chess online
| |||||||
| From | Message | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 Chess Openings |
||||||
|
The relative terms of bad or weak exposed.... Take for example: 1.e4,g5(Basman defense) Is this a bad opening defense?Yes to some,not to others.I have been winning games with that so called bad defense for 30 years.On another chess site,I use the Basman Defense exclusively in response to 1.e4 and can prove I have a win ratio of over 95%!So,it may be "slightly weaker" than say,the Sicilian or Ruy Lopez but it is only "a bit"weaker.In the right hands with strong play it equalizes fairly well and has pawn chain formations that leave your opponent scratching his head many times in unfamiliar territory. Take for example: 1.b4(Sokolsky Opening).Bad,good? Again,a highly relative term.I have won hundreds of games playing against opponents of senior master strength using this irregular opening. Is 1.b4 a bad opening?No it is not.It all depends upon how white plays and how he is prepared to continue into the mid game.Many times the opponent is certainly NOT prepared for 1.b4 to respond "perfectly"as black,so he faulters and slips through.So in conclusion 1.b4 is "weaker"than say 1.d4,but weaker does not mean equalization will not occur later in the game,or even superior play as white(as in my case)with the proper study of hundreds of subvariations. Other examples: 1.d4,Nf6 2.Bg5(Trompowsky Attack).With or without taking blacks Knight on f6. Now this opening is considered bad by many,weak by others. My opinion?One of the best openings I have ever played in 40 years! Why?Because it sidesteps immense areas of opening theories in the Indian Defenses,leaving the black opponent out of book,database and more in perhaps just a few moves.So,without some strong database to follow into the next 20 moves or so,whats he to do?is he prepared?Alot of times my opponents have no idea what to do by mid game,except play on the "cuff".My GK game database has a good # of wins using the Tromp.Find them if you can! So,in conclusion what one player deems as bad is "gold"to another player. How about something "real bad" like: 1.Na3,e5 2.Nh3,d5(or other black move,dosen't matter) This is called the Sodium Attack.Bad and horrible and weak for white right?Yes,it is IF my opponent is prepared...and who is automatically "prepared"for that novelty???Would you take my knights with your Bishops?Most do,but that is a huge mistake for it opens the b and g files later on for my Rooks to bear down pressure on those files.How many games have I won with that so called bad opening for white?I lost count years ago! Check my game database wins with the sodium. Weak,bad openings are in the eyes of the beholder.So would be.1.a4 and 2.h4 regardless of anything black does.But is it truly weak?Thats relative. An opponent of mine in the past....conde7 I have played 2 games with.Both times he opened with what would be deemed by many as bad or weak as an opening.... 1.a3 He surprised even me in the first game,and I barely squeeked out a draw by the endgame.It took me a few weeks to study various subvariations before i beat him in the second game when he again opened with the 1.a3 opening.But he fares very well with other opponents using that "bad"opening(as considered by many)and has won quite alot.I commend him for that! |
||||||
|
marinvukusic 07-May-12, 15:00 |
Not exactly relative On medium skill levels (candidate masters and masters) and above opening play starts to be important but the choice of the opening is influenced by player's character and personal preferences. 1.a3 is a known transpositional move, White has to know the nuance of several other openings to steer into the best one depending on what system Black plays. There is no need for Black to "study for few weeks" to defeat it though, logical play suffices. |
||||||
|
tactical_abyss 07-May-12, 15:54 |
Deleted by tactical_abyss on 10-May-12, 10:13.
