< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 54 OF 112 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Jun-09-06
 | | IMlday: I'm a bit jealous of -2000 players because they can play almost any opening at all. I had Latvian Counter-Gambits and Budapest Defences in my repertoire before cracking the expert rating. Alas I had to then lay aside dubious gambits like Breyer or Mora, but learning tactics and combinations were necessary to get beyond the 2000 barrier. |
|
Jun-09-06
 | | Eric Schiller: Here are some openings I'd avoid if under 2000:
Scheveningen Sicilian
Najdorf Sicilian
Semi-Slav Defense
King's Indian Defense
Gruenfeld Defense
Queen's Gambit Accepted
Modern Defense
Winawer French
Main Line English Opening
These openings require good strategic decisions right after the opening moves are played. It is not easy to know what to do next. Bad bishops are in particular hard to deal with. The Dragon, Accelerated Dragon, Lakser-Pelikan-Sveshnikov and Kan/Paulsen are all strategically easier Sicilians, even if the tactics can get complex. The Caro-Kann, Tarrasch Defense, Nimzoindian/Queen's Indian are straightforward strategically and much easier to play. The main thing to remember, is that if you aren't a Kasparov or Fischer, what the heck are you doing trying to play their custom repertoires! As a teacher/trainer, I move my students through a progression of openings. We start with those played by Morphy, and work our way through the historical world champions. Earlier champions favored simpler openings and those are better models for an aspiring chessplayer. I used these models in "World Champion Openings". There probably will be some comments on this, so I'll hold off on more explanation for the moment. |
|
Jun-09-06
 | | WannaBe: Wish I'd known that earlier, I'm already hooked on Sicilian Schev. & Naj. :-( |
|
Jun-09-06 | | Chopin: <Wannabe>
<Wish I'd known that earlier, I'm already hooked on Sicilian Schev. & Naj. :-(> It's still not too late to quit chess :) |
|
Jun-09-06
 | | WannaBe: <Chopin> I'm picking up curling... Yeah, doing curling in So. Cal. that'd be a hoot... |
|
Jun-09-06 | | Chopin: <Wannabe> <I'm picking up curling> Did you know that curling is also called "Chess on ice"? |
|
Jun-09-06 | | jackmandoo: My main opening is bringing the king's bishop out and then my queen. I'm trying the 4 move checkmate every time if you play me. This is why I hate to be black. A lot of people say that I play like Fischer because I try and go for the throat. Im not really sure about that but its hard to argue when I win over half of my games on yahoo. |
|
Jun-09-06 | | lasher09: <jackmandoo> yahoo is packed with weak players man. |
|
Jun-09-06
 | | Eric Schiller: <lasher> Nothing wrong with playing against weak players, chess is supposed to be fun! I play online against mostly low rated players at www.chess.ac, because I'm constantly researching mistakes amateurs make so I can write helpful books. |
|
Jun-09-06 | | Chopin: <Eric Schiller> My new favorite opening is the Evan's gambit. What's your take on it? |
|
Jun-09-06 | | ganstaman: <jackmandoo> But, if I may, playing for the 4 move checkmate (Scholar's Mate, right?), is bad for you. 1)If it does work and you win in 4 moves, you haven't learned anything. 2)If it doesn't work, you have your queen where your king's knight should be. This will make development of that knight more difficult, making it take longer to castle also. This is bad if you are trying to learn more about good development. 3)Alternatively, if it doesn't work and your queen isn't on f3, then you spent many moves running her around the board. You will be behind in development, which again will make the game more difficult on you. You should realize that you won't be able to pull of a quick mate against good competition, so you should instead play good, logical, normal developing moves. Look at Morphy's games -- he doesn't crush his competition by bringing his queen out right away and going for simple mates. Instead, he develops all his pieces to good squares, and when his opponent doesn't follow suit, he goes in for the kill (it's like an unfair fight -- Morphy uses more pieces!). |
|
Jun-09-06 | | ganstaman: I see L. Day mentioned the Smith-Mora Gambit. I think it's a great gambit for getting a good feel for openings (I'm by no means more than an amateur myself, so correct me if I'm wrong). White gets good, easy development of all his pieces and open lines to use them. It's easy to see where each piece should go and what it should be doing there. Whether it's actually good enough for masters, I don't know. But I think it's the best way to play against the Sicilian when you are less than a master (or is it expert? I don't know the exact distinction). |
