|
|
| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
deeper_insight 08-Aug-15, 21:54 |
 The Sokolsky Opening...1.b4gameknot.com |
||
|
Sokolsky opening |
||
|
 game
|
||
|
deeper_insight 05-Feb-16, 14:17 |
Again games like this(Orangutan),reinforces and renews my thoughts on the "surprise value"of some of these irregular games.As I mentioned in the Sokolsky link above,it is 9th in popularity,which is certainly not unpopular.It actually is the strongest irregular opening(in my humble opinion),even stronger than the Grob and stronger than a defensive irregular like the Basman Defense.I suggest more club members experiment with the Sok.If your concerned about losing with it,so what?That is part of the learning process!See how Edmund did with it readers? And you can always experiment with unrated Sokolsky's,so no points to lose if you do happen to lose!An extra note:The Sok can transpose into other type openings,which makes it stronger than some other irregular openings.Another reason in theory that it is only slightly weaker than other mainline openings is that is does NOT weaken the critical f2 square on whites side,as other irregulars may do. Again,Kudos,Edmund! |
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
deeper_insight 06-Feb-16, 16:43 |
Deleted by deeper_insight on 06-Feb-16, 17:15.
|
||
|
deeper_insight 06-Feb-16, 17:15 |
Deleted by deeper_insight on 06-Feb-16, 17:25.
|
||
|
deeper_insight 06-Feb-16, 17:24 |
Quick 5 minute Sokolsky blitz game.... Again,the element of surprise.So even if this was a 3 day per move game,I extremely seriously doubt that my 1766 rated opponent would have "miraculously" moved any better or suddenly equalized because he had more "think time".That is another misconception by many GK players....maybe you? If you do not know how to handle some of these irregulars like the A00's(ECO code)and are not prepared for it,do not study opening databases much and do not do your homework...why would you think that because you have a few days,you would definitely play much better?That mode of thinking may sound logical to you,but you are fooling yourself in many cases. See,I like to get into other players mindsets and YOURS,to dissect thought patterns!Blitz definitely proves things!Yes,a 5 minute game shows "oodles" of misunderstanding regarding openings.1766 is close to 1800 in rating.So,by now,my opponent should know how to handle some of these irregular openings.Why study opening databases?To give you a better memorized handle on the best responses to 1.b4,for example!And when to start studying openings?Well,that is a bit of a toss up,but 1400 rating is a good start...about 20%-30% of your study should be devoted to looking at various openings.Sure 1.e4 and 1.d4 are more important,but it does not hurt to cover 1.b4 either,because you may run into it one day or decide to use it to destroy other opponents like me! [Event "GameKnot Blitz"] [Site //gameknot.com/"] [Date "2016.02.06"] [Round "-"]5 min,zero increment [White "tactical-abyss"]2372 [Black "chessjunk"]1766 [Result "1-0"] 1. b4 b5 2. a4 c6 3. e3 Nf6 4. axb5 cxb5 5. Bxb5 Bb7 6. Nf3 Nc6 7. c3 a6 8. Be2 e5 9. O-O Bd6 10. d3 O-O 11. Nbd2 Bc7 12. Ne4 d5 13. Nc5 Bc8 14. b5 Bb6 15. bxc6 Bxc5 16. Nxe5 Bd6 17. f4 Re8 18. Qa4 Bxe5 19. fxe5 Rxe5 20. c4 dxc4 21. Qxc4 Qd5 22. d4 Qxc4 23. Bxc4 Rg5 24. Ra4 Be6 25. Rxa6 Rc8 26. Bd3 Bd5 27. e4 Bxe4 28. Bxe4 Nxe4 29. Bxg5 Nxg5 30. Rfa1 Ne4 31. Ra8 Rf8 32. c7 g6 33. Rxf8+ Kxf8 34.c8Q 1-0 chesstempo.com Not going to annotate much here,I just want you to take a look,briefly if you may.Already by move #5,my decent rated opponent loses a pawn with no return value in piece or position!Move #5!Now,against a senior master,its already over by move #5!See how destructive an irregular game can be against the unwary? Move #14....Bb6 "unprotects"my opponents critical controlling e5 pawn because he believes in some of the correct theory that taking my Knight in a yet closed game,is better....and yes it is,but not by weakening your own center or losing another pawn!So he gains my Knight,but loses another pawn by move #16.Now the score is two pawns down for my opponent and the game hardly started!Am I playing that superior,or is my opponent simply playing that badly based upon unknown knowledge about irregular openings?Its the latter,my readers!A 5 minute blitz game is not really what is destroying my opponent,but his lack of opening theory and only partial exchange theory knowledge.In other words,when you are down one pawn by move #5,you should play more defensively,even retreat if necessary,but beginning to "exchange"when down material is generally a no no!