|
||||||
|
Again the motto here is that under the right conditions,using the more unpopular openings can be a nice weapon at times.The Trompowsky has been employed by GM Polgar on occassion with great success.Its not particularily as strong an opening for white as the well trodden lines of the Ruy for example,but she has proved that a relative weaker opening can turn the tables in her favor,and she has proved it. |
||||||
|
marinvukusic 07-May-12, 17:25 |
You stated that you have 95% win rate with 1...g5. I am saying that it is an outright lie or you played complete beginners. Anyone with basic grasp of chess can see that is a very bad move, so that is not "relative". Rybka 4 book shows that it scores 10% while normal for Black is 45-47%. 1800 player? My best pupil (I have 6, aged 10-12) achieved that rating (and strength) in 9 months of competitive play. I am pretty sure he could take 1...g5 on comfortably against a human. Of course if you use a computer then it is a different matter - Rybka (rated around 3000) could beat me easily with any 1st move as Black. How does that prove that the move is good? As for all the other stuff you said, really... I don't have the time nor the inclination to go into endless discussions with someone like you. |
||||||
|
marinvukusic 07-May-12, 17:30 |
Telling beginners to spend huge amount of time studying worthless openings is outright malicious. If they spent a fraction of that time and effort studying other more important stuff, they would improve massively in their understanding and strength and in the end have much more fun. |
||||||
|
tactical_abyss 07-May-12, 17:51 |
Deleted by tactical_abyss on 10-May-12, 10:15.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
tactical_abyss 07-May-12, 18:00 |
Deleted by tactical_abyss on 10-May-12, 10:15.
|
||||||
|
Taking some time to atleast look at the strange and unusual like the openings mentioned above is not "malicious"as marv has said above,and i'm sure you would agree with that. |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
marinvukusic 08-May-12, 01:22 |
1. The name is not "marv" either. 2. Respect is earned, not given. I am calling you a liar because a player of your advertised strength has much better understanding of chess. I am aware that you don't see it and neither do low level players, but it is very obvious. High level players think much more clearly than you do, at least all the ones I have spoken to. 3. "correction 1.g5 to g4!" - What, now you are changing the whole topic? There is a huge difference between 1. g4 and 1.e4, g5. 4. Why do I care if you change GK handles regularly? If you were spouting nonsense back then too then yes it is likely I noticed it and reacted the same way. 5. It is well known who I am and what is my playing strength. As for you, everything you wrote in your profile is either irrelevant or lies. - Played against Fischer? Who cares? I know several players my own strength who played Kasparov or know him personally (he vacations in Croatia frequently, and when he was active he prepared for title matches here). - Mingled with GMs? Who hasn't? etc. - All these things mean less than nothing when it comes to someone's chess understanding. By that logic Kasparov's wives should have been female world champions. 6. Comparison of playing strength - "Well,what do I know after 40 years of play reaching over 2600 at one time and playing Fischer a few decades ago,and now over 300 rating points above you." - Big lie is better than small one, eh? GK rating means nothing, I have lost here to total beginners who use 2700+ chess engines and this is why I stopped playing (What is the point? When I feel like working on chess, I have my own computer at home). As I said you can play any 1st move using Rybka for help and win against me easily, that means nothing (Rybka won a serious match against a GM with Black with a pawn handicap, and it wasn't even close!). As for 2600 OTB rating, that is a hilarious statement on several levels. - US players are notoriously weak, for example US national master level player and Russian national master level player are not even close in strength. Even ELO ratings can't solve this problem completely due to differences between countries/continents, but at least they give some kind of indirect basis for comparison. 7. "where did i say that a beginner should spend "huge amounts of time"studying worthless openings?Show me where i wrote that.You won't find it.Another mistake of yours" - Not exact quote, but we have a following gem: "Jkarp is a not a strong player but if someone responds to his 1.e4 opening with 1....g5,whats wrong with "preparing"a bit of research on the Basman before he makes his 2nd through 10th moves?Preparing meaning looking at whatever he can find,whether it be an MCO book or some database or whatever he can find." A) Instead of "preparing" for 1...g5, and presumably all other irregular 1st moves by Black individually, he should study general chess principles and just follow them. Much less work, much higher benefit. Preparing 2nd through 10th moves? Holy crap. That is a GM level preparation... for 1...g5? Wow. Just...wow. 8. "I think most of these forum readers know my vast contributions on this site to help many of the players and that is my goal." - You are not helping anyone with your writing, so where do you get the "vast contributions" thing is beyond me. As for contributions, my annotated games provide permanent value to anyone who wishes to learn something (go ahaed and mark them all with 1 star, I don't care about such things and you won't be the first ). Funnily enough, one of them is a Sokolsky. Experienced 2200 ELO player got annihilated by a self taught 1st category player... 'nuff said. 9. Admittedly Sokolsky itself is playable but it is still not good. Can be used occasionally as a surprise weapon. 10. High level players indeed use offbeat openings (after having prepared them) to throw off opponent's preparation. I do it myself and I am a medium level player. It is completely different from telling a 1060 player to do it. jkarp: 1. "Thx Jkarp.You seem way above your rating in inner knowledge." - If this is what you need from someone here, well, i_have_arrived will provide it But if you want to improve, look elsewhere. 2. www.chesscafe.com - Look primarily at "Novice Nook" (you can find them all in the Archive) but all Columns might have something of value. This stuff is meant for players of your strength, and it is free. 3. www.jeremysilman.com - Also meant for beginners but there is more advanced stuff too. It is free. Putting time into pages mentioned under 2. and 3. will bring much more benefit than studying openings. In fact you shouldn't work on openings at all at your level. |
||||||
|
tactical_abyss 08-May-12, 06:25 |
Deleted by tactical_abyss on 10-May-12, 10:15.
