playing what I did In some similar positions, in which a knight on g2 does suport f4 but in this game there is no opponent piece controling f4.
– Maths64
5 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Chess Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fchess.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f23985%2freason-why-a-kingside-attack-is-not-justified%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown