These two good players (kingscrusher and chess4life) played a game recently.
I noticed that white had the opportunity to take black's pawn for several moves, but never took it. Why shouldn't white take the pawn?
http://en.lichess.org/QNIH7AI3/blackFrom move 21 to move 30 the pawn was (from what I can tell) free.
It would open lines across to white's king along the b-file. The computer does like it, though, because it is able to defend against the incoming attack along those lines.
Black wants to give the pawn as to open lines against the white king. These strong players give nothing for free :P
In bullet its often worth opening lines to get attack on enemy king as opponent does not have time to find the correct moves to hold.
This is what it looks like to me anyways.
Hmm so just trying to counter black's advance on white's king with his own "advances".
I don't see how blacks king is threatened compared to how blacks king is, but I think you guys are right. White was attempting counterplay.
oh I see, you're saying that it would only further an attack on white's king to take the pawn, not that white was trying counterplay.
That makes more sense. Sorry for the last post.
Keep in mind that this is a bullet game. (1 minute). Material like a pawn is hardly compensation for counterplay against your king. It is better to use black's own pawns (in this game) as a shield around his king rather than to take it.