There are many principles that are misunderstood by beginners. I'm to point them out.
1."move only one or two pawns in the opening". You should move more panws if you can gain advantage, especially in closed openings where fast mobolisation of pieces are less important than material and space. e.g launch massive pawn advance by chasing enemy pieces with your pawns.
2."Develop knights before bishops". Not neccesarily, in Nimzo-Larsen Attack main line:1.b3 d5 2.Bb2 Nc6 3.e3 e5 4.Bb5, white moves both of his bishops out before knights. Howerver, this principle does contain a grain of truth. By following the principle, you avoid losing you rook in the corner and getting your knight pinned to your rook by an enemy rook. If you're good enough and know what you are doing, you don't need this principle.
3.Don't move you queen out too early. True, but again not neccesarily.
In some extreme complex, tactical position, especailly in flank openings, you move your queen out early in the game. I'm not encouraging you to move your queen out too early, it's ideal to leave your queen alone for a while. Just don't think someone moves his queen out early is a beginner and try to checkmate him in another 3 moves.
I've been brought up on many of those "rules" and quite honestly, now I do my best to forget them and think for myself. Every rule was created with a thought, but when you stare at the rule, often the context it is in, this thought, is missing. I personally dislike "castle early".. I always found it better to think for yourself. If you want to follow such rules as "castle early" you must understand why the rule was created (often when things are about to open up, especially in the centre, although there are always exceptions there too).
Originally posted by JusuhOh, cool. This means we can throw away 300 years of opening theory. GMs? Hell. like they have anything usefull to tell us....
4. "follow general principles." Do not follow any principles blindly. Play with the given position, not with something some old geek has said 100 years ago.
But sarcasm aside, I do agree that there are exceptions to every rule.
Originally posted by GolubEver wonder why you are only 1300?
I've been brought up on many of those "rules" and quite honestly, now I do my best to forget them and think for myself. Every rule was created with a thought, but when you stare at the rule, often the context it is in, this thought, is missing. I personally dislike "castle early".. I always found it better to think for yourself. If you want to follow such rul ...[text shortened]... ut to open up, especially in the centre, although there are always exceptions there too).
Originally posted by Dies IraeToo true. These principles are sound and valid, but they are also not rules. Ignore them when you have a valid and sound reason. Otherwise, if you're faced with a choice of two developing moves - a knight or a bishop - and both look good, develop the knight first, for example.
you should always follow the principles except in cases where you shouldn't
Basic principles work. They have stood the test of time. Ignore then at your peril as, unless you know exactly what you are doing and why you will be defeated.
Trying to catch a 1600 player let alone a 2000 or 2300 in a "Scholars Mate" or some derivative thereof (by a rash unsupported early attack on f2 or f7 with your B and Q) is foolhardy and will usually result in your opponent gaining an advantage. Learn to resist Qf3 or Qf6 early in the game as it is rarely good.
There are exceptions to every rule but only play them once you are a competent chess player (i.e. above about 1600) as before then it is unlikely to be best.
Trying to catch a 2300 in a "Scholars mate" is stupid but if you are 1300 trying to do it to an 1100 may be even worse as you may give a weaker player the advantage because you have assumed him to be a total patzer.
Originally posted by AlphaAlekhinemodern opening theory has very little to do with actual opening principles.
Oh, cool. This means we can throw away 300 years of opening theory. GMs? Hell. like they have anything usefull to tell us....
But sarcasm aside, I do agree that there are exceptions to every rule.
I think you should follow more the principles of your opening(when you are out of book) than the opening principles...It is more important to know the specific principles(plans) of the opening that you play, instead of general opening principles(which might be very different)
2."Develop knights before bishops".The reason for "knight before bishops" is because the white knight has a more obvious best square in f3 (when playing e4) but the best square for white kingside bishop is more dependent on the opponents response - so it makes sense to play the knight move first. That is assuming you're following the "principle" of rapid piece (knight & bishop) development.
There are many exceptions of course this is absolutely true...but I think it helps when you're starting out to have some basic principles to grasp - and get to know the reasons behind them - before learning about the exceptions. During your early lessons in a new language you would not want to learn how to discuss philosophy before you learned to say hello.
Originally posted by Caro KannNo, not really. Before I had to resign and draw 20 games due to lack of time to play, I had a 1600 rating steadily going up. I still do not know what my stable RHP rating is.
Ever wonder why you are only 1300?
Next time your highness wants to judge someone's playing strength, you should perhaps try and go a little bit deeper. There's also a general principle for you: "Do not judge people you know nothing about".
Originally posted by tonytiger41I made it to 2000 (2022, to be exact) basically by not hanging pieces. I didn't know what the Philidor or Lucena Positions were until I was over 2000. I played solid openings and waited for my opponents to self-destruct. It usually worked!
for most of us, the first principle should be "don't hang pieces."
i would say that anyone who adheres to just this one principle will become 1800-to-2000 rated.