Originally posted by Squelchbelch Try the Morra gambit against anyone who plays the Sicilian against you.
It's highly tactical & full of pitfalls for the unsuspecting black player.
1.e4...c5 2.d4...cxd4 3.c3...dxc3 4.Nxc3
It gives you plenty of chances to get an early attack underway with a gain of an extra tempo & open c & d files to put your rooks on to pressure the centre.
Th ...[text shortened]... on after move 4 is this:
[fen]rnbqkbnr/pp1ppppp/8/8/4P3/2N5/PP3PPP/R1BQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1[/fen]
Originally posted by Bedlam I quite like the Moller Gambit, played some damn good games with that, not the soundest line but will certainly spice up any game.
Isn't it irresponsible to be recommending gambit opening to players who barely know chess? Isn't this like teaching a provisional licence holder to drive like Michael Schumacher not forgetting that the provisional holder has to pass his test in a few months? Till a player is at about 1600 he is in the same situation as a provisional driver.
Originally posted by z00t Isn't it irresponsible to be recommending gambit opening to players who barely know chess? Isn't this like teaching a provisional licence holder to drive like Michael Schumacher not forgetting that the provisional holder has to pass his test in a few months? Till a player is at about 1600 he is in the same situation as a provisional driver.
Beginners should play gambit openings, they will learn chess much quicker if they get to understand how dynamic compensation works.
Originally posted by Bedlam Beginners should play gambit openings, they will learn chess much quicker if they get to understand how dynamic compensation works.
Where did you see that written in any decent manual/book of chess? I’m sure even Short or Speelman in their chess columns would digress. Gambits are opportunism that is why they do not figure in top-level chess. Show me the games of any of the K’s playing that crap?
If you can show me any authoritative source that recommends such an approach to newcomers to chess, I will gladly eat my words.
Originally posted by z00t Where did you see that written in any decent manual/book of chess? I’m sure even Short or Speelman in their chess columns would digress. Gambits are opportunism that is why they do not figure in top-level chess. Show me the games of any of the K’s playing that crap?
If you can show me any authoritative source that recommends such an approach to newcomers to chess, I will gladly eat my words.
I dont have to show you, I know what works for me. You forget that we are all chess players and all have experience of the game, try thinking for yourself, it helps 🙂
The advice given to beginners is to take attacking openings and yes im sure I can dig up source for such. Can you dig up sources to say this isnt the case? 🙂
Originally posted by z00t Where did you see that written in any decent manual/book of chess? I’m sure even Short or Speelman in their chess columns would digress. Gambits are opportunism that is why they do not figure in top-level chess. Show me the games of any of the K’s playing that crap?
If you can show me any authoritative source that recommends such an approach to newcomers to chess, I will gladly eat my words.
Its amusing to think that you shouldnt play an opening because its not played at the top level, especially after your statement about not bombarding beginners with openings beyond their level.
Originally posted by Bedlam I dont have to show you, I know what works for me. You forget that we are all chess players and all have experience of the game, try thinking for yourself, it helps 🙂
The advice given to beginners is to take attacking openings and yes im sure I can dig up source for such. Can you dig up sources to say this isnt the case? 🙂
You should not irresponsibly impose your own opinions on newcomers to the game particularly when they contradict established chess principles. If you want to be some kind of a chess teacher, look at what the established teachers do. For example the Hartson books which can be found in a bookshop/library recommend learning the basics of the French, Sicilian.
It’s not rocket science dude, its called chess principles. Whether you are in the Karpov school of Chess or the Botvinnik school of chess they do not teach their own ideas but those who have been a success at the game.
What may work in the Bedlam school of chess is in fact baloney in the Karpov/Botvinik school of chess.
Originally posted by z00t You should not irresponsibly impose your own opinions on newcomers to the game particularly when they contradict established chess principles. If you want to be some kind of a chess teacher, look at what the established teachers do. For example the Hartson books which can be found in a bookshop/library recommend learning the basics of the French, Sicilian.
...[text shortened]... ay work in the Bedlam school of chess is in fact baloney in the Karpov/Botvinik school of chess.
Im sorry was that a yes or a no to the advice generally given is to take attacking openings?
Edit : One gets the feeling you didnt read deathandrugby's original post.
Originally posted by Bedlam Im sorry was that a yes or a no to the advice generally given is to take attacking openings?
Edit : One gets the feeling you didnt read deathandrugby's original post.
The OP should not be asking for “fireworks openings” when he barely knows what a fork or control of the centre is about. You as a presumably experienced player should guide him in the right direction.
If you (or anyone else who wants to work with newbies) have bothered to look at what the USCF/BCF etc recommend to beginners then you will get a drift….
Originally posted by z00t The OP should not be asking for “fireworks openings” when he barely knows what a fork or control of the centre is about. You as a presumably experienced player should guide him in the right direction.
If you (or anyone else who wants to work with newbies) have bothered to look at what the USCF/BCF etc recommend to beginners then you will get a drift….
Kapisch?
Let people find their own paths. I know Moller isnt perfectly sound but you will get a great game from it and learn chess at the same time, sooner or later most people grow out of such openings but they are a part of many players pasts. If he wanted advice on the soundest opening to play I wouldnt have suggested the Fried Liver or Moller, it was mearly answering his question. If you have a hard time understanding this then its your failing and no one elses.
Although its not around anymore the Kasparov school of chess website covered a wide varity of gambits in its opening lectures.....you only have to look at who plays the Benko to see that your statement that gambits arent played at the highest level is simply wrong. You should also note that another piece of advice given to beginners is to study the romantic age of chess which features no end of unsound gambits and sacs in the openings....although im sure you will disregard this because it doesnt fall into the z00t school of thought.
So is it more important to learn what the centre is and control of it or to play some fried liver gambit? Did you actually look at what the BCF or the USCF recommend to beginners? Where do they say Let people find their own paths.
I've never heard of that one nor read that in any chess book can you show us any citations please?
Originally posted by Korch As I know that black in this line can make draw.
8...Bxc3 9.d5 Bf6! and so on.
I dont remember exactly these lines, because I`m not playing Italian with black, but in this line black can make draw.
Yes I think the draw has been proven. I dont remember the exact lines either but I recall Dennis Monokroussos did a lecture on the opening in which he showed black could draw. The line was something like 25 moves long so the chances of it being knocked out in a game between 1600s is pretty slim
Originally posted by z00t So is it more important to learn what the centre is and control of it or to play some fried liver gambit? Did you actually look at what the BCF or the USCF recommend to beginners? Where do they say [b]Let people find their own paths.
I've never heard of that one nor read that in any chess book can you show us any citations please?[/b]
Again you fail to understand I wonder if you do it on purpose or if there is something holding you back?....if he wanted an opening that controled the center no end I wouldnt have suggested the Moller etc, he didnt want an opening that controled the center no end, he wanted chaos on the board so the openings suggested would be perfect for him.
You dont believe that people should be able to play what they want in chess? I dont think anyone has ever bothered to write it down because its pretty obvious.
Look when you're spewing out pure crap along the lines of gambits arent played at the highest level you should open your eyes a bit more and stop jumping onto advice people give.
Looking for an exciting opening
28 Dec '06 12:43
Back to Top