Here is my problem - I have rather poor memory. And opening is where you need to memorize the most. I love all the aspects of chess except for opening theory which I find boring and uninspiring.
Yesterday I made just another attempt to refine my d4 repertoire for an OTB game I have to play tomorrow and after 15 minutes I was fed up and bored to death. I feel like abandoning any further attempts. I was just wondering what will it mean in terms of future progress. I know like 3-5 moves in most of the openings and the rest I play by general principles. In OTB game it does cost me some extra time to find the reasonable moves but till now it never led to big disadvantage in the opening.
I am 1644 OTB, study tactics, endgames, strategy, master games (which gives some indirect exposure to various openings by the way). Do you think it's reasonable not to learn opening at all and only do what I really enjoy?
Originally posted by iruyes! and the secret is, you dont need to learn opening theory, you simply need to
Here is my problem - I have rather poor memory. And opening is where you need to memorize the most. I love all the aspects of chess except for opening theory which I find boring and uninspiring.
Yesterday I made just another attempt to refine my d4 repertoire for an OTB game I have to play tomorrow and after 15 minutes I was fed up and bored to death. I feel ...[text shortened]... way). Do you think it's reasonable not to learn opening at all and only do what I really enjoy?
understand the relevant pawn structures, plans and piece placements associated
with those structures. You play the Queens pawn? You need to understand the
structures which ensue,
where are you going to put your pieces?
it is clear a knight belongs on e5, a rook on c1, a bishop on d3, you will naturally
castle kingside, your queens bishop can go to d2, your queens knight to c3, you can
fight for e4, prepare d4-d5, try to prevent c5 or e5, go for a minority attack, etc etc
this takes very little memory and practically no theory, but a proper understanding
of the position based on pawn structure. You can study master games and see
where they put their pieces, your learning will become joyful as you really
understand the position. Wish you well - Robbie.
- Joined
- 08 Apr 09
- Moves
- 19564
Originally posted by robbie carrobieInteresting post. Why are these positions so clear/natural to you? Rc1 is natural to me as well, but the rest is a big question mark.
it is clear a knight belongs on e5, a rook on c1, a bishop on d3, you will naturally
castle kingside, your queens bishop can go to d2, your queens knight to c3
Originally posted by tvochessHi tvo, lets consider it, naturally we castle kinside we have three pawns v two on the
Interesting post. Why are these positions so clear/natural to you? Rc1 is natural to me as well, but the rest is a big question mark.
queenside, our white squared bishop is biting granite anywhere else other than on
d3, ok, it could go to e2, but its quite passive there, in order to get the kings knight
to e5 our natural outpost, it must go to f3 first, that leaves the dark squared bishop
and the queens knight, naturally c3 has more influence on the centre than a knight
on d2 and it leaves the d2 square for the dark squared bishop, thus all our pieces
find placement. It just leaves us to think about the queen and connecting our rooks,
as we know a rook belongs on c file and depending on our plan, we can find another
post for the kings rook.
black must try to do something otherwise he will suffer from sheer passivity, thus he
must try to liberate himself with ...c5 or ...e5, so we must take these into
consideration and look at master games to see what happened. Its clear that if we
get e4 in, we will have a greater share of the centre, more mobility for our pieces
and good chances.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou spend so much time giving opinion, and yet would kill your own child. c.f. Religious thread about being a Jehova's Witness. How do you have so much time to be a chess expert when you are supposed to be converting people to your religion. You're full of crap Robbie - yet again!
Hi tvo, lets consider it, naturally we castle kinside we have three pawns v two on the
queenside, our white squared bishop is biting granite anywhere else other than on
d3, ok, it could go to e2, but its quite passive there, in order to get the kings knight
to e5 our natural outpost, it must go to f3 first, that leaves the dark squared bishop ...[text shortened]... in, we will have a greater share of the centre, more mobility for our pieces
and good chances.
If your life is chess, then let's suppose you are making so many moves that you don't have real time for your wife and children, may we?
Sod the kids, no blood transfusions, my opinion of a mistake in somebody else's chess game matters more.
