I think I know my problem, in all games, I seem to botch up openings. I play them very quickly and overlook the tactics/traps, and I get into a lot of trouble early and it's catch up since then, making games really hard on me. I know more about openings then my opponents, based on what they have played, they know crap about opening theory for most cases, they wouldn't be able to tell you what's an Alekeine, Philador, Sicilian or whatever, yet in the opening, I am crushed in the most bizarre of ways that I fail to understand. Their tactics simply win out, and whenever I try a tactic, it's "pawn grabing", very confusing, what works for them, doesn't for myself when these weird openings arise.
Could that simply be experience? For example, someone who plays Bc4 in the Sicilian, despite it being an inferior move, has probably played the bad Bc4 for A DECADE, so he is "good in his badness", so to speak, while someone like myself who has played chess for a short time has only seen so many Bc4 games. What chance does an inexperienced player like I really have a chance against these strange openings when I'm sure the ones who have played them have their own thomes to it. . .
Originally posted by GalaxyShieldHe's the STANG of the Chess forum😉
Yet another thread saying what you do wrong? Gees, this is getting annoying. We get it, you suck, you say so yourself so please stop saying why you think you lose games. Please, just shut up for a while, I'm sure we won't forget you. Thanks for listening. Josh
Now guys...this is an actual somewhat chess-theory related question. Actually, I think some top rated players have played some closed sicilian variations were Bc4 gets played. The best thing to do is just play solid moves that you know can't get you into trouble. For instance, I play the Sveshnikov Sicilian against 1. e4 pretty much all the time now, but when someone plays some crap like 1. e4 c5 2. Bc4...What do you immediately think. First, if black can get through ...d5 in the Sicilian, he is normally in good shape, and not to mention, in this case gain a tempo off the bishop. So even if they are so to speak, "Good in their badness", whatever the heck that is, it shouldn't really matter, because you have a good idea of what to do.
Knowing the names of openings or the sequence of moves isn't the most important aspect. You must understand the opening and obey the principles of openings. Develop, gain the centre, castle your king. You'd be better off in the opening if you follow these instead of memorising lines and not knowing why each move is played. I don't know exactly what Philidors defence is, but I don't think thats important in an opening.
If someone wants to play 2. Bc4 against my sicilian I'll just play Nc6 and let him try to work out how to keep his position solid. It's really easy for black to stay even in development in these games and if you are the better player then you can convert the game to a win later when the opponent makes tactical mistakes.
Originally posted by mateuloseIf that's true, then I should never lose in either the mainline Slav or the Open Spanish - I am certain I've played far more games in these systems and studied them far more than almost all of my opponents. Equally I should never win against the Alekhine or Scandinavian, which I don't really bother with theory for and just try to play sensible moves.
Could that simply be experience? For example, someone who plays Bc4 in the Sicilian, despite it being an inferior move, has probably played the bad Bc4 for A DECADE, so he is "good in his badness", so to speak, while someone like myself who has played chess for a short time has only seen so many Bc4 games. What chance does an inexperienced player like ...[text shortened]... e strange openings when I'm sure the ones who have played them have their own thomes to it. . .
Your opening problem is that you don't understand the opening - the fundamental reason for this is that you view all non-mainline moves as 'bad', and won't listen to any advice about how to think in opening positions you haven't seen before.
Originally posted by mateuloseI dont fully agree with your claim that Bc4 is a bad or even inferior move. It, of course, seems little amateur-like move, but is it worse than any other? In summer 2003 my dad ( maybe 1400 rated) and I were playing in simul exhibition against GM R.Hubner, and my dad (as white) used e4 c5 Bc4 moves and played really good game. And he didnt understand anythink about theory, but just followed general principles and used his own brains.
For example, someone who plays Bc4 in the Sicilian, despite it being an inferior move, has probably played the bad Bc4 for A DECADE, so he is "good in his badness", so to speak, while someone like myself who has played chess for a short time has only seen so many Bc4 games. What chance does an inexperienced player like I really have a chance against the ...[text shortened]... e strange openings when I'm sure the ones who have played them have their own thomes to it. . .
Originally posted by mateuloseIsn't this what many have been telling you for months? You spend a lot of "work" time memorizing moves, and when your opponent plays what you haven't memorized, you are lost.
I think I know my problem, in all games, I seem to botch up openings. I play them very quickly and overlook the tactics/traps, and I get into a lot of trouble early and it's catch up since then, making games really hard on me. I know more about openings then my opponents, based on what they have played, they know crap about opening theory for most cases, ...[text shortened]... e strange openings when I'm sure the ones who have played them have their own thomes to it. . .
You've been given advice to start thinking on move 1. Try it.