|
|
| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 Opening RepertoiresI decided I wanted to start playing some lines that weren’t theorized to death. After awhile I settled on the English Defence when facing D4, C4 or N-f3 and the London System of development when playing white. It’s been interesting. I feel these lines suit my counter punching style. I still blunder in the middlegame of course due to my lack of patience in rushing my moves but I can’t blame that on the openings I use. I would like to hear from some of the higher rated players here at GK and hear what they have to say about their own selection of opening move repertoires. I think the lower rated players would benefit from hearing what they had to say. And if nothing else I think it could be an interesting thread about our favourite subject…Chess! |
||
|
baronderkilt 12-Apr-12, 12:59 |
hmmm Openings, I might be able to think of something to say ... lol Sounds like you have a very good plan of approach from your first paragraph. If you still play the French, as I did. Many French players will adopt the Nimzo-Indian or Queens Indian for a similar feel vs d4. Or some go with a QGD. Good ideas. My self, having that same Counter Punching urge as you, I went with KI as my primary and Grunfeld secondary. And would consider both still hot tickets for improvements to be found. Especially the Grunfeld. For the occassional game, went Modern Dutch or with Fischers ...b6 Nimzo-Indian, which imo would be superior to the QI in that it can prevent or least make WT work for an e4 push instead of allowing it for free. If you are going to play a London, or perhaps QG perhaps o-o-o at times, I'll send you a PM of someplace to look, that I still consider a Chess Secret, so will not say here. Not that I intend to use it, but Its A SECRET~! And we've got to keep a Few of em on principle! So this is one of mine lol. |
||
|
baronderkilt 12-Apr-12, 13:13 |
OH yes ... The French Speaking of which, you don't want to be completely stuck with one Chess Opening group since you learn more from expanding. I would try a few Sicilians now and then to add new knowlege since they are pretty much a seperate medium for your Chess Art. And you can learn approaches that way. When you get to grouping openings it will laregly be about pawn structures and how the middle game plays. As in the French one learn a lot about Lever Pawns and backward pawns, occupying Center Squares and freeing them. Well there is much more to learn. This is all very Nimzovichian stuff. A bit Tarrasch thrown in, in some variations like the 3...c5 Tarrasch French (atually, who woulda guessed. lol) You might make another group of Caro, Scandi & the 3rd eludes me at present. |
||
|
tactical_abyss 14-Apr-12, 19:32 |
sixofspades.... BUT then you and your opponents are NOT flawless and very strong,correct?So,in essense,it may be wise to follow the unconventional and use the unconventional as a surprise weapon! Instead of 1.e4,d4 or c4 when playing the white....why not try 1.b4?The Sokolsky.This is really not a bad or weak opening.Yes it is only "slightly weaker"than other openings for white but that is the key word...only "slightly weaker".And other sequential moves after 1.b4 can VERY QUICKLY move out of book or database.Now,isn't that what you are seeking?The pawn structures that follow many irregular openings can be so different than the conventional openings,that for 1300-1400 players may(and has)confused those opponents who stumble on these oddball openings and defenses.So while this opening is weaker...well...so what?Will your opponent at a 1300 rating play THAT perfecly against you that you will lose all the time?Answer:NO. Another pet of mine that I play,especially in blitz against 1.e4 is the Basman Defense.1.e4,g5.On Instantchess I play this defense almost exclusively against 1.e4. And may I add after 300+ Basman games,I have won close to 100%!!So,going AGAINST conventional wisdom of staying clear of these irregular openings may be the BEST thing for you!The pawn structures and positions resulting from the Basman defense many,many times are not cataloged in any database and ARE NOT analyzed to death.So,in essense this means that you and your opponent will be in murky uncharted water,possibly through the entire game! And one more opening....The Trompowsky is one opening for white I employ on a regular basis and WIN on a regular basis.Now,that is definitely one opening that has NOT been theorized to death on all(or most)of the lines like the Ruy Lopez.1.d4,Nf6 2.Bg5 can in many circumstances, already place a big questionmark on your opponents head and make him scratch it!Just a few moves later and you can easily be out of book and deep analyzed lines.The Tromp is still employed by GM's because it sidesteps many of the opening defenses like the Q Indians and K Indian.With perfect play from the black side it usually equalizes,BUT the positions are so different compared to conventional Indian Defenses on both sides that it can yield an advantage for white.For a 1300+player,I would recommend it.Just the learning experience from these different structural positions will be worth it,even if you lose. My past game database on GK is full of Tromps,and my record of wins is high using this so called "weaker"opening.Weaker?Really?Hmmmmmm. So,in summary try these openings as white: 1.b4(Sok) or 1.d4,Nf6 2.Bg5(Tromp) As Black,try: 1.e4,g5 You may be surprised that with careful play(as best as a 1300 can do),you may very well use these little gems and surprise your opponent who is using a database and he finds out that the database is worthless,since it stops at move 6 or 7!!!! |
||
|
A work in progress One more point...The point of this thread was not personal advice for myself. I was more interested in how the stronger players here at GK handled their own repertoire issues so the weaker players here like myself could share and learn from their experiences. Opening theory in Chess seems to provide a varied menu and there is so much to choose from it can become over whelming at times but there in lies part of the fascination of this game we call Chess. |
||
|
tactical_abyss 14-Apr-12, 20:39 |
Well,good luck in your English defense study and the Nimzo--Larsen.Just remember that both of those defenses are well analyzed and book worthy very deeply.If that is what you seek,then fine.All of the irregular games may not suit your "punching style"but may be well worth looking into one day to make your "punch"even stronger!Using the Tromp,for example, is how I handle MY own opening repertoire against the Queens Indian,which would atleast answer your question partially on how stronger players handle an opening situation.The Tromp is not irregular,but borders between regular and unorthodox.And the key is surprise and unorthodox moves.If you like the English,I would recommend the Symmetrical 1.c4,c5.The intense struggle for the center(d4,d5)will develop and is quite exciting at times.Many English players actually steer clear of the symmetrical,which should give you a hint!? |
