I have just discovered RHP. I love it. I rarely have time to sit for a full game. This is the ticket. Since I see myself playing a lot more I would like to step up my game a little. I still lose as many games as I win so I could really use some advice. Right now I would like some advice on the first 4 or 5 moves. What is the best way to start developing pawns? Is there a “best” first move? What should I look for in my opponent’s first moves? How well developed should my pawns be before I start moving major pieces? I hope those of you that have played for a while can give me some pointers.
Hi- check out the book recommendation posts here- there are some great books on how to open a chess game, any of Rahimks advice is great for those just starting and intermediate such as myself. Open with e4, then generally bring out the Knights, don't move too many pawns in the very beggining, maybe the center two- and ask yourself " what is the opponents threat?" after every move. Try to see where "pressure spots" are building up, i.e. opponent is attacking the e4 square twice, and I only have it covered once- then you should probably defend e4 with a pawn or piece. Get the book, Logical chess Move by Move, by Irving Chernev. Make every piece have a purpose, with as wide an attacking scope as possible! Chess is easy! ( yeah right)
My advice would be to learn a 2-3 openings [for black and white] (lets say 5 moves deep) and stick with them......
It would also be an even better idea to pick popular openings - like the sicillian, ruy lopez or Queens Gambit.....
this will mean you won't make too many blunders in the opening.........
Furthermore CONSULT AN OPENING BOOK! it's not against the rules....
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/explorer
^here's the one I use (even though i do not suscribe)
if you are unsure of a what move to play check here....
if you can find the EXACT SAME POSITION, and there are 12,000 games where white played "Na5" then that means its a good move......
It seems unlikley that GM's blundered 12,000 times
doing both of these things should help you A LOT!...just be careful when your openant plays an odd "out of book" move
Originally posted by dwcarr4You could play lots of tactical openings to refresh your mind and try to regain some tactical ability.
I have just discovered RHP. I love it. I rarely have time to sit for a full game. This is the ticket. Since I see myself playing a lot more I would like to step up my game a little. I still lose as many games as I win so I could really use some advice. Right now I would like some advice on the first 4 or 5 moves. What is the best way to start developing pawn ...[text shortened]... moving major pieces? I hope those of you that have played for a while can give me some pointers.
I would recommend 1.e4, the Sicilian Defence and the King's Indian Defence.
Originally posted by Positional PlayerInteresting recommendation, which brings up a question I've had for some time. I have little trouble meeting 1. e4 with 1. ...e5, and little trouble meeting 1. d4 with 1. ...d5. But when I try the Sicilian or KID, I have a hell of a LOT of trouble. Can't seem to get anywhere. I feel cramped, unable to move, and unable to formulate any sort of plan. I feel LOST! Is this merely because I am less familiar with these openings, or is it because they are intrinsically more difficult? Or maybe it's a matter of "resonnance" or having a "feel" for a particular opening. Or maybe these hypermodern openings rest on fundamentally different principles of play (than the more traditional) of which I am ignorant. My approach has been to drop them for a year or so, get more familiar with the more traditional defences, and maybe look into them again later. Good idea? Thanks.
I would recommend 1.e4, the Sicilian Defence and the King's Indian Defence.
Originally posted by bassoit is because you are not familiar with typical KID positions and you may fail to form correct plan.
I feel cramped, unable to move, and unable to formulate any sort of plan. I feel LOST! Is this merely because I am less familiar with these openings, or is it because they are intrinsically more difficult?
Thanks for the post Ray1993, I understand the basics of forks and pins but the opening interest me because it is difficult to tell if I am doing it correctly until several moves later when it may already be too late to correct. I will take your advice and study more on the middle and end games as well.
Thanks everyone for all the post, I really appreciate it.
Originally posted by dwcarr4it's not enough to just understand basic tactical motifs, you have to be able to spot them wether you're tired, drunken, asleep or in a coma. it takes hundreds or thousands of repetitions until you get there. until then, you'll be dropping pieces left and right, and no amount of knowlegde in opening, middlegame or endgame will make much difference.
Thanks for the post Ray1993, I understand the basics of forks and pins but the opening interest me because it is difficult to tell if I am doing it correctly until several moves later when it may already be too late to correct. I will take your advice and study more on the middle and end games as well.
Thanks everyone for all the post, I really appreciate it.
studying everything is good of course. but you'll get the biggest gain studying tactics until you no longer drop pieces. after that, endgame will probably become the bottleneck. and only when you don't lose the games by endgame or tactics anymore, will your openings start to decide games.