|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Dec-21-04 | | enigmaticcam: 1. d4 d5 2. c4 Nf6 should beware of this nasty surprise! Berliner vs A Rott, 1956 |
|
| Dec-25-04 | | JamesKnight: I wonder why Reti cautioned against the QG? I don`t see where its more difficult than 1 e4 . The French Defense doesn`t seem as complicated as the Sicilian. |
|
| Dec-25-04 | | square dance: <jamesknight> <I wonder why Reti cautioned against the QG? I don`t see where its more difficult than 1 e4 .> 1.e4 games, specifically when answered 1...e5 are more thematic than 1.d4 openings. also they are typically more tactical and therefor probably better to start off with than slower positional lines such as the QGD. |
|
| Dec-25-04 | | MidnightDuffer: <squaredance> I thought conventional wisdom would hold that either movement of the 2 most Centre pawns (e2 and d2) would be equal thematically; perhaps Reti did not like the "Gambit" nature. |
|
| Dec-25-04 | | Backward Development: I think Reti's idea was that an open game is easier to learn than a closed game. Understanding of the strategic elements can be learned easier than tactical vision can be learned. As lasker said, "The delight in gambits is a sign of chess youth. In very much the same way as the young man, on reaching his manhood years, lays aside the Indian stories and stories of adventure, and turns to the psychological novel, we with maturing experience leave off gambit playing and become interested in the less vivacious but withal more forceful maneuvers of the position player." – Emanuel Lasker
by gambits, he probably meant KG, Evan's etc. The Queen's gambit is a safe gambit which leads to closed strategic games(usually). |
|
| Dec-25-04 | | square dance: <midnightduffer> by thematic i meant that the open games are more about patterns than specific variations. from my initial studies i think it appears to be true. perhaps i didnt use 'thematic' correctly, or it was unclear, but that was my meaning. |
|
| Dec-25-04 | | square dance: <I think Reti's idea was that an open game is easier to learn than a closed game. Understanding of the strategic elements can be learned easier than tactical vision can be learned.> this basically sums up what i was trying to convey. 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6..any beginner can understand these moves. with 1.d4 d5 however a beginner would be unlikely, imo, to play 2.c4. and of course if you played 2.c4 against a beginner he is almost certain to play 2...dxc. playing against beginners i have found that they find 1.d4 openings much more difficult to cope with than 1.e4. the ideas behind the closed games seem completely lost on them in my experience. |
|
| Dec-25-04 | | Backward Development: squaredance:
'by thematic i meant that the open games are more about patterns than specific variations.'
really? That's interesting. IMO, i think that the open games are most certainly more based on specific variations than patterns.
there is more of an emphasis on move order in an open game than a closed game.
for example
if a game opened 1 e4 e5 2 Nc3 this has a more inferior reputation and percentage than
1 d4 d5 nf3 which usually transposes to main lines.