|
Jun-09-06 | | lasher09: <jackmandoo> When faced with a stronger opponent, you'll realize how much time you've wasted on 4 move checkmate. |
|
Jun-09-06 | | Chopin: <Lasher-09> & <ganstaman> You do realize that <Jackmandoo> is joking. |
|
Jun-09-06 | | ganstaman: Well then, that will teach me to not read everything before I reply. But I will leave my comments for any beginner who does try 4 move checkmates, and for my dignity! of which I have none left.... |
|
Jun-09-06 | | jackmandoo: <ganstaman> sorry for making you write that big response. I was just kidding as <Chopin> said. Maybe I could make things up to you. *CYBERHUG* |
|
Jun-09-06 | | lasher09: <Chopin: <Lasher-09> & <ganstaman> You do realize that <Jackmandoo> is joking.> oh... ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha... => |
|
Jun-10-06 | | lasher09: <Eric Schiller> Thanks for your reply. that helped a lot. I'm taking note. I hope these geniuses would too. => And another thing, if I may, I have a 4 year old niece who is very interested in chess. She wants to play with me everyday and move pieces. What I'm doing is when we play I tell her to move this and this and eat this and that throughout the whole game, only playing the Italian where she can develop her pieces. Most of the time I let her win, where she goes around the house and tell everyone, and sometimes I beat her so she can feel some challenge. We do it over and over again (not necessarily the same game). My objective is to train her mind through repitition until she can recognize patterns and moves on her own. It is showing good results. Of course I'm not expecting much at her age but she just loves the game so much that I wanna I take advantage of her interest of it now. Yesterday, at the third game, I left her to her moves alone without me dictating and she was able to. I exchanged pieces and pawns and she was able to identify which ones can take back. There were also times when she recognized that she can move her knight on a certain square (h5) where it won't be attacked by pawns. This is my first time to teach chess to a 4 year old. What can you suggest? |
|
Jun-10-06 | | Rocafella: Lmao, <jackmandoo>, well played, you had em left right and centre |
|
Jun-10-06
 | | Open Defence: <Dr Schiller> last year I made a decision to play strictly e4 as White, e5 to White's e4, d5 to White's d4 and respond e6, d5 to flank openings mainly to concentrate more on the middle game and end game improvement.. do you think this is a good strategy.. I didn't bother with fall back openings or a second repetoire as I mainly played on the internet and in the first 20 games I played my rating improved from the initial 1200 to 1984 before plummeting due to a period when I became totally sick of chess.. however I am interested to know if you would actually recommend this type of opening repetoire to a person in the 1500 - 1900 rating level |
|
Jun-10-06 | | Chopin: <Dr. Schiller>
I never knew that Mr. Schiller has a Ph.D. in Linguistics; very impressive. |
|
Jun-10-06
 | | Open Defence: <I never knew that Mr. Schiller has a Ph.D. in Linguistics; very impressive.> from the pterodactyl classifications I thought it must be paleantology |
|
Jun-10-06
 | | Eric Schiller: <lasher> At that age it is better to play with no pawn or knights, setting up the pieces in some reasonable way. The pawn moves and knight moves tend to be very confusing to all beginners, but with young kids it is a big problem. |
|
Jun-10-06
 | | Eric Schiller: <Open> Most of my students play those openings, and it is my basic recommended repertoire, so I approve. But the notion that results are keyed to openings is wrong. Any decent opening will do if you know how to play, and none will work if you don't. |
|
Jun-10-06
 | | Eric Schiller: <open, Chopin> Linguistics involves the same sort of problem-solving that chess does, so it is a natural fit. Unfortunately, I was affirmative-actioned (I'm in favor of AA, but what was done to me was simply obscene, especially by the University of Michigan) out of academia, so haven't done much in the last decade, though I am still interested. Now I mostly use linguistics to teach kids English grammar and writing, working with home-schoolers in the Bay Area. Some excerpts of my material are at my website www.ericschiller.com. |
|
 |
 |
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 54 OF 112 ·
Later Kibitzing> |