- Joined
- 20 Sep 01
- Moves
- 133134
I have read various books, looked at various internet sites regarding openings.
There are the standard opening moves before the game goes in which ever direction the first player decides to vary it.
There are so many different variations on the "official openings", even after just the third or fourth move.
Is there a point to naming opening gambits/defences when after just a couple of moves, there are hundreds of options/possibilities.
I looked at an article today that gave dozens of variations on an opening after just two moves and named each one as a variation and gave it a name.
Just interested to hear other people's thoughts.
@martins saidIn fact I tzhink this is for the experts to know the basic structure of the game.
I have read various books, looked at various internet sites regarding openings.
There are the standard opening moves before the game goes in which ever direction the first player decides to vary it.
There are so many different variations on the "official openings", even after just the third or fourth move.
Is there a point to naming opening gambits/defences when aft ...[text shortened]... amed each one as a variation and gave it a name.
Just interested to hear other people's thoughts.
In all kinds of fileds you have technical terms for the experts which sound maybe a bit silly to the lay-person, but for the concerned people it simplifies discussion.
- Joined
- 20 Sep 01
- Moves
- 133134
Thank you for your reply.
May I give you an example of what I am trying to say.
P-Q4, P-Q4
After these two moves I have found 10 different defence names for variations.
All I am trying to say is that it seems to be getting to the point where every move is a something named variation on a something named opening followed by a something named variation of some defence.
In a nutshell; all this naming with exchange variations/classical variation/counterattack variation/center counter defence etc etc is surely getting a tad silly.
@martins saidI don't think you need to worry too much about opening variations unless you have a really good memory and want to play chess at club or tournament level.
Thank you for your reply.
May I give you an example of what I am trying to say.
P-Q4, P-Q4
After these two moves I have found 10 different defence names for variations.
All I am trying to say is that it seems to be getting to the point where every move is a something named variation on a something named opening followed by a something named variation of some defen ...[text shortened]... ical variation/counterattack variation/center counter defence etc etc is surely getting a tad silly.
You may see an opening and think"ah,this is the xyz variation of the abc defence" which you have studied.You play the move you have memorised in response and your opponent goes completely off track and plays a move you have never seen before.
Is it a good move? Is it a mistake? How do you respond?
I just try and develop logically,look for weaknesses in my opponents position and try and work out what he is up to.
Btw I am not a great player and others may think and act differently
@martins saidIt's for people who study a lot of opening theory to be able to converse with other people who study a lot of opening theory.
Thank you for your reply.
May I give you an example of what I am trying to say.
P-Q4, P-Q4
After these two moves I have found 10 different defence names for variations.
All I am trying to say is that it seems to be getting to the point where every move is a something named variation on a something named opening followed by a something named variation of some defen ...[text shortened]... ical variation/counterattack variation/center counter defence etc etc is surely getting a tad silly.
It's also for people to show off about how much opening theory they know.
It's also human nature to want to name everything. Just look at how we try to name all the stars in the sky, even though there are trillions of them.
@martins saidThe ECO classification is a more logical system than using names. Many GM's recommend one learn a little about all the major openings and to learn more about the just openings you prefer to use in competition.
I have read various books, looked at various internet sites regarding openings.
There are the standard opening moves before the game goes in which ever direction the first player decides to vary it.
There are so many different variations on the "official openings", even after just the third or fourth move.
Is there a point to naming opening gambits/defences when aft ...[text shortened]... amed each one as a variation and gave it a name.
Just interested to hear other people's thoughts.
The names originated to give any idea of what you are about to see and index the games in books into groups. They also help opening books. It is better to see
'The Marshall' on the cover of a book than;
'The 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-O 8. c3 d5. Opening'
Regarding extra names added to every possible variation. Ignore them, they have gone
way beyond common sense and they can actually differ from country to country, region to region.
Sometimes names go in and out fashion. The Ruy Lopez changed to the Spanish
Game and back to the Ruy Lopez and last time I looked it back to the Spanish game.
Same with the Italian game (Giuoco Piano ) and the Russian Game.(The Petrov)
@MartinS don't you think it's all part of the hobby ? Like Scottish Football Teams, can you name them all ? Can anyone ? No, but what harm does it do ?
@timotheus062 saidNot really.Now collecting chess books from second hand shops- that is a hobby!
@MartinS don't you think it's all part of the hobby ? Like Scottish Football Teams, can you name them all ? Can anyone ? No, but what harm does it do ?