5 ( +1 | -1 ) oops sorry correctioni meant Kings indian and Nimzoindian
86 ( +1 | -1 ) What is your favourite opening and why?I am studying chess seriously only since a few months, so I do not know well all the openings. I have tried initially with King Gambit becuase is nice but it is a bit difficult for me. Danish Gambit too is good, but the opening easier to understand for me is Italian Game (1. e4 e5, 2. Nf3 Nc6, 3. Bc4 Bc5, 4. c3) . I have seen in these last weeks several games from Morphy with this kind of opening. His style is fantastic, linear, clean, with many lines opened. So I think I will continue with this opening again until I will be more learned with it. The problem is that often my opponent plays 3. ...Nf6 and not 3. ...Bc5, so the situation with the opening of the two knights is more complex for me. What do you think about Italian game? Do you think is a good opening for junior players like me? (Evan's Gambit too is nice!). Bye everybody here!
53 ( +1 | -1 ) robertodemarcoI used to play the Italien game myself. But like you say you often end up playing against the two knights or the pettroffs defence or the Philidors defence, you also have to be prepared for the sicilian and many more openings. Its the same with the Evans Gambit, I was thinking of playing the Evans gambit but i would have to know all the other openings i mentioned to a fairly good standard.
I personaly think that any opening is good for a person that knows it well, no matter what age they are. I'm only a junior myself.
25 ( +1 | -1 ) ecossaise et scandinavepour moi avec les blancs mon ouverture preferee est l'ecossaise (e4 e5 cf3 cf6 d4) et avec les noirs la scandinave (e4 d5) elles donnent toutes deux de l'attaque avec un espace ouvert pour jouer et des millions de combinaisons, bref tout pour s'amuser !!!
14 ( +1 | -1 ) Ruy LopezHas always been a favorite of mine.
As Black I often play Petroff, but recently I have been looking at Pirc and Modern.
13 ( +1 | -1 ) different people,diferent tastes.i rather dislike the lopez,butI don't really have any special likes or dislikes,though I do like to have the initiative.
26 ( +1 | -1 ) my repertoiree4 as white...the rossolimo against the sicillian, panov attack against the caro-kann, 3.Nc3 against the french....and usually an h-pawn hack against the modern or pirc....with black, i usually employ the french defense against e4 and the dutch against d4.
36 ( +1 | -1 ) Well...... it's hard to say, but one of my favourites is the Englund. I just love it, when my opponents give me this strange look after I've played the stupid looking 1...e5 aginst their solid 1.d4. Then they take another look at my rating, just in case. Then it's time to start thinking...
But all in all, I'm most comfortable playing the Sicilian Wing Gambit.
150 ( +1 | -1 ) Strange lookI also regularly met these strange looks when you play openings as the Englund. But there is another thing. Most people knows that it is not sound, but they do no know why. So they think: "This guy must be a fool to play openings like this, so I do not have to think for a long while. Let's play normal moves to punish this stupidity." It always gives me a kick when people reacts this way and when I could beat them. Their faces , Oh, my God ! And then they begin to claim : but this opening is wrong, what if I had played this, and what if I had played that move. And everybody in the neighbourhood comes to see and they all agree : this opening was not a good one. They can discuss as long as they want, but this do not change the final result of the game. I never forget the succesive faces of my opponent in following game I played in the Open belgian Championship 1996: 1.e4 a5!? 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 Nf6 4.c4 c6!? 5.dxc6 e5!? 6.c7 Qxc7 7.d5 Bc5 8.Ne2? Ng4 9.Be3 Bxe3 10.fxe3 Nxe3 11.Qd3 Nxc4 (1-0, 47) To make a conclusion : we are not topplayers, why should we try to copy openings from worldmasters ? I could not follow middlegame technics of a Karpov, I have not the slightest idea why he moves this pawn and not that pawn, so why should I study openings leading to these middlegames. I play chess on my own level : just for fun, let's attack, let's do unexpected, shocking moves, we can laugh with them and have fun afterwards,and discuss them with some beers. After all, it's just a game ...