|
||||||
|
tactical_abyss 08-May-12, 11:58 |
Deleted by tactical_abyss on 10-May-12, 10:15.
|
||||||
|
Joe(Jkarp) Your only about an hours drive away from NYC.Please drop in anytime at the Marshall Club someday if you want. You just missed a good lecture on May 8th by GM Rashad Babaev.He discussed "secrets of positional chess".But there will be other ones.Just ask me or check online with the Marshall Clubs website. I have nearly 2000 books now on chess in my private library,a few hundred DVD's, openings,tactics and more.Be glad to share some of that info with you in the future,or pehaps make you a copy of some of the DVD's. I have many posts throughout the forum pages,just check them out.Some are on openings,others are on misc.items,chess related.There are 2 links that agol and I posted on page 12 in the chess related section.One is on doubled pawns and the other one is on material imbalances and piece value changes a bit farther down on that page 12.If you haven't already checked them out,it might interest you. Take care,fellow NY'er!! Joe |
||||||
|
commenting on a game between Adams and Short, Levon Aronian’s stated “It avoids theory, and it puts pressure on White. If you don’t win the game, you’re going to be ridiculed.” |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
baronderkilt 27-May-12, 20:25 |
aww, I had a real nice reply So I will just make it Short, lol, and say I hate ...h6. The lines it is even useful in, involve playing it to stop a Ng5 move when BL is going to play ...c4 and O-O-O. It is too soon to signal that intent to WT. And if BL played for O-O, ... h6 is worse than weakening. It may hinder playing of the USEFUL move ... f6. And it also Prevents WT from playing Bg5. In lines where I O-O, i WANT WT to play Bg5! So Kingside space can be gained by kicking it out with pawns. So anyway, that is the short of it, as I see it. But I am biased, being a Watson systems French player rather than the Short lines. |
||||||
|
As to 3.....h6 in Adams/Short or Howell/Short, Short idea worked obviously against Adams but not Howell. 3.....h6 is generally risky,removes central pressure and free's up white game a bit on the Kingside.Yet, 3.Nd2,h6 is,in my opinion,a psychological ploy because it can cause white to either overextend or become "overdaring"in the opening.It is a "wait game" for black in most French games but 3....h6 intensifies this.For the most part,however,3....h6 is hardly even any moderate threat,nor is advancing that pawn later on going to cause any havoc. That is,of course,a viewpoint from a senior master.On the flip side,the GM games employing the waiting game of 3....h6 can and have taken on fresh ideas and have been successful as in the adams/short game and other games in the world database.So,while I may suggest avoiding 3.....h6 for most players,a GM employing such a move will not necessarily be at a perpetual disadvantage with a slightly weaker opening move as new lines are discovered. It may not be easy to see the comparison,but "waiting games"which can cause white to become overdaring or overextending would be openings such as the Alekhine's Defense,which even Fischer and Korchnoi employed in the past.The French Tarrasch is simply a different flavor to avoid some prepared theory with the opponent.So,I cannot say it is actually a "weak"move(3....h6)since putting a sword in a GM's hand is highly different than putting an "h6" sword in the average chess players hand. |
||||||
|
