Originally posted by nimzo5I see, so you are demanding that i produce the readies, as you wish, on this site there
I want some pgn's of amateurs beating GM's- I suspect it wasn't because of an opening.
They also say that below 2600 their is no real advantage to the bishop pair... it shouldn't stop the club player from trying to realize the advantage in their games.
If a player has no aspirations of improving then by all means play 1.b3, Na3, f4 etc.
If you want to improve you have to be exposed to chess ideas instead of hiding behind system play.
was a game, where an amateur beat, in a 15 min rated blitz game, the current US
open winner at the time, Gabriel Schwartzman. I cannot find it, never the less there is
another game by the same player, Rene Philips, playing and beating Grandmaster
Sergey Kudrin, with annotations.
http://www.logicalchess.com/common/boardstub.html
As for grandmasters, Larsen made a career of 1.b3 and Nakamura used it to beat
Ponomariov and Nigel short used it to win in the recent British championship, all
2700 players or thereabouts i believe. We want to improve, not by learning theory,
but by playing and understanding the moves we make and why we make them.
After a move like 1.b3, all the theory in the world is not going to help you, for its
such a flexible move it could transpose into anything.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1622880
Originally posted by nimzo5fess up Nimzo, 1.b3 is da move, No more Frenchies, Caro Khaners, Scicilians, Scandinavians, Pircs or Moderns, nothing to worry about.
When you can play classical chess to a good standard (like Larsen, Naka and Short) then you can have my blessing to play 1.b3.
Originally posted by nimzo5I get what you're saying, but really you're contradicting yourself, aren't you. on one hand you basically say mortals shouldn't focus on opening theory, but simply play playable equalish openings. on the other hand, when people do exactly that (1.b3, Na3, f4), you say 'they shouldn't hide behind a system'. 🙂
I want some pgn's of amateurs beating GM's- I suspect it wasn't because of an opening.
They also say that below 2600 their is no real advantage to the bishop pair... it shouldn't stop the club player from trying to realize the advantage in their games.
If a player has no aspirations of improving then by all means play 1.b3, Na3, f4 etc.
If you want to improve you have to be exposed to chess ideas instead of hiding behind system play.
another way to look at it: my opponents say I hide behind an off-beat system, I say I'm taking an equal/inferior position and beating them silly with it. 🙂
Originally posted by wormwoodmy opponents say I hide behind an off-beat system, I say I'm taking an equal/inferior position and beating them silly with it
I get what you're saying, but really you're contradicting yourself, aren't you. on one hand you basically say mortals shouldn't focus on opening theory, but simply play playable equalish openings. on the other hand, when people do exactly that (1.b3, Na3, f4), you say 'they shouldn't hide behind a system'. 🙂
another way to look at it: my opponents say I ...[text shortened]... t system, I say I'm taking an equal/inferior position and beating them silly with it. 🙂
Lol, spoken like a true Viking!
Originally posted by wormwoodWW- I can see why it sounds that I'm contradicting myself. Let me clarify.
I get what you're saying, but really you're contradicting yourself, aren't you. on one hand you basically say mortals shouldn't focus on opening theory, but simply play playable equalish openings. on the other hand, when people do exactly that (1.b3, Na3, f4), you say 'they shouldn't hide behind a system'. 🙂
another way to look at it: my opponents say I ...[text shortened]... t system, I say I'm taking an equal/inferior position and beating them silly with it. 🙂
Objectively, there is an advantage to the first move. The lower the strength of the players the less it matters in terms of outcome of a game. However, (arbitrary rating inserted here) aspiring players who want to improve need to expose themselves to classical chess, open games and will eventually need a high quality repertoire.
If you don't master the principles of classical chess then at some level it will be exploited by your opponents.
If you don't master the precision of playing open games - specifically the facets of time, material and quality then you will have another weakness to exploit. (and WW 80% of club Dutch opening players play the Stonewall and have this weakness. haha.)
The high quality repertoire- this is my own long term thinking but mastering openings can often take years to learn the nuances. Let's say you have accomplished the goal of reaching idk. 2000. Now you might have mastered beating 1700-1800s regularly but now you are going to be playing FM's and IM's often and unless you want to just be donating points to them you will need a deeper repertoire. Titled players absolutely feast on offbeat opening junk, some earn their living playing against that stuff every weekend. What they don't want to see is someone who understands (not I didnt say memorized) a solid mainline opening. Most of the title players scalps I have seen are not from some dodgy stuff, but from the title players trying to create winning chances from an = position or trying to get "out of book" because they know they line they are heading down is not to their benefit.