(unless you definitely have some kind of tempo,trap,pin or initiative in position!). By the endgame,you can easily see the "style"that a Sok takes on...which is to say,it generally exploits blacks Q side.My opponent resigned after my c8=Q(move #34). Sure,there were other multiple tactical errors in the midgame by my opponent,BUT IF he would have used BETTER and MORE ACCURATE opening moves,it may have,indeed paved a way to a better game for him,possibly even a draw! Another straight up,no sacrifice blitz game employing one of my pet openings...A00 Polish or Sokolsky.The lesson is to destroy the unprepared and do it swiftly!This game was a good example of that. So what is the better book responses?I'll take a look at my custom opening book.Hiarcs would be excellent,but i'll just check mine for now.Let,see,hmmmm: Ok 1.b4 Now what,1....b5 as he did?No.1.....e5 is what you are seeking.As black you must exploit my weaker flank move,by gaining superior control of the center and initiative....NOT by "mirroring" my move with ANOTHER WEAKER MOVE!That may work in an English Symmetrical(1.c4,c5),but then that is not an irregular game and is a total different story which I will cover at a later time. Now at this juncture I would have moved either the two following sequences with BEST play from black after 1...e5: 2.Bb2,Bxb4 3.Bxe5 Or perhaps: 2. a3,d5 3.Bb2,Nd7 In both of the cases above,black is either better off with central control(especially the second example) or equalized a slight bit better in the first example.There are about 15 other ways for black to proceed....but 1.....b5 is actually fairly bad!Why?For one thing,it moves out of even the Hiarcs book,which automatically MAKES IT A WEAKER MOVE!Computer analysis gives white approx a +.42 pawn value advantage right out of the opening after 1.a4,with much more flank control on whites side and a much freer file control of my Rook on a1.See,now,perhaps? 3.e3 reinforces that flank control of mine. So,using an out of book move and then post game analyzing with Stockfish,we see that instead of 3....Nf6 3...Bb7 would have been much better for black to reinforce his flank pawn control and just about equalize the game.But 3....Nf6 illustrates a pawn loss at -1.00 for black. So why is using a good opening book to study and a post game program like Stockfish,Shredder or others an excellent way to improve you games?It shows you ways to move and ways NOT to move for FUTURE GAMES that you can memorize as you study games like the Sokolsky.It does not matter if your opponent moves out of book early like my opponent did.Chances are that will be in your favor and then you can see WHY moves out of book are in your favor by using a post game program to closely monitor and observe the pawn value - and + signs.Your study will then run in the direction of subvariational moves with the + value lines! As to psychology?The Polish(Sok)and the Basman Defense can pierce an opponents mindset and brain swiftly,like a needle through a cotton ball and short circuit a players game to swift losses...if they are not prepared! So all that forum chat on GK in other places or online that you read about the "disadvantages"of these irregulars is true,but ONLY IF you are prepared to know HOW to exploit the opening weakness's of the Sok,Basman and weird openings like the Sodium Attack! If you are not prepared like I told you time and time again till i'm exhausted telling you...to be prepared against these irregulars,then you too will probably lose against the Sok and others. Is your rating far above 1766?If not,then what makes you think you will par automatically better than my opponent?Your prayers?No.Effort on your part with studying opening books and even using a chess program to assist your studies is infinitely better than not using any at all.And using one without the other is not good either.You may be thinking,TA your just too advanced and I cannot do these things on my much lower rating level.Not true!Even at 1400-1500 it is recommended to start studying openings by many of the training experts.And using a program to further enhance your learning at almost any rating level above say 1400,is certainly not detrimental in any way,shape or form.Even earlier than 1400,perhaps,but that is based on an individual learning curve and I will not necessarily recommend it. Thanks for taking a look! TA |
||
|
deeper_insight 06-Feb-16, 17:40 |
Deleted by deeper_insight on 06-Feb-16, 18:36.