6 ( +1 | -1 ) Correctionof course, the result of the game I published above was 0-1 and not 1-0. Sorry.
167 ( +1 | -1 ) But...By playing a strange (= bad) opening moves, one tries to affect opponent, to make him blunder when hes out of positions he knowns, or perhaps to miss those traps oddball openings might have. Of course there are other kind of oddball openings - more solid ones that people play to avoid theory. I understand that but cant help wondering how much one can learn by focusing on how to avoid something? I prefer main lines because the are the most instructive (however I have to admit sometimes I do choose lines that theoretically allow black to equalize, because Im too lazy to study theory...heheh). Yes I admit I cant play like Karpov, but how much can I learn if I just say "Ok, I cant play Caro-Kann as well as Karpov, so I better give it up and play 1...g5, build some threats and hope my opponent screws up" :)
"To make a conclusion : we are not topplayers, why should we try to copy openings from worldmasters ? I could not follow middlegame technics of a Karpov, I have not the slightest idea why he moves this pawn and not that pawn, so why should I study openings leading to these middlegames."
IMO, the answer is (paradoxically) just because of that - to learn those middlegames!
Before you get an impression that im judging you somehow, let me add there are no rules saying how one must play chess. If you enjoy using oddball openings, thats ok. I personally dont want to play oddball openings or "crazy attacks" etc because I find chess most fun when I try to play my best chess, instead of using surprise value to make my opponent play his worst :)
Just my two cents
19 ( +1 | -1 ) BTWIf you have managed to become almost 2000 here by using openings like the one mentioned above, I strongly believe you are way too modest when describing your playing level...
171 ( +1 | -1 ) Ortodox vs. UnortodoxFirst of all, "Strange" does not equal "bad"
Seccond, there is this notion in chess, that one should always expect the best move from your opponent. I've never agreed with this. In chess, like in war, information is everything. If you know your strenght of your opponent, then take this into consideration when you play. You're not playing a computer, you're playing a human being which is likely to give inn under preasure. Another pieace of information, is that most players don't bother to learn the side lines. use this!
Take the following example, a played IM Smerdon in a simul last year. I was white, and he played the French. Ok, so what should I do, try to outplay him in this defense, which he knows much better than me, or should I try to force him to fight on my battlefield? Well, I played my Reti variation 1.e4 e6 2.b3 and voila, the IM is out of book, he has to start thinking. There is a nice gambit after 2...d5 3.Bb2 ed 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Qe2 Qd5 and now we're out my book as well, but I can still rely on the general plans and ideas behind this variation. 10 moves later, I had regained the pawn, plus another pawn. Clear advantage.
you see, this is not about "giving up on the Caro-Kann", but gaining a favourable imbalance. I know the theory and the ideas, I've played my openings a hundred times and know the resulting middle games. my opponents don't. I've got one e-book, one film and two booklets on 3.f3 against the Caro-kann. My opponent could have all Karpov's Caro-kann-games memorised... but to what use?
I honestly do not think my chess playing level would improve if I started to play main line, do you?
ok, enugh rambling, please comment.
(by the way, I do not intend to be hostile, this is just the way I express my self :)
4 ( +1 | -1 ) paulvallewhat do think of the Danish Gambit?
552 ( +1 | -1 ) Paulvalle* First of all, "Strange" does not equal "bad" *
Ok, thats fair I guess. However, you misunderstood me here - when I was talking about strange moves I was responding to Kaiserpaul's post, and therefore was referring to moves such as 1.e4 a5?! (an example he gave), NOT theory moves like 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3, that has been played by many GMs. Of course, on amateur level (my level) knowing the opening AND understanding its ideas is more important than slight advantage you might (or might not!) have in best line. For example Reti is = in theory, so its obvious in a game between equal players the one who knows it better has a clear practical advantage.