with regards to patterns, i think the closed games all share very similar patterns of development for white(nc3 nf3 Bg5 e3 Bd3 etc.) and the patterns of minority attack, central advance(white's e4 or black's ...c5) are more common within the closed games than e4 e5. within the open games, the systems of development change with each variation. in the ruy the queen's knight almost always goes to d2-f1 and the queen's bishop delayed for several moves, but in the Piano/two knights, the queen's knight usually quickly goes to c3 and the queen's bishop to g5 or e3. i don't really play open games, so i'm no expert, but that seems reasonable to me. |
|
| Dec-25-04 | | square dance: <bd> <That's interesting. IMO, i think that the open games are most certainly more based on specific variations than patterns.> i dont agree, but my statement was misleading. in fact the way it reads it is just wrong. let me try one more time ;-)...with open games it is not so much about memorizing specific variations as it is about understanding the basic patterns, or ideas of the particular opening. no doubt that a certain amount of theory has to be absorbed, but understanding things like strong point or counter attack defense is more worthwhile for a beginner than memorizing line after line of the closed ruy lopez. |
|
| Dec-25-04 | | Dudley: Closed games are more comfortable to play because they are more based on positional considerations rather than specific move orders. The play often develops more slowly but can lead to a stronger more conclusive attack than wide open slugfests. The problem is that it still comes down to tactics in the end, and you won't learn tactics very well playing positional openings too early in your chess career. Most people recommend more tactical openings such as the Guioco Piano, King's Gambit, Smith Morra, etc. switching to more restrained approaches later. Silman has a good piece on this in his website called "Stylistic Progression",where he traces the development of his own chess style over time. |
|
| Dec-26-04 | | RisingChamp: Beginners find it difficult to play against d4 than e4<Square Dance>thats wrong as far as my experience goes.Against 1700 and below players my e4 usually wins in below 20 moves and against sub 1100 players a good tactician with e4 can just wipe them out in 10 moves or less usually.The reason is that beginners are usually hopeless in tactics,and e4 leads to games where tactical watchfulness is very nessecary. |
|
| Dec-26-04 | | square dance: <rising champ> <.Against 1700 and below players my e4 usually wins in below 20 moves...> arent you rated over or about 2000? i dont see how this is relevant. yes, you can tactically whipe them out in 20 moves with 1.e4 or positionally crush them in 30 moves with 1.d4. if you're rated ~300 points better than someone i dont see how the opening move makes any difference. also 1200-1700 isnt really a beginners rating unless you're quite talented. in my mind i never considered rated players as beginners, especially those rated over 1000. <...and against sub 1100 players a good tactician with e4 can just wipe them out in 10 moves or less usually.> once again i make the same argument as above. against lower rated players anyone can play any opening and they should have no problem winning, especially with white. it is true that 1.e4 may lead to a quicker win against inferior competition because of a tactical oversite early in the game. <The reason is that beginners are usually hopeless in tactics,and e4 leads to games where tactical watchfulness is very nessecary.> what you say is true, but you think those same players have any positional understanding either? i dont. the point i was making is that the beginners i played against seemed to grasp the concept of the open games much better than the concepts of closed games. this was actually by such a wide margin that i temporarily made 1.d4 my primary opening for a period. |
|
| Dec-26-04 | | RisingChamp: Well of course almost any opening would suffice for me to beat a beginner or indeed would suffice for any reasonable player.There is no CONCEPT as such for open games,it is largely tactical awareness and concrete calculation,something which beginners lack,of course they totally lack positional understanding as well.To tell you the truth,even if I played 1 d4 and 2 c4 or whatever,they would still make a tactical blunder and lose very soon.Against a beginner I dont believe that they are positionally weaker than in tactics-they are just very weak at both.Also most beginners follow concepts-dont double pawns,control center,develop fast-,to the complete exclusion of tactical realities |
|
| Dec-26-04 | | tex: Hmmm, I'm under 1700 and I have played against few 2000 + rated guys. I lost most of those games but not one of them under 20 moves. I simply couldn't match their endgame skills and long-term planning process. Therefore I don't really belive you should look for some cheap tactical blow to win against a lower rated player. Positional understanding makes the larger difference IMO. That's why many titled players go for KIA or English against considerably lower rated players. |
|
