A few months back, I quickly won a sharp Sicilian game as Black. Later, I showed my opponent the relevant ideas and where I thought he went wrong. Then, he asked me, "How much was the opening?" I didn't like the implication that I essentially had a book win and I told him that his opening errors were important but that it's impossible to say if the result would have been different had I played something else.
Still, I've felt guilty since then. We never started on equal footing because I knew many Sicilian variations and also understood them at a much higher level. After we went out of book on move 12, I had an objective advantage and a plan. We were out of book, but I wasn't out of my opening knowledge and thus still not thinking entirely on my own. It's as if I had Kasparov whispering in my ear and telling me what to examine and where the pieces belong. On the other hand, my opponent was in a jungle without a map.
This has made my wins feel less satisfying when I get positions I know well. It makes me ask, "Was I really stronger than him as a chess player or do I just know some specific positions much better?" Sometimes, it feels like my opponent never had a chance to show me what he could do since his book ends sooner and I take advantage of his deviations.
This kind of mindset has given me much frustration lately and I've tried to play openings I don't know well to escape these feelings and grow as a player. However, players vastly stronger than me- IMs, GMs etc. have incomparably better opening knowledge and understanding. How do they deal with thoughts like these? But of course, this could happen at any level. All you need to know is one more book move than your opponent and the understanding necessary to punish the more serious inaccuracies. If you've ever thought about this, how do you deal with it. I'd really like some feedback here because it is bothering me on many levels.
Thanks in advance.
Originally posted by exigentskyTo be good at chess you have to put the work in. Because you have done more/better work on the opening is no reason to feel guilty.
If you've ever thought about this, how do YOU reason it?
If you're tactically more adept than your opponent, do you have similar feelings. You have, after all, just trained harder at your tactics? Same thing with the opening. And ending.
D
Originally posted by exigentskydont feel bad at all.. he chose to play 1.e4 as his first move, and as a chess player you have to be ready for that 1st, as its very strong, deep, and popular... someone weak in opening should play an "irregualar" opening..
A few months back, I quickly won a sharp Sicilian game as Black. Later, I showed my opponent the relevant ideas and where I thought he went wrong. Then, he asked me, "How much was the opening?" I didn't like the implication that I essentially had a book win and I told him that his opening errors were important but that it's impossible to say if the result ...[text shortened]... some feedback here because it is bothering me on many levels.
Thanks in advance.
Originally posted by exigentskyYou won the chess game, right? Being a stronger chess player means being better at playing chess. If your opening knowledge helps you with that, then that is a contributing factor to your skill in chess. Maybe you should be asking "Was I better at tactics and impromptu strategy?" But even then, many chess games are decided with very little of one or both of these elements. They're no more intrinsic, central parts of chess than opening preparation is.
"Was I really stronger than him as a chess player or do I just know some specific positions much better?"
Have never felt that kind of guilt, can't imagine ever feeling it either. Chess is a battle of more than just wits, as knowledge, patience, discipline, psychology, and myriad of other factors can all play a role too. Also I've lost too many games right out of the opening to ever feel bad about obtaining a win there, or a winning position.
Here's a flip side for you: during one of my early provisional games against a 1300 rated player we departed book fairly early. My opening play was just terrible while his was logical, consistent, and by the time we got to the middlegame I was genuinely worried that despite his rating, with the way he was playing he'd figure out how to slowly squeeze me to death soon enough.
So I offered a pawn sac for no other purpose than to just get some activity for my pieces, sharpen the position a bit, and create some counter-chances; the downside was that his also became more active and the whole sequence involved my entire position being very shaky with pieces either pinned or loose. Then after several moves with him meeting my threats logically I'd managed to untangle some pieces and exchange off others, but my position was still inferior and it looked like I might have only hastened my demise.
So I offered a second pawn sac, this one I'd calculated that if he accepted I'd obtain the initiative, an