* Another pieace of information, is that most players don't bother to learn the side lines. use this! *
I will not. You have your style and I have mine. Trying to affect the opponents play by surprises or lines he might not like etc is a part of your style, which is fine. After all, even world champion Emanuel Lasker believed in this. However one thing people tend to forget is, unless you know all your opponents personally, there is no way to know which lines your opponents dislike. And in fact not all players hate sidelines in the first place!
Im an amateur player and not a very good one. This means I agree playing sidelines MIGHT improve my results now, but in the long run, I believe playing main lines is more beneficial for me.
* Take the following example, a played IM Smerdon in a simul last year. I was white, and he played the French. Ok, so what should I do, try to outplay him in this defense, which he knows much better than me, or should I try to force him to fight on my battlefield? Well, I played my Reti variation 1.e4 e6 2.b3 and voila, the IM is out of book, he has to start thinking. There is a nice gambit after 2...d5 3.Bb2 ed 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Qe2 Qd5 and now we're out my book as well, but I can still rely on the general plans and ideas behind this variation. 10 moves later, I had regained the pawn, plus another pawn. Clear advantage. *
Nice example. Yes this is true, but once again, you are not talking about strange moves I was referring to. Although after Qd5?? Nxd5 gives more than pawn for White :))) Actually I use this method too - I might choose Reti (IMO not a sideline though) as White because I dont know theory of Catalan, an opening that is considered slight more promising than Reti. Now to be honest I dont know Reti so well either, but its a decent practical choice nevertheless, and has HUGE amount of ides to learn. But, what can you learn from openings that are more or less traps? That kind of sidelines I dont consider good for learning purposes, lines where you have one straight-forward plan (or few cheap traps) that can work only if opponent plays inaccurate moves. This though process is a bit like 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 dxe4 4.Nxe4 Nd7 5.Qe2?! ("hope he moves Ngf6?? cant wait to see his face when he realizes Nd6 is mate!!! oh crap, he moved e6, now this is getting boring...what the heck will i do now?") :) Yours is complately different...clearly your first objective is to win as many games as you can, but it seems you also care about what you learn from openings you play.
To add something, yes its a clear practical advantage to use a line you know but your opponent doesnt, but only if you know it! Some folks consider "getting out of book" an advantage of its own, even in situations where both players are on uncharted waters! I mean why choose an inferior move to reach a position where you have no 1) theoretical 2) practical advantage? However, this isnt the case with your games, like your post tells me.
* I honestly do not think my chess playing level would improve if I started to play main line, do you? *
How is it possible to learn any line that is rich in content, both positionally and tactically, and not improve ones chess? I guess more accurate question is what improves ones chess the most :)
I believe learning 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 improves ones chess in general more than learning 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3, but im sure also learning 3.f3 well teaches a lot about chess. Now you may disagree, and if you do, I cant prove you wrong (note - Im not talking about results here, on amateur level 3.f3 might win more games than 3.Nc3!).
And to avoid all sorts of debates - moves like 1...a5?! are NOT comparable to moves like 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.f3 (perfectly solid line even if not theoretically as promising as some other lines) or 1.e4 e6 2.b3 (again, perfectly solid move although in theory Black propably equalizes).
So, since I defitenitely condemn your lines and agree they propably give you a practical advantage, there is no debate, ok? I believe one learns the most about chess by studying main lines, but cant prove it any more than you can prove otherwise. Does one get better results by playing sidelines (on amateur level)? Perhaps, but on my level improvement is more important issue than winning as many games as possible. My goal is to play openings that dont only teach me openings, but chess in general. Therefore I choose openings that 1) fit to my playing style 2) read previous sentence. Ok?
Anyway, isnt it nice that people can have different approach in chess? In the end, that is one of the many factors that make chess so interesting :)
P.S Sorry if this post doesnt make sense, Im just going to a club and wrote this in hurry!
26 ( +1 | -1 ) PeppeFirst I had written an extensive reply to your messages here, but I have cancelled it. I do not think this can lead to an agreement. I am not looking for the truth, I am looking how chess can enjoy me. And it does, in my way. I hope it enjoys you too, in your way. That's the most important thing..
