28 Nov 08
3 edits
hi, in some books that i have it mentions that one should aim for a particular setup, for example in John Emms book attacking with 1.e4 he gives the following set up, in his section the bishops opening 1.e4 e5, 2.Bc4
i was just wondering if this is not the better way to learn openings which seem to preoccupy a large number of players, despite advice to the contrary.
it seems that this approach may alleviate the student from the futility of trying to memorise opening variations, simply by providing a kind of ultimate setup we would like to achieve from the opening. Naturally the student must remain flexible, however i just wondered what the consensus of opinion was from strong players, because even though we may achieve our desired setup, if we have no knowledge of a thematic plan after achieving our setup then this too may lead to plan less and aimless play, resulting in sure defeat. i just wondered what the consensus of opinion was with regard to these kind of setups - regards Robert.
28 Nov 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThat´ll work well against the Ghandi defence, which seems to be what black played in the diagram you´ve given, but the problem is that your opponent has some kind of opening plan and you will almost certainly not be able to reach your ´ideal´ set-up. 1. ... d5 is going to severely cross your plans in the set-up you´ve given, and after 1. ... e5 you´ll find yourself in a King´s gambit, which can be very sharp when you try to get f4 in. Also, as you noted, a set-up isn´t the same as a plan.
hi, in some books that i have it mentions that one should aim for a particular setup, for example in John Emms book attacking with 1.e4 he gives the following set up, in his section the bishops opening 1.e4 e5, 2.Bc4
cut out FEN
i was just wondering if this is not the better way to learn openings which seem to preoccupy a large number of ...[text shortened]... wondered what the consensus of opinion was with regard to these kind of setups - regards Robert.
However, actually memorizing opening lines by rote is a total waste of time. Here we are playing correspondence chess so you should use opening books and play lines of play from openings you want to try out to get a feel for the kinds of position you are going to reach. As long as you don´t just copy moves from the book or database, but think about why they were made then you´ll find yourself able to recall or invent opening lines in OTB games because you understand them.
28 Nov 08
2 edits
Originally posted by DeepThoughthi, actually the move f4 is quite optional and as you say some setups of black may naturally preclude this, however this setup is only played when black plays 1..e5 in response to 1.e4, therefore 1..d5 is not really applicable in this instance and another optimal setup will need to be induced. i just thought that it was a 'better way' to try to establish an opening repertoire rather than trying to memorise certain lines, because surely it is easier to remember a diagram than say hundreds of possible variations, however i do sense a real danger in simply trying to reach the desired setup without recourse as to why? - regards Robert.
That´ll work well against the Ghandi defence, which seems to be what black played in the diagram you´ve given, but the problem is that your opponent has some kind of opening plan and you will almost certainly not be able to reach your ´ideal´ set-up. 1. ... d5 is going to severely cross your plans in the set-up you´ve given, and after 1. ... e5 you´ll f ...[text shortened]... l find yourself able to recall or invent opening lines in OTB games because you understand them.
28 Nov 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNot a bad idea. You have to be mindful of the tactics of each position though. This might work better in over the board chess than correspondence chess where the quality of play tends to be higher. 😏
hi, in some books that i have it mentions that one should aim for a particular setup, for example in John Emms book attacking with 1.e4 he gives the following set up, in his section the bishops opening 1.e4 e5, 2.Bc4
[fen]rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/2B1PP2/2NP1N2/PPP3PP/R1BQ1RK1 w kq - 0 1[/fen]
i was just wondering if this is not the better way to l ...[text shortened]... wondered what the consensus of opinion was with regard to these kind of setups - regards Robert.
28 Nov 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAs you said in your post the problem is that using this method the opening plan becomes a struggle to reach one of these positions without any real idea as to what to do after.
hi, actually the move f4 is quite optional and as you say some setups of black may naturally preclude this, however this setup is only played when black plays 1..e5 in response to 1.e4, therefore 1..d5 is not really applicable in this instance and another optimal setup will need to be induced. i just thought that it was a 'better way' to try to esta ...[text shortened]... nger in simply trying to reach the desired setup without recourse as to why? - regards Robert.
I haven´t read the Emms book, does he give a diagram like the one you did and then a bunch of games? If so then really the content is in the games, you need to be reading what he says in the notes to the games where he should be explaining what to do with the position after the position´s become defined, rather than looking at the standardised positions, which exist to give you an initial idea as to what he´s talking about.
I´m not sure what you mean by optimal set-up. Is this some kind of idealised position, like in the diagram in your first post, or do you mean optimal given what an opponent has done? Either way, I´d be fairly wary of the concept as quite often there is nothing to choose between one line of play and another. Any configuration of pieces has its strengths and weaknesses.