Oh.....How do you live with yourself?
Aha! I see. You have no responsibility to life, comments, attacks on individuals; because your indoctrination has always taught you that you are right and perfect!
What a shambles!
I pity you, and your children, and I certainly pity your evaluation of chess games!
-m. ðŸ˜
- Joined
- 08 Apr 09
- Moves
- 19564
Hey robby, not yet satisfied with the answer:
Why?
- 'naturally' castle kingside
- Be2 is passive
- Ne5 'natural' outpost
- Nc3 'naturally' more influence on the center than Nd2
- Bd2 (e.g. I feel b3, Ba3 can directly attack black's kingside castled rook)
Thx for taking your time.
Originally posted by mikelomIf you don't have anything constructive to say, could you please take your malice out of the "Only Chess" forum? While I'd doubtlessly take your side in the argument you're trying to start, it doesn't belong here.
You spend so much time giving opinion, and yet would kill your own child. c.f. Religious thread about being a Jehova's Witness. How do you have so much time to be a chess expert when you are supposed to be converting people to your religion. You're full of crap Robbie - yet again!
If your life is chess, then let's suppose you are making so many moves tha ...[text shortened]... ity you, and your children, and I certainly pity your evaluation of chess games!
-m. ðŸ˜
Originally posted by mikelomfrom a fraud and a pumpkin eater, a 1900 rated player who could not win with a rook
You spend so much time giving opinion, and yet would kill your own child. c.f. Religious thread about being a Jehova's Witness. How do you have so much time to be a chess expert when you are supposed to be converting people to your religion. You're full of crap Robbie - yet again!
If your life is chess, then let's suppose you are making so many moves tha ity you, and your children, and I certainly pity your evaluation of chess games!
-m. ðŸ˜
and a pawn v a king and pawn, i wont be taking lessons in morality nor chess, care to
explain your play here?
mikeholm with the black pieces
lessons in chess or morality? dont play positions you don't understand and dont try
to pass yourself off as a 1900 rated player when clearly you are not and especially
dont lecture people who are trying to impart understanding to others. why you are
not banned from this site I do not know.
Originally posted by VartiovuoriI apologise, hes simply a malicious slanderer who cannot admit to the lies he
If you don't have anything constructive to say, could you please take your malice out of the "Only Chess" forum? While I'd doubtlessly take your side in the argument you're trying to start, it doesn't belong here.
promulgates, back to chess, sorry for the rude interruption, its the best he can do.
Originally posted by tvochessHi, its ok, in fact, its my pleasure,
Hey robby, not yet satisfied with the answer:
Why?
- 'naturally' castle kingside
- Be2 is passive
- Ne5 'natural' outpost
- Nc3 'naturally' more influence on the center than Nd2
- Bd2 (e.g. I feel b3, Ba3 can directly attack black's kingside castled rook)
Thx for taking your time.
1. Three pawns is better protection than two, it stands to reason that one should
castle kingside, plus our pawns are pointing queenside, we might seek activity there
and our king would be safer castled kingside.
2. The Bishop on e2 is really a defensive stance, why not put it on e3 where it takes
aim at the black kingside, i mean, you could put it on e2, i just dont think its as
actively placed.
3. why Ne5, well, look at it, it cannot be reasonably challenged with a pawn, for if
black ever does play ...f6 say kicking our knight, his e pawn becomes backward and
forms a natural point of attack (anything that cannot move is an easier target than
one that is mobile) the diagonal a2 g8 also becomes weak, especially if black
castles kingside.
4.Yes Nc3 covers the both squares, e4 and d5, Nd2 simply covers the e4 square,
again you could play Nd2, i just dont think its as active as Nc3, plus what will your
dark squared bishop say when the knight steal his only available square?
5. Yes indeed, although it takes time to put your bishop on a3 it could be a very
good idea, again one would need to look at master games and see where they
placed it.
Originally posted by tvochessconsider this game demonstrating the fight for e4!
Hey robby, not yet satisfied with the answer:
Why?