120 ( +1 | -1 ) KeiserpaulActually, there is no disagreement as long as you are not saying moves like 1...a5?! are objectively good! :)
My opinion is if you like playing odd moves that may not be 100% correct, there is nothing wrong in it. Quite contrary - a strong player using strange openings means there is more variety between players, and yes, that is only a positive thing, even in my opinion. Not all players have to be alike! I still stand behind my opinion that beginning players better learn theory lines first before dumping them to use oddball lines, IF the goal is to make maximum progress (and I consider myself being in this stage too, although I dont have such goal...I just want to learn enough to enjoy chess even more at my intermediate level).
However, the main thing is chess is fun - for me its most enjoyable when I desperately (and unsuccesfully) try to play Caro-Kann main lines as well as Karpov, for you its most enjoyable when you can try your own openings and experiment with more or less dubious, but still interesting, moves.
IMO, that is the most important thing, and therefore Im quite sure we do reach an agreement afterall?
99 ( +1 | -1 ) out-of-bookthere are definitely situations where playing theoretically 'bad' or 'strange' moves is the most effective battle strategy, and the one paulvalle mentions is the best one I can think of.
when playing a simul game against a master, playing out-of-book is far more effective than playing book-lines. 1) the master is playing multiple games, and cannot focus his/her attention on your particular game, 2) The master knows the opening theory of most lines far deeper than you do, so you are not going to outplay him/her in the opening by playing theoreticaly known lines. -MOST IMPORTANTLY 3) The master is very familiar with the typical middlegame situations which arise from playing known opening theory, and will not have to think as hard as when playing in an unfamiliar middlegame which arises from an unknown, odd-ball opening.
Very good strategy you played against IM Smerdon, paul!
5 ( +1 | -1 ) i have a least favorite: Caro-Kann
33 ( +1 | -1 ) sorry, made a typo:Valle-Smerdon (IM, 2327) Simultaneous Match Brisbane, Australia 21.04.01 1.e4 e6 2.b3 "Reti Variation" 2...d5 3.Bb2 de 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.Qe2 Qd4 (not 5...Qd5, as I posted earlier) 6.0-0-0 Nc6 7.f3!? ef 8.Nxf3 Qb4 9.Nb5 Bd6 10.Ba3 Qa5 11.Bd6 cd 12.Nxd6+ Kf8 13.Kb2 Bd7? 14.Nxb7 Qb4 15.Qb5 Qxb5 16.Bxb5 Ke7 17.Nc5 Rb8 18.Nxd7 Rxb5 19.Nxf6 gf 20.c4 Rb7 21.d4 and Black is a pawn down, with no compensation. I should mention, that I actually lost the game anyway, 21 moves later :(
162 ( +1 | -1 ) pepe_lpepe_l: "However one thing people tend to forget is, unless you know all your opponents personally, there is no way to know which lines your opponents dislike. And in fact not all players hate sidelines in the first place! "
-This is true, but at the same time, it is resonable to assume that most players study and play main lines. And they do not study or play against side lines often. right?
pepe_l: "clearly your first objective is to win as many games as you can, but it seems you also care about what you learn from openings you play."
-My first objective, is not actually to win as many games as possible, but to excell in chess, and play "beautiful games". What is beauty? Personally I agrre with keiserpaul. -Let me quote Vukovic in "Art of Attack": "...there exsist an extremely large group of chess players, who are no longer beginners nor, on the other hand, masters or point hunters, but players who aim primarily at deriving an aesthetic satisfaction from the game. For such players an attacking game is more attractive than positional technique and they will continue to attack regardless of risk, for their stormy contest are not going to noted down in theoretical textbooks...."
I play gambits as well, I would never have improved my tactial skills so fast without them. (I also believe that there are lessons to be learnt from traps as well. We all learned the lesson, regardin the weak-f7 square from 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5?!, sisn't we. Any way this is not what I want a discussion about)
sh**, have to go, or my girlfriend will kill me.