Joe on Botvinnik << "As black, I generally avoid all French Defense games for many reasons including the lack of wide open attacking positions, overly defending postering. . . . ">> Joe, the thing that most puzzles me about the French is that, if it is such a passive opening with a scanty quiver of potential weapons of attack, why do you suppose it was especially enamored for most of his career by one of the most successful attacking players of all time, longtime world champion Mikhail Botvinnik? As some dogmatic players are, Botvinnik himself was guided by his own theories of chess: building on the way Lasker targeted weaknesses in his opponent's position, Botvinnik saw the target itself as a beacon calliing in his attacking pieces. So it continues to puzzle me why, if the French is such a downright passive opening, why Botvinnik would have wed himself to it for so long? It puzzles me; and I do wonder what you think. |
||||||
|
Actually,it depends upon the player or in many cases the GM vs the GM.Its highly opinionated among GM's as to the success they would have playing various French lines as opposed to perhaps a Sicilian with wide open attacking positions that appear more frequently in that style of defense.As it is well known,many players simply do not have the temperament to play the french and have a larger "mistrust"of a better success rate using the french,especially in modern GM tourneys where GM players of equal strength look for the most "edge"they can get out of a game,not fight for a draw,perhaps,or fight for the initiative in the early stages of the game.Where one GM whether it be Botvinnik,Lasker may have had a great success using the French,that may not necessarily "mirror"the success rate or "style of success" with other GM's...so it is not necessarily as good an opening for every modern player or GM as it was with GM's 20 years ago or earlier.Again,not to say it is not being played on the top levels,but as to a choice However,Shamash,I did not say that it had "scanty quiver of potential weapons of attack". I simply said it remains a problem many times with blacks Bishop and passive play in the beginning atleast.It can be a strong weapon depending upon the player and opponent.If,for example,I am playing a 2500-2600 player as black,I most probably would not choose a French defense for my opinion is that he could "more easily"exploit any slight weakeness I may have in my initial defense prior to my counterattack.Again,I am not Botvinnik,who is certainly is many levels above me.But then,perhaps someone like Cyrano or High may simply destroy me using the French Defense.Anotherwords,its not a universal model of success or should be considered as good as a Ruy or Sicilian simply because it pared well with Botvinnik or others.Chess theory has advanced quite a bit in the last 15 years or so after Botvinnik's passing.Similar thoughts can be viewed with the Dutch Defence.I can give you many examples of success on senior master and GM levels using the Dutch(including Botvinnik)....yet there still remains that "mistrust" and degree of "unsoundness"of the Dutch.It all depends upon the prepardness of the player and the opponent in a specific circumstance,such as a major tourney. But,as related to 3.....h6 as Blake brought up with respect to the Tarrasch Short French Opening,I think even Botvinnik would have had a problem with that,atleast if he had a time capsule and played against,say,Adams.Again,just my opinion,not written in stone. |
||||||
|
In the first paragraph at the end.... As to a choice,the French Defense would certainly not be on the "top"of the list of defenses with the majority of GM's today. also,in the last paragraph...."even Botvinnik would have had a problem with that if he played 3.....h6 against say,Howell." Sorry,in a hurry and did not proofread! |
||||||
|
shamash 29-May-12, 10:40 |
Deleted by shamash on 29-May-12, 10:41.
