Ok, Paul, I confess, e4 is better for white then d4. It's time to end my sad d4 ways. What makes me say this? Well, d4 is too positional for it's own good. I am a good positional player, but often times, I find myself in simple drawish games against weaker players (something I want to avoid), and sometimes I even lose these games geting cocky trying to win a pawn or something. d4 is good to play against players higher rated then you, but beyond that, d4 seems to be weak. Especially considering I am going through a massive tactical training drill, and my d4 simpleton opening (ie: queen's gambit and trade peices), just doesn't give me a chance to show my stuff or potential.
So, if anyone has any good ideas how I should go about playing 1.e4, what I need to study, what to expect, and what sort of white reperatoire I should have, it would be most appreciated.
Originally posted by mateulosethe giuoco piano allows for great tactics... especially Evans' gambit
Ok, Paul, I confess, e4 is better for white then d4. It's time to end my sad d4 ways. What makes me say this? Well, d4 is too positional for it's own good. I am a good positional player, but often times, I find myself in simple drawish games against weaker players (something I want to avoid), and sometimes I even lose these games geting cocky trying to w ...[text shortened]... what to expect, and what sort of white reperatoire I should have, it would be most appreciated.
KG of course allows sharp tactical play but is perhaps not as sound....
the ruy lopez i believe turns out usually to be positional but certain variations allow great tactics...
but i feel that the giuoco piano is the simplest most tactically pure opening. it sets up a target on f7, supports the breaking advance d4 and calls for great piece activity, a tacticians dream.
Originally posted by mateuloseMateulose, you should totally play the KG. Just to have the experience. You want tactical training? I defy you to find a better opening for tactical training. Play the muzio gambit!
Ok, Paul, I confess, e4 is better for white then d4. It's time to end my sad d4 ways. What makes me say this? Well, d4 is too positional for it's own good. I am a good positional player, but often times, I find myself in simple drawish ...[text shortened]... of white reperatoire I should have, it would be most appreciated.
Originally posted by paultopiaI agree. If you want to show your tAcTiCaL sKiLlZ then the best place is in the KG. Crack some people open!
Mateulose, you should totally play the KG. Just to have the experience. You want tactical training? I defy you to find a better opening for tactical training. Play the muzio gambit!
Originally posted by !~TONY~!NooOO0000! The king's gambit is for teh sux0res, play it's close cousin, the Vienna Gambit, it's safer and gives better attacking chances, yuo phag.
I agree. If you want to show your tAcTiCaL sKiLlZ then the best place is in the KG. Crack some people open!
Argh, I'm testing my tactics on Yahoo, and it's the same result as it normally was when I played tactical. I use a tactic, to gain a pawn or two, and maybe a peice, they defend the whole game, yet SOMEHOW, they have a dangerous counter-attack against my own king. One game, I removed all the f,g,h pawns from the king's cover, and he nearly mated me instead, and I barely managed to hold off the win in a long endgame. It makes absolutely no sense how they can have wide open kings, bad positions, down in material, yet I always have to defend and be wary against mates, and sometimes sacrefice those peices back to stop the mate.
This is why I hate tactical attacking, because whenever I go on the attack and gain the upper hand, it changes dramaticly after my attack is finished. It's as if chess is a daring sort of game, ie: use a tactic to gain a peice, but in so doing, your defenses will be a bit weaker so defend like crazy afterwards. That's why I gave up on e4 and went d4, off of pure frustration of losing games when my opponent did jack nothing, left his king open, and I couldn't find a way to finish him off.
Another thing I should probably ask, regarding tactics, is a tactic worth it to gain a pawn if you have to do a trade that involves removing one of your active peices? A lot of games on Yahoo, I simply seem to lose because I go "pawn grabing", mind you, Yahoo players don't seem like the skilled type to use poisoned pawns.
Originally posted by mateulosePerhaps your problem is that you underestimate players with a bit lower rating 😛
Another thing I should probably ask, regarding tactics, is a tactic worth it to gain a pawn if you have to do a trade that involves removing one of your active peices? A lot of games on Yahoo, I simply seem to lose because I go "pawn grabing", mind you, Yahoo players don't seem like the skilled type to use poisoned pawns.
If winning a pawn is better than avoiding exchanging one of your active pieces is really depending on the position, however as long as the only effect of winning a pawn is having to trade a piece I usually don't hesitate too much ;-)
If the goal is to play attacking chess in order to practise your tactical skills,then don't trade off your attacking pieces.
If the goal is to win,regardless in what manner,then a pawn is a pawn.
In the cases you describe,you trade off one of your best pieces for a pawn,and then have to face a strong counter-attack.I think you'd better leave that pawn and continue with your attack.
In general,I don't think it's beneficial to trade off a well placed piece for a mere pawn.Unless it ensures you a clearly winning endgame.
Sir Lot.