I have realized I waste time studying openings when I am not good enough to study them. I think I will just play d4 as white and e5 d5 as black to counter whites pawn push. Then I will learn from mistakes by analyzing computer. I should be doing more tactics instead of reading opening books.
Anyone use this approach and have tips for me?
Thanks.
Yeah but I am not talking about following a master who plays my opening even though i realize that is a good method. I think to make the most efficient amount of time I should play logical developing moves and just analyze my games after. See when I went away from theory was it bad or just not as advantageous. I think the lines would also stick with me more from my own experiences rather than following them in a book.
Originally posted by RabbitColdIf you really don't want to study, then just play boring g3-Bg2-Nf3-d3-e4 kind of stuff. You can play that against anything.
I have realized I waste time studying openings when I am not good enough to study them. I think I will just play d4 as white and e5 d5 as black to counter whites pawn push. Then I will learn from mistakes by analyzing computer. I should be doing more tactics instead of reading opening books.
Anyone use this approach and have tips for me?
Thanks.
Originally posted by SwissGambityou know, the thing that i have noticed about higher rated players, say blackbeetle 2000+ and Ulysses72 also 2000+ is that they play the same systems, for example they always try for queens gambit as white and Sicilian as black, beetle likes the shevy and Ulysses like the najdorf. i once spoke to beetle about it and he said, yes, one has a lot to contend with even limiting oneself to these two spheres of study, for against queens gambit here must be at least eighteen or so different systems, same with Sicilian, there are loads of different systems that one can employ, so there does seem to be merit in limiting oneself.
If you really don't want to study, then just play boring g3-Bg2-Nf3-d3-e4 kind of stuff. You can play that against anything.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThats what I mean. And playing all center pawn pushes first move (excluding against c4) will let me play strong openings and I can naturally develop. If I make a mistake, I can learn from it and move on. I dont want to play KIA because I feel that limits my growth even though I have played that system numerous of times.
you know, the thing that i have noticed about higher rated players, say blackbeetle 2000+ and Ulysses72 also 2000+ is that they play the same systems, for example they always try for queens gambit as white and Sicilian as black, beetle likes the shevy and Ulysses like the najdorf. i once spoke to beetle about it and he said, yes, one has a lot to co ...[text shortened]... ds of different systems that one can employ, so there does seem to be merit in limiting oneself.
Master games give the theory behind your development.
Whats the point of developing for "developments" sake?
Poppicock!
We develop our pieces to there most useful squares! Do you know where that is?
...maybe you do.... So what do you do next? Do you know what kind of ideas work?
Then ask the masters...they'll show you! Well annotated games makes for well
coordinated learning, and strengthened play.
Good luck!
-GIN
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt's important to limit yourself to one or two openings.
you know, the thing that i have noticed about higher rated players, say blackbeetle 2000+ and Ulysses72 also 2000+ is that they play the same systems, for example they always try for queens gambit as white and Sicilian as black, beetle likes the shevy and Ulysses like the najdorf. i once spoke to beetle about it and he said, yes, one has a lot to co ...[text shortened]... ds of different systems that one can employ, so there does seem to be merit in limiting oneself.
The good thing is that after a while you should know the plans of the opening and understand why you have to move the pieces to certain squares.
Most players "learn" an opening but haven't got a clue about the plans behind it.
I play Sicilian & Philidor for years in CC and I still get positions I haven't had before. It only contributs to your learning.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAfter 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 It turns out 3...exd4 isn't mainline although I thought it was since everyone seems to play it. I'm sure Alzheimer doesn't play 3...exd4 or 3...Bg4 LOL!
philidor deserves to be cracked open with a timely d4 i reckon! for giving up the centre!
Originally posted by GoshenPhilidor isn't bad at all. I guess in an otb game it is actually a good weapon.
Philidor, really? I thought it was a terrible opening.
I guess some white player underestimate that opening and think they can play it it without any knowledge.
I have some good results with it.