| Dec-26-04 | | square dance: <risingchamp> <Well of course almost any opening would suffice for me to beat a beginner or indeed would suffice for any reasonable player.> well then that means you backed up your point with nothing but nonsense. <There is no CONCEPT as such for open games,it is largely tactical awareness and concrete calculation,something which beginners lack,of course they totally lack positional understanding as well.> yes beginners are basically weak in all areas, but i definitely think that, in general, beginners are able to accurately calculate 3-5 moves ahead before they grasp the concepts of weak color complexes, bad bishops, etc. no doubt that beginners faulter tactically, but at least they give tactics consideration!! the same cannot be said for positional play. on this point you must agree with me. |
|
| Dec-26-04 | | zorro: <BillroberTie <After 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 c6 Black doesn't really have a Semi-Slav, or if he does, an awful version of it.>> Indeed he can, with White compliance: if play continued 5. Nf3 dc4 we would be down a Botwinnik Semi-Slav. But the reason for 4...c6 being an inaccurate move-order for Black in ur line is connected with positions arising from a normal QGD and it's a bit long too explain. Let's just say that White wouldn't have to lose time with semi-waiting moves like Rc1 and could go straight with Bd3 because Black wouldn't have c5 in one go, having already played c6. |
|
| Dec-26-04 | | square dance: actually now that i look back on it when i said <...in general, beginners are able to accurately calculate 3-5 moves ahead before they grasp the concepts of weak color complexes, bad bishops, etc.> bad bishops was a poor example. a bad bishop is one of the easiest positional ideas to pick up. just thought i'de clear that up. ;-) |
|
| Dec-26-04 | | RisingChamp: <Tex>Differnt 2000+guys play differntly of course some play positionally and some attack and basically you are likely to lose faster to the attacking ones.Maybe the ones you faced were positional players.My style is basically to use unusual openings and to play very attacking chess,and I do this regardless of my opponents rating.I hope you dont think attacking chess with e4 and tactics in general are all some way 'cheap' when compared with positional play.I do try and force tactical errors,but I dont play unsoundly agressive chess like I would against someone who is playing for the first time-1 e2 2 Bc4 3 Qh5 etc. |
|
| Dec-26-04 | | RisingChamp: To clarify something tex when I said I win in 20 moves usually I meant I am at that point usually at least a piece up.The games often continue despite such a lopsided position-I meant the game as a meaningful contest is usually over within 20 moves. |
|
| Dec-26-04 | | azaris: <RisingChamp> I would certainly like know what kind of play results in regularly being a piece up against a 1700 after 20 moves. Or are you talking about blitz? Mind you, 1700 is not the level of some patzer who just learned the moves but a pretty decent club player. I doubt even GMs get that kind of results in simuls against club players, so you must really be something special. |
|
| Dec-26-04 | | refutor: <tex> 2000s regularly pound 1700s tactically. just like 2300s regularly pound 2000s tactically and 2600s regular pound 2300s tactically. not that i'm at that level (we've played before) but tactics is all you need to get up to 2000...at least that's what my master friends tell me anyways ;) |
|
| Dec-26-04 | | RisingChamp: I am playing one on one not simul- the controls at which I achieve these positions are usually rapid 25 5 30 0 etc.In longer games of course that kind of an advantage is a bir rarer,but players below 1700 usually make a tactical error before move 20 especially if they are not familiar with the opening,and I dont think many study the Vienna Game or Morra Gambit or Buadpest Gambit |
|
| Dec-26-04 | | Dudley: I used to play an Expert ranked player in the 2100+ area and he was a tactical genius who specialized in things like the Budapest ,Marshall gambit in the Ruy, etc. I played him in a rated game using the French and he used the exchange variation as White. We had a good game where I attacked his castled king with a K side pawn storm but eventually sucummbed to tactical complications after he closed off my attack. I think he felt that his rating had peaked out because he wasn't good enough at positional methods or was unwilling to play that type of chess. He just enjoyed tactics too much to restrain himself, although I never saw him play someone at his own level. Against players in my range he was more than willing to make occasionally unsound sacrifices, knowing that we usually wouldn't be able to prove it. Entertaining player to watch! |
|
| Dec-26-04 | | zorro: <refutor> I must desagree with you when you say <like 2300s regularly pound 2000s tactically and 2600s regular pound 2300s tactically.> Ask a GM or an IM how they beat 2200 players and you'll have this answer: I bring them to the endgame. Look at first rounds of Opens, where such encouters take place, and you'll often see an early exch of Qs and other pieces. Your friends might be right on pure tactic bringing you up to 2000, even though I have some doubts there too. |
|
| Dec-26-04 | | acirce: I'm a 2000 player and don't usually <pound 1700s tactically>, we're often on quite the same level there, my superiority if there is one shows in positional understanding, longterm planning and such. But it may just be me of course. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 2 OF 5 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