I have known many Expert class players who got stuck because they took shortcuts or refused to move on past an opening that served them well but was getting completely shutdown by 2200s. This continues all the way up, I knew a 2400 who couldnt snag his IM for years because he wouldn't expand past his pet french defense.
Now you could also just become a tactical monster ala Nakamura and play whatever you want up to 2700. These rules apply to mortals. 🙂
Originally posted by nimzo5Nimzo Nimzo, are you saying his (IM) repertoire was responsible for his chess ability or lack of?
WW- I can see why it sounds that I'm contradicting myself. Let me clarify.
Objectively, there is an advantage to the first move. The lower the strength of the players the less it matters in terms of outcome of a game. However, (arbitrary rating inserted here) aspiring players who want to improve need to expose themselves to classical chess, open games and r ala Nakamura and play whatever you want up to 2700. These rules apply to mortals. 🙂
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI am saying he was struggling to reach IM because he was not getting good positions with his French and it was holding him back. His Coach, a GM finally convinced him to play more challenging lines and he DID get his title after that.
Nimzo Nimzo, are you saying his (IM) repertoire was responsible for his chess ability or lack of?
Originally posted by nimzo5yes, but that was surely not the result of using the French defence, how could that be?
I am saying he was struggling to reach IM because he was not getting good positions with his French and it was holding him back. His Coach, a GM finally convinced him to play more challenging lines and he DID get his title after that.
Many great masters have used it.
yes, of course learning to understand different types of positions is always very good. getting different ways to see things, and new ideas you can apply elsewhere. and I also think that's one of the reasons why the young rising (top) players are toppling the old guys. not that many years ago it was all 'two kramniks playing for a draw in the handful of solid main openings'. a decisive game was a rarity. chess was even megalomaniacally 'declared dead' because 'modern opening theory and level of play was so high'.
of course that was all rubbish, and it took only a handful of young fearless upcomers to shake off the cobbwebs. they don't care if it's risky, they'll play anything and take their chances. and they'll become better by doing it, and the old guys are in for hell every time they face the youngsters. regardless of their rating differences.
and it's already forced the 'kramniks' to break out of their self-imposed stodgy old man chess and reinvent themselves. kramnik's games have actually been wild and entertaining these last couple of years, which is of course just great! it's change or die.
Hi Robbie.
This bit...
"As for grandmasters, Larsen made a career of 1.b3,"
Larsen first used 1.b3 in 1968, 12 years after he became a Grandmaster.
It was his main weapon between 1968-72 when he played it 35 times.
(so it is hardly a career from a player who spent 50 plus years playing the game.)
1968-72 stats:
W.27 D 5. L.3
Quite impressive. Then you look at who beat him v. 1b3
Najdorf, Portisch and of course Spassky
He drew with:
Benko, Bronstein, Hort, Hecht and Spassky.
Without trying to be too cruel only a few of his wins came from
players in the same class of the above players.
His wins v Donner, Andersson and Kavalek stand out as the main exceptions.
Most of his other wins with 1.b3 were against non GMs and untitled players.
Larsen would have won if he had played 1.a3.
In 1972 6 of his 10 wins that year was against non GM Englishmen.
At Teeside 1972 (I was there!) he beat Cafferty, Keene,
Wade and Bellin with 1.b3.
At Hastings 1972 (I was not there.) he beat Ely and Wade (again).
After '72 he played it about 10 more times. It had lost it's shock value.
-------------------------------------
The reason some under 2000 players score better with Black v fellow under
2000 players is because they put most of their energy into studying replies
v 1.e4 and 1.d4. It's as simple as that.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12469
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNah, all you have to worry about after 1. b3 is Black playing 1. ...d5 and then setting up a Reversed Colle against you. And we all know that against the Colle, even Reversed, you're doomed, doooomed I tell you!
fess up Nimzo, 1.b3 is da move, No more Frenchies, Caro Khaners, Scicilians, Scandinavians, Pircs or Moderns, nothing to worry about.
Richard