|
||
|
deeper_insight 06-Feb-16, 18:36 |
Only blitz?No,not at all! See below: But not now for 2 reasons.I'm not playing any more games probably this year and #2...since I am trying to slowly reach 2500 again,even a draw can hurt me against a 2300+ player.So,right now,I will go with the better high end stat games until I reach my goal.After that,I can afford to lose a few points,even with a Sok draw against a 2300-2400 rated opponent.1.b4 is certainly not a high end stat game against 2300-2400.But for you lower rated opponents it is a very excellent study game and will give you some fast wins,even in YOUR GK long corresp games! In summary,1.b4, with best play on whites side and best play on blacks side,gives white only a "slight"disadvantage.With a Basmam Defense or a white Sodium Attack game,these openings are MUCH less advantageous for white.Consider the Sokolsky a "high end" irregular game at the top of my list....compared to others. Below,I have a Sok 1.b4 win against almost 1900 rated player in one of my past GK long corresp games: game Notice something?He lost in only 14 moves!Now,this is an "A"rated,relatively strong player! 14 move he lost in and days to think about each move.So what was that about 2 or 3 days to think about the move and being able to win against these "inferior"irregular games?????? Need I say any more about those "cliched"chess thinkers(maybe you?)that have been badly programmed by others in other chess forums,clubs or books that will go on to tell you that with 3 days to think about the move and being 1800-1900,you should be able to crush these weaker openings and opening defenses?Hmmmmmm....really?Again let me respond with my own "cliche"!And that is to say....."What fairy tale books do you read"?The Cat in the Hat? Reprogram your way of thinking readers!The game above should have been won by my lofty close to 1900 rated opponent.But psychological games against opponents,even close to 1900 rated ones can cause swift losses.....and he had days to think about each move.That does not mean that he will TAKE 2 or 3 days to think about the moves,now does it?Do you think he would have played better at 14 days per move time?Answer:No.That would be related to the book...."Green Eggs and Ham".Another fairy tale book. TA |
||
|
deeper_insight 06-Feb-16, 18:55 |
Final note on my game link above(Rogubravo)game: So what was that I said about studying the better opening databases and being better prepared?Was this almost 1900 rated prepared?No.Did he memorize any really good opening responses from a good opening database or paperback book?Apparently not. Well,then go on to lose,lose LOSE!Does not bother me!Only gains my point bank with gold rating points...higher and HIGHER! Again,i'm here to prove a few things...and hopefully my messages will sink in! |
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
deeper_insight 06-Feb-16, 21:41 |
Duncan Suttles games are of a hypermodern style,but NOT necessarily irregular in nature.Hypermodern does not mean irregular.The Modern,as he played for example is not an irregular defense,and transpositions are common. Interesting about the spike,Wiki states: "Nonetheless, International Master Michael Basman and Grandmaster Spyridon Skembris are advocates of the opening. It has a certain surprise value, and the average player is unlikely to know how to refute it and more likely to get overconfident and make mistakes.Moreover, the lack of theory along this line may negate the repertoire of an experienced opponent. Intuitive play by White can lead Black into dangerous traps. Many of these traps rely on Black's replying with 1...d5, attacking the pawn with his queen's bishop. After 2.Bg2 Bxg4!?, White has an attack after 3.c4 and eventually Qb3, aiming at the weakened squares d5 and b7, an attack that may well be worth a pawn." This confirms beyond doubt what I have saying about the surprise value against opponents of all levels with the Spike(Grob),Basman defense and the Sokolsky. |
||
|
deeper_insight 06-Feb-16, 21:55 |
|
||
|
deeper_insight 07-Feb-16, 11:13 |
Deleted by deeper_insight on 07-Feb-16, 11:24.
|
||
|
deeper_insight 07-Feb-16, 11:24 |
Notable 1.b4 game today at the Marshall He then looked up at me and said...."want to play mister"?He did not know who I was,so I said...."Well,i'm just a novice and not very good,but I do love to gamble!"He said,how much?I said,well,how about 10 dollars?He said,ok.I said,but you are pretty good,can you at least give me the white to give me a chance to win?He said....ok,but I want a second game as black.I said:ok. Well,game on! Marshall Club,NYC 30 min game(agreed to) White-Joe-2400+OTB Black-Terry-2016 OTB 1. b4 f5 2. Bb2 e6 3. e4 fxe4 4. Qh5+ g6 5. Qe5 1-0 Destroyed the bragger in 5 moves.And notice my brilliant Q move's.Also notice the cardinal rule my 2000+ opponent ignored,which was to NOT weaken that all important f7 pawn and f7 square.So even experts can lack proper training,experience and opening book preparedness in the unexpected.He would have lost a major piece(the Knight with Nf6),knew it,and folded immediately.With 5...Qf6,he still would have lost his Knight.So its ONE of my opening traps with a Sok game. He paid me the 10 dollars.Then ask two tables down,"who is this guy"?... to John a master at the club.John said,you just got hustled kid,Joe has been here for over 40 years and is a SM! Terry mentioned...oh no!I then said,another game for 10 dollars my friend?I'll play the black this time.He said,no thanks,I got to go!I guess I spooked him!I said...here you go kid,giving you the 10 dollars back!He said..."oh no,you taught me a lesson and it was well worth the 10 bucks!"I said:Thanks.Bought two more espresso's that day! So here we had a Sokolsky game played against a player of "expert"rating. But the expert lost in 5 moves!Was he drunk?No. Was he unprepared for this irregular?Absolutely!Since I overheard his statement to his recent opponent about the lesson he was giving him in "knowing" all the lines in the Kings Gambit,I said to myself...lets see what lines he knows about the Sokolsky! Apparently,from playing as an expert in all those King and Q pawn game openings with perhaps and English thrown in once in a while,he overlooked some of those "monkey wrench" polish games an SM like me can give HIM as a lesson! TA |
||
|
deeper_insight 07-Feb-16, 11:27 |
chesstempo.com |
||
|
deeper_insight 07-Feb-16, 11:46 |
|
||
|
deeper_insight 12-Jan-17, 23:27 |
www.youtube.com |