|
||||||
|
Mednis-Brieger (US Open 1954) -- punishing the French Great point you make: << 'If,for example,I am playing a 2500-2600 player as black, I most probably would not choose a French defense for my opinion is that he could "more easily" exploit any slight weakness I may have in my initial defense prior to my counterattack' >> In that spirit, here's a French miniature where Black developed his Queen's bishop early, yet got hammered by White's attack in the early stages -- White here is Edmar Mednis who though he drew A LOT, practiced and preached that if you have the White pieces -- you need to play as White -- Deploy and Attack early -- [Event "US Open"] [Site "New Orleans, LA"] [Date "1954"] [Round "8"] [Result "1-0"] [White "Edmar J Mednis"] [Black "Robert Sinclair Brieger"] [ECO "C10"] 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nd2 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.Nf3 Ngf6 6.Nxf6+ Nxf6 7.Bd3 b6 8.Qe2 Bb7 9.O-O Be7 10.c4 O-O 11.Rd1 h6 12.Ne5 Nd7 13.Qh5 Nf6 14.Qh3 Ne4 15.d5 Bd6 16.Bxe4 Bxe5 17.Bxh6 gxh6 18.Qxh6 f5 19.dxe6 Bxe4 20.Rxd8 Rfxd8 21.Qg6+ Bg7 22.Qf7+ Kh8 23.e7 Re8 24.a4 Bxb2 25.Ra2 Bc1 26.Qf6+ Kh7 27.Ra1 Bh6 28.Qf7+ Kh8 29.Ra3 1-0 www.chessgames.com |
||||||
|
I'll look closer at this game in the upcoming weekend.Just too busy right now.I have a mini tourney about to start at Washington Sq Park. See,its games like the one you posted,which give me some shutters on the black side. Yet,I think perhaps I may be underrating myself a bit,and should investigate the French a bit more.My success rate with it in the past has not been stellar,so I do admit not playing it very much.Today,I will be concentrating on one of my specialities 1.b4(Sokolsky)and have had a much higher success rate with this irregular opening compared to the French,regardless of what the "stats"say about it. |
||||||
|
tiger_lilov 03-Jul-12, 11:40 |
Opening Here is just simply what you need to do to get the maximum strength. Ready?.... FORGET ABOUT THE OPENINGS. I am joking, but only a little bit. A Croation master recommended you to go to Dan Heisman's Novice Nook. Dan heisman, although not even much stronger than me, is an excellent teacher and his articles provide fast quality improvement for the lower Class Players. What about the openings? Sure, go ahead and spend some a *very small* amount of time quickly going over your replies to the main moves. And by the way, a beginner should play 1.e4, and avoid the heavy theory lines like ruy lopez. Settle for a non intensive guicco piano, or something of the sort. As for moves like 1...g5, they are quite interesting, but even at my Cm level I don't even think about moves like that, let alone study them. If someone surprises me, I can simply use my general playing strength to find the moves, instead of memorizing the line. If you study how to play good chess, you will cut down opening study greatly; For example, in the poor but sharp openings like latvian, you will navigate well and avoid a quick tactical defeat, and probably get some edge. So here is the bottom line, even when you progress higher and higher, assuming you want the best results: Play your best openings, and that is it. Think about it, if you are playing a strong player, you are already in pressure. Why make your position even worse by making the bad moves? Also, class players should follow the general pricniples and not look for exceptions until they reach certain strength. By playing moves like Na6 it is counterproductive. Some players switch openings for improvement, but they are much more advanced. Just play e4, follow principles of the opening, and don't think about the opening theory until you reach GK1300. That is my advice. |
||||||
|
tiger_lilov.... If that would be the case then you would be jumping from 1800 to 2200+ or higher in a very short time,and you and I know that probably won't happen.So the question remains at what time in your chess career or rating level should you begin to learn openings? Again,that is relative.I would say on average it would be best to start looking now,Tiger since you are way beyond the basics! As to moves like 1.....g5 like i mentioned above.....again do not misunderstand.That was not meant for you to learn,but how "I" performed in a blitz arena or a few games on GK.It was meant to illustrate that even "irregular"openings can and do have great winning value,especially in fast blitz of 5 mins or less.When you combine irregular openings like the Basman and learned a few lines(yes...learn some irregular openings!)