- 'naturally' castle kingside
- Be2 is passive
- Ne5 'natural' outpost
- Nc3 'naturally' more influence on the center than Nd2
- Bd2 (e.g. I feel b3, Ba3 can directly attack black's kingside castled rook)
Thx for taking your time.
Hi Robbie.
Your advice looks sound but you should look at his games.
He plays 1.e4 a lot more often than 1.d4.
Perhaps he has switched after deciding that the 15 minutes he is giving to
1.e4 is not working. Certainly not against the Sicililian.
Under 1800 games very rarely follow theory so cramming one's head full
of GM games where 90% of the moves won't be understood is a waste of time.
But it's not the opening that is catching him out. It's tactcis.
Game 3203036 was a Sicilian. All 6 moves out it ending thus.
iru was White.
As White v a Sicilian Game 3218614 This happened to the lad.
I'm thinking 15 minutes spent on Pawn Forks may be a good idea.
In the above game Black play h6 and instead of playing Bxf6 (No No No Bishop's
are better than Knights.) White allowed the pawn fork.
IRU
Play over short sharp games where one player violated a principle and see
how it is dealt with. These are the kind of mistakes you will be facing and playing.
Most players have a simple grasp of 'The Rules of Thumb'. the basic principles.
They will cling to these when they don't know what to do.
Your job is to know they are there, trust them but know when you can bend them.
They are not set in concrete.
Playing over short sharp games will also beef up 100% your tactics.
It's also fun. (Well I think so anyway.)
Play them out on a full board for the full benefit.
Tonight you are playing on a full board. Not on a flickering postage stamp.
Please comeback and post your OTB game. GOOD LUCK.
Let us look at game by the OP. Game 4118971
Where Rules of Thumb ruled.
Iru please come back on and post your OTB game.
greenpawn34, thanks for looking at my games - it's not the first time you do it and I really appreciate it.
Not trying to justify myself but those are OLD games. I returned to chess at the end of 2006 after being away for like 25 years. So games played during 2007 - well they make me smile, I don't do those silly mistakes, at least not so often:-)
And yes - I switched to d4 :-)
I promise to post my tomorrow OTB game. It's a team cup of Geneva lake. We are 2nd in our group with 2 rounds to go and playing against quite strong club. I am on the last 6th board and my opponent will be above 1700.
- Joined
- 23 Nov 09
- Moves
- 136779
Originally posted by mikelomBecause I can only give one thumbs up I have quoted the post as a virtual second one.
You spend so much time giving opinion, and yet would kill your own child. c.f. Religious thread about being a Jehova's Witness. How do you have so much time to be a chess expert when you are supposed to be converting people to your religion. You're full of crap Robbie - yet again!
If your life is chess, then let's suppose you are making so many moves tha ...[text shortened]... ity you, and your children, and I certainly pity your evaluation of chess games!
-m. ðŸ˜
Originally posted by iruDo you like to play chess, or do you want to get really good at it?
Here is my problem - I have rather poor memory. And opening is where you need to memorize the most. I love all the aspects of chess except for opening theory which I find boring and uninspiring.
Yesterday I made just another attempt to refine my d4 repertoire for an OTB game I have to play tomorrow and after 15 minutes I was fed up and bored to death. I feel ...[text shortened]... way). Do you think it's reasonable not to learn opening at all and only do what I really enjoy?
If you just like to play chess, then quit opening study if you don't like it. Se any position as a study, even in the first dozen moves, and make the best out of it. As long you feel the joy of playing chess, then play chess.
But if you want to get really good at it, then you have to focus the areas where you feel that you are weak. If you now feel that you lose your games too early, or your games ar bad because when the opening moves are over you have a inferiour position, then you have to focus there.
I suggest that you look for a book that you like, where the various problems in the opening are explained. Concentrate of a particular opening (like kings gambit where interesting things happen) and learn how it works. Don't memorize without knowing why the moves are played. And whenever you are bored, then shift focus.
Play because it is fun. Sooner or later you will be better.
P.S. Robbie gives you a good advice. See the structures. Listen to him.