64 ( +1 | -1 ) Ok..."-This is true, but at the same time, it is resonable to assume that most players study and play main lines. And they do not study or play against side lines often. right?"
That is true in most cases, I agree.
About beautiful games, my favourites are positional ones...I do like a brilliant attacking games of Alekhine, but not as much as positional squeeze by Karpov or a masterful endgame play by Capablanca. My favourite games are those were the winner shows brilliant understanding of small nuances in chess. But I guess most players like attacking games more and thats ok to me.
0 ( +1 | -1 ) What is your favourite opening and why?.
31 ( +1 | -1 ) Change of heartI always used to like King Pawn openings (as attack and defence) but lately am preferring to try Sicilian defence strategems and the English opening.
Perhaps I'm in my "second" childhood of chess? (Or perhaps I'm thinking I'm getting boring and stale and, sort of like a bald man deciding to get a wig after 10 years!)
8 ( +1 | -1 ) Against 1.d4 i have just started to play the Kings indian if i get the chance. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6.
10 ( +1 | -1 ) the english1.c4 because i've never had anyone play it against me so it entrigues me (entrigues-is that how you spell it? as in it interests me...)
I only know one opening theory :) I won't tell you which one, or I'm busted, I guess, for no one will give me the chance to play it no more... I like openings (or one opening) that provide possibilities for tactical melees. I'm usually at a loss what to play as black, so I settle for sicilian, mostly.
It's spelled intrigues by the way.
64 ( +1 | -1 ) The Colle & The Modern DefenceThe Colle for white because it's a real Jekyll and Hyde opening. It begins with slow, positional play before exploding. It's also relatively easy to learn so, as a beginner, it's perfect for me. For black, I am learning and playing the Modern Defence. The Gurgenidze against white e4 tends to lead to attritional states, but I enjoy the "impassable minefield" aspect of it as I find it intriguing to watch my opponent come up with new ways to solve the puzzle (this helps me learn and improve as a player, of course). The Modern is also helping me improve my positional play as there is no room for error. Attacking too early or too late is fatal.
3 ( +1 | -1 ) 1-0Ruy Lopez.....1-0......nuff said
16 ( +1 | -1 ) i likethe playing against the KID because if you play right you get good q-side play against a little K-side attack wich is easy to defend against
11 ( +1 | -1 ) sicilian paulsen(taimanov)1.e4! and white wins, Fischer once said.
I say 1.e4 c5! and black wins (or at least draws) if he follows up correctly...;)
6 ( +1 | -1 ) i just take the book and throw it against the wall!
22 ( +1 | -1 ) sicilian svechnikov !then its known pelikan too.. 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cd 4.Nd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5... i play this opening with black! and i think it s couragous to play this opening because there are a lot of risks.. then i love pelikan.. :-) some pelikan players?
116 ( +1 | -1 ) I agree with Paulvalle and keiserpaulChess on our level is for fun. So have fun! Play the outrageous. 1a4 or 1...a4, 1g4 or 1 ... g5, are they any worse than 1Nf3 or those awful 1e4 and 1d4 moves? Not really, because, as, keiserpaul points out, our technique is not at a point where we can refute the strange moves by force. Tartakower once commented about his strange openings and losing with them that he wasn't sure if his opening play was anymore to blame than his middlegame play. If that was true for him how much more for us? There is also the idea of Lasker's which Nimzowitsch made great use of and that is playing in the odds giving style. Deliberately playing less than the "best" to set both yourself and your opponent a challenge -- psychological chess. this is also of use when you want to play a lesser rated opponent and have the game be more interesting, since playing at odds isn't done in tournaments or matches anymore.
As for my favorites? As white probably the Nimzowitsch Attack because I like the kingside attacking possibilities. With the black pieces I like Owen's Defense for the same reason. But I also have a penchant for the Latvian against 1e4, must be a gambler at heart.