...maybe just 2 or 3 lines and combine that with some tactical skill...you can have a winning combination of SUPRISE VALUE,when everyone else is using the 1.....e5 or d5 or c5 black responses. As to what I mentioned above....like 1.Na3.No,it is really NOT counterproductive!Yes,it may be counterproductive to someone who is simply learning all the basics...but the so called "Sodium Attack"does have novel,but very GOOD surprise value in blitz as well as some games with long time controls to "train" others in to "testing"their abilties against the weaker Sodium Opening.You would be surprised at how many players think that they must reign supreme,but end up failing because they did not study atleast a few "should be" OPENING responses to this move and lose to this so called "counterproductive"move.So again do not misunderstand....i am not here to tell you to learn any openings at all,but to say it is not that necessary...well it is,but when?Maybe not now for you tiger,but trust me,there is supreme value in learning,studying and memorizing various opening lines....for it trains the mind to be better at what is called ...."subvariations".And that is where you know which move is the best "statistical choice"from move #13,but which to vary a bit at that position making it,say,..."unclear,or open to further research".But not being prepared for the better lines,especailly in OTB where databases are not going to be available during a game,is a big mistake.For your opponent may very well be better prepared at the table than you by having simply studied a few lines in that Queens Gambit he automatically knows are the better responses as opposed to someone who has NOT studied hardly any openings and lines and is simply relying on their tactical/positional "gut feelings". So lets examine or take a look at some so called "counterproductive"and weak openings by me where I won every game,some against players compatible with your strength on GK(tiger_lilov/rating:1827) and others much weaker.But then,as i said above,even with the weaker players,it is a good learning experience to have them LOSE against such "weak" and counterproductive moves.Why?Well,for one thing,if they are losing to some of my very very very weak and silly moves in the opening,then how will they par against my full strength tactically perfect moves following the highest statistical performance?See,its sometimes good to show a player what NOT to do with less sound weaker(shall we say silly?)moves.Then if they still lose,then you say...well why?That was some of the worse moves I have made in my life!What are you doing wrong?Back to the drawing board!!!You should have easily won this game!So what did you miss in that book the "candidate master"told you to read?????????See??? First game using the so called counterproductive Na3 sodium attack: Won against a player at the time over 1800,now over 1900:  game game game game The rest of the games are just terrible,lousy moves for me,yet i win.But I did that for a reason!So there is a lesson here and a good learning lesson for a player that is rated even as low as...1000 to 1700 as in the other 3 games above. Some games,such as a Sodium open up the b file and sometimes the g file. And IF an opponent takes either of those Knights he is at a theoretical disadvantage.So even in weaker openings,there is a learning curve that should be trained upon and not simply brushed aside because some master said....forget openings,its a waste!!!! Hmmmm...well,i'm a senior master,not a master or candidate master,so what do I know? Good chess to you tiger!!!!!And again...welcome to GK! |
||||||
|
Now this game includes the so called Na6 "counterproductive" move.(as well as many more horrible moves!) The examples in my post above this one may show Na3,not Na6 but you get the general idea! Yes,lowering the point value on a Knight by limiting his movement goes against better opening principles.But its what you do with that weak move of mine that counts!Not reading in some book....don't do it.Plus a move like Na3 or Na6 in the opening if played correctly is "deceptively weak"in the fact that it can be used as a "potential energy springboard".That is if the knight is placed TEMPORARILY on the end files,it can suddenly spring into action by mid game,ending its "temporary"decreased point value by the previous position.Its what is deemed on the higher levels as a "psychological ploy" for those that are unprepared against the "novelty". Will these ploys work against very high rated players?of course not,thats not the point here. But the Na6 or Na3 moves are not as weak as many opponents may believe.I have won countless games against 1800=player as in my post above,including a good # of 2000 rated players.So being a fruitless or counterproductive move...well,not really.But simply to go ahead and learn these things?No,thats not what i'm stressing here!What I am stressing here is the things you can learn from such openings.You may,for example WANT to go Na6 and see WHY that was a losing move.I made the move and won later on in the game against many,not just this example which is not the best exaample,but shows an underlying lesson here..... game |
||||||
|
baronderkilt 04-Jul-12, 00:51 |
Can't say where I read it .... Wish I could recall where that came from. I can only say that , whoever said it, I believed it. |
||||||
| |||||||
Log in 
