T1000, have you had success with playing c6 against c4, after I started playing Caro-Kann I have thouhgt about switching to a "1..c6 against everything" -system. Anyway I have never seen 1. c4 c6 in "real" play, so I have thought that maybe there is some simple way to "refute" it, that is, ensure advantage
Originally posted by RabellaApologies for the delay in replying! And even now it's not a direct reply to you Rabella, more a few general points.
T1000, have you had success with playing c6 against c4, after I started playing Caro-Kann I have thouhgt about switching to a "1..c6 against everything" -system. Anyway I have never seen 1. c4 c6 in "real" play, so I have thought that m ...[text shortened]... re is some simple way to "refute" it, that is, ensure advantage
I'm not sure if I could legitimately claim "success with playing c6 against c4". The one thing I would say is that against most (and by that I mean excluding anyone rated 1500+ say) peeps who play 1.c4 the reply c6 might not necessarily be what they are expecting or feel comfortable with.
I'm trying to move away from playing huge long book openings and instead am aiming to set up positions with which I feel comfortable with going into the middlegame, and hopefully those being positions my opponent feels not so comfortable with (hence 1...c6 as opposed to 1.e5 or whatever is the norm).
So long as you (impersonal) adhere to and grasp/understand fairly basic principles of development and tempo and play moves which you can understand (and at least start shaping some kind of plan) then I think it's quite quite likely you'll either beat or come out ahead after the opening stages against most lower to mid ranked players.
Specialist opening books, the latest theory, what to play after 8.Bg5 or whatever, that's all great, but not (to my mind) what the average 1100 - 1400 (or even above) player should be looking at. From chatting to people ranked in this range I get the impression that many feel that to move into the next 100 point category (I mean going from 1300 to 1400, or 1400 - 1500 say) is a monster step, requiring masses of opening theory etc.
I just don't see it that way. It's possible to become a pretty strong player on the back of limited opening book knowledge but good understanding of what tempo is, of how to develop pieces correctly, of identifying when your opponent has made a mistake, and being tactically good enough to exploit the mistake.
There's a lot of joy to be had in endgames and also identifying a weakness, forming a plan, and then carrying out a plan. Don't get too bogged down in opening theory.
T1000
I agree!! I think that knowing the 'idea' behind an opening or defense is very important, as is basic knowledge of the strategies and tactics of the opening. But nothing will help if you get into the middlegame and don't know what to do. Getting a good grasp of strategy and planning and basic endings will pay off faster than memorizing lines of a favorite opening or defense. 😉
Originally posted by ChessNutI agree with Chessnut. I have an old book by Ed Lasker called 'Chess Strategy', in which there are sections on the opening, middle and end games. In the section on openings, Lasker concentrates on deep principles rather than memorising lots of moves. Obviously it's good to have some openings memorised, but the strength of Lasker's approach shows when an unforseen variation comes up in play. The book is also worth reading just for the middle and end game sections, and is credited with giving Keres and Reuben Fine their start in chess. Lots of emphasis on pawn structure and concepts like 'distant opposition'. 🙄
I agree!! I think that knowing the 'idea' behind an opening or defense is very important, as is basic knowledge of the strategies and tactics of the opening. But nothing will help if you get into the middlegame and don't know what to do. Getting a good grasp of strategy and planning and basic endings will pay off faster than memorizing lines of a favorite opening or defense. 😉
Originally posted by ChessNutThreads about specific openings are a good idea, i think. As for the English, if you're playing black and have to respond to 1c4, it's as well, to have some basic familiarity with it. It doesn't seem to come up too often, but when it does I opt for the ultra-symmetric, basically because I am lazy and can just copy white's first few moves. I haven't had any disasters with it, and usually seem to emerge roughly equal (as far as i can tell 😕)
I thought it would be fun to start some threads discussing some openings.
Any English players out there want to talk about dangerous lines or lines they have had success with?
I often try to take the transition approach when I'm playing an opening that results in an unexpected line - that is, if I can look a few moves ahead and see how an unusual move on my part will likely result in a position that I meant to be in from my original opening, I will respond with that. That's been a very useful tool for me in making the 1300's to 1400's transition. Now, making the 1400's to 1500's transition is proving more difficult, I guess I'll have to study more theory before I'm ready to do that! 😏
-jackburton