||
|
Thanks for the advice I ran into something called 'the sniper' which uses that same move order as Black. I might experiment with that as a response to E4 from white. There certainly is a lot of choices out there. I like the idea of fianchettoing the bishop and attacking the center from afar. I'm not really into opening books but instead prefer just to replay the games of a certain opening and take a look at the resulting pawn structures. I do not enjoy staring at reams of variations. I figure I will make my own mistakes with these openings and learn that way. Learning from your own mistakes is a good way to learn but can be frustrating as well as I'm somewhat impatient. But right now I have my hands full getting familiar with the English Defence and the Nimzo-Larsen. Thanks for your input. I was hoping to generate some interesting discussion concerning the use of the opening with this thread. |
||
|
tactical_abyss 15-Apr-12, 05:53 |
Just a footnote.... You mentioned about long range fianchetto of the Bishop and attacking from afar.Many openings can accomplish this,but you may be interested in the fact that the Basman Defense has the Bishop Fianchetto as a standard ploy in one of the opening lines. 1.e4,g5 2.d4,Bg7 3.Bxg5,c5 Pressure on the long range center is accomplished and many white players fall for premature captures which can result in whites Rook getting captured or at the very least continued pressure on the center from black. As to the English,many lines and variations have fianchetto's,its up to white. Make sure you check with the MCO books on the English.While somewhat outdated,the MCO series still has alot of value,especially to 1300-1400 players and is still one of my cherished chess Bible's that I check back with from time to time. |
||
|
Different Levels of meaning I enjoy spending some time in chess stores (there's a good one in Toronto), I browsed through one of Marin's opening books on the English...boy that was a humbling experience. I put the book down and almost ran out of the store. |
||
|
doctor_knight 26-Apr-12, 20:38 |
Like you, I prefer a counter-attacking style, and I like to avoid the most extensively analyzed openings (such as the Roy Lopez). However, I think that until we reach expert level, deep knowledge in opening theory will unlikely be a crucial factor in our play. I think experience in an opening is far more important, and so finding an opening that suits our character is probably the most important thing. I use to play the Nimzo-Larsen Attack as white and Caro-Kann and King's Indian as Black. I personally liked the flexibility of the Nimzo-Larsen, but I think I am leaning more towards a Reti now as it provides even more flexibility and a Nimzo-Larsen can easily be played from 1. Nf3 if I want to go that route. A long time ago, I played a French with an eventual Nf5 and c5, but I eventually didn't feel comfortable with ceding that much space on the Kingside. Even though the Caro-Kann is known as a very defensive and dull defense, it is solid and if you know where to look, lively play can be found. I have recently begun to explore the Benoni as a defense against d4. There are many routes to take in the Benoni that can lead to a variety of middlegames. I also find that it surprises some of my friends who try to surprise me with non-mainline d4 openings I personally favor a somewhat defensive/counter-attacking style, but I don't like to be cramped. I don't know if my current opening choices reflect this or not. I know that I am by no means a very strong or experienced player, but I am very interested in the discussion and so I jumped in I hope that's ok. |
||
|
By all means Of course working on my opening is just the first step. I've got other issues to deal with. Especially in the middle game where I have a tendency to implode. There are so many ways to go wrong in a chess game but if I don't handle the opening well I find I'm often saddled with a poor position for the rest of the game. I'm working on the Nimzo-Larsen right now but I can also open with the London system which seems very solid and is easy to learn although I did manage to lose a chess game in 9 moves while using it but that's another story. |
||
|
doctor_knight 28-Apr-12, 20:55 |
Playing Black against e4, I am seriously considering taking up either the Alekhine defense or the Franco-Benoni. |
||
|
Nimzo-Larsen Books I just bought the Odessky book and I'm enjoying it very much for a variety of reasons (one is how he goes into detail about how he finds his ideas...very interesting). It is a very well written book but may not be to all tastes. It is a different type of opening book, almost like a series of essays. I find his approach very refreshing. I went through the Tait book in the bookstore and found it a bit numbing ( a mass of variations and the print was rather small, so I opted for the Odessky book. The Tait book seems to be well thought of though if you read the reviews of it on amazon. |
||
|
doctor_knight 29-Apr-12, 22:59 |
Perhaps I will have to get the Odessky book. It's reviews also look promising. By the way, I looked at your annotated game. Interesting and good annotation. It explores the ideas and psychology of what's going on rather than the variations, something I wish more annotations spent more time on. I've only annotated two of my games (both Nimzo-Larsen attacks), but I think it's a good practice to annotate almost all your games. I may start doing that. |
||
|
doctor knight Yes, the Tait book struck me more as reference material (something to look up but not read). The Odessky book is a much more intimate look at the opening and is very well written. Some people don’t like the way it is structured but speaking for myself I love it. He sheds light on his thinking process and how he goes about getting his ideas (perhaps promoting the ability to think for one self, probably a better way to learn in the end). And thanks for your comments about my annotation. I did it as I knew I needed to start doing postscripts of my games and doing an annotation seemed an ideal way to do it. After I finished I thought I would make it public. I found doing it both fun and an interesting creating outlet as well. I tend to be much more interested in the ideas and psychology behind the moves of a chess game. A lot of variations just leave me cold. Chess can be frustrating but strangely very rewarding at the same time. I find in those rare instances where I play a good game I reach a point where victory is within my grasp and then I ‘choke’ throwing it all away. An interesting comment on my life maybe, I’m not sure. |
