Originally posted by Alzheimerits great advice you guys, what happens is, my opponent plays 1.e4 and i say to myself, ok robbie how are you feeling, i think mmm, i am a little bit apprehensive, then i play the French, then other times, my opponent plays 1.e4 and i say the same thing, how are you feeling Robbie, and i say, i am feeling very bold, today i shall let my opponent take the centre and i shall counter attack and i play the modern or the accelerated dragon or something crazy, other times i feel kind of classical and all exalted in my own mind (what a buffoon i know), we shall play on principles i say, i shall play Sicilian, and so it goes on, past move thirteen my theory is gone, and my opponent crashes through and kicks my butt! its amazing how many games of chess I start without having the slightest clue about what i should be about!
It's important to limit yourself to one or two openings.
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.
your advice is great guys, this thing should be an organic type of experience thing, constantly growing. i must sympathise with rabbit cold, i too got fed up of all those type of closed games and the hypermodern thing and decided quite readily that i should fight for the centre, i dont know, i just like the clarity and the simplicity, its much more crystal clear.
1 edit
Originally posted by AlzheimerI thought 3...Nd7 was better. Here is a comment on 3...exd4
hmm, thinking of it I play 3...exd4😀
I haven't missed anthing, haven't I???😕
The abandonment of the centre with 3...exd4 is sometimes seen, but nevertheless bad, since Black gets nothing in return. White can recapture with either Knight or Queen and secures ideal development
Reuben Fine.
Originally posted by heinzkatI feel sick and sad!!!!😕:'(
RHP Blitz 28/10/2009, 11:44 PM
[pgn][Event "RHP Blitz rated"]
[Site "www.redhotpawn.com"]
[Date "2009.10.28"]
[Round "?"]
[White "heinzkat"]
[Black "*"]
[Result "1-0"]
1. e2-e4 e7-e5 2. Ng1-f3 d7-d6 3. d2-d4 Bc8-g4 4. d4xe5 d6xe5 5. Qd1xd8 Ke8xd8 6. Nf3xe5 Ng8-f6 7. Ne5xf7 Kd8-e8 8. Nf7xh8 Bf8-b4 9. c2-c3 Bb4-c5 10. f2-f3 Bg4-h5 11. Bf1-c4 Nb8-c6 12. g2-g4 Bh5-g6 13. Nh8xg6 h7xg6 14. Nb1-d2 Ke8-e7 15. Nd2-b3 1-0[/pgn]
Originally posted by Goshenhmm, I still play 3...exd4.
I thought 3...Ne7 was better. Here is a comment on 3...exd4
The abandonment of the centre with 3...exd4 is sometimes seen, but nevertheless bad, since Black gets nothing in return. White can recapture with either Knight or Queen and secures ideal development
Reuben Fine.
According to my mate black has no problems in the upcoming positions.
I have to say that I never considered 3...Nd7.
Originally posted by RabbitColdyou know Rabbit my friend, i made a real discovery in that i loathe those games where there is pawns and pieces strewn over the board from one side to the other and hardly any space to swing a pussy cat. openings as black where white gets to close the centre, i would rather give up material than face those types of games. As white we can generally call some shots and try to steer into open or closed positions, as black i dunno, our opponent has great say and its not so easy, for example we play Sicilian and he/she chooses 2.Nc3 or some woosie move like that. i dont mind weaknesses if i know what they are and how serious they can be and if i can choose them myself, but in the melee its sometimes hard to tell outright when pawns are strung from one end to the other and pieces have few squares to go to. this latter approach seems quite like Steintz, he loved to close the centre and attack on the wings where there was some space, but i dont like that. Its not that i do not like or appreciate positional play, not at all, you can have just as good positional play in open games as in closed, but i like lively piece play. Perhaps you have had a similar experience.
This is how I feel.
Originally posted by GoshenGM Christian Bauer in "The Philidor Files" gives 3. Bc4 Bg4!? as a "perfectly valid alternative, but after 3. d4 (the line discussed in this thread) he gives 3 ... Bg4?! without comment on the move in particular, but gives lines that lead to a healthy White advantage- as close to a "refutation" as a GM would be willing to commit to in print.
3...Bg4 is refuted.
Paul
Originally posted by heinzkat3...Bg4 loses a pawn. It's just like 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 Nxe4? That loses a pawn too. It's not a matter of following it up or not. It's simply a bad move.
"Refuted" is overused, are there really openings that have been "refuted" on the meta-level? I mean, in itself there really is nothing wrong with even an opening like 1. Na3, as long as you follow up properly.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI totally agree with you Robbie.
you know Rabbit my friend, i made a real discovery in that i loathe those games where there is pawns and pieces strewn over the board from one side to the other and hardly any space to swing a pussy cat. openings as black where white gets to close the centre, i would rather give up material than face those types of games. As white we can generally ...[text shortened]... en games as in closed, but i like lively piece play. Perhaps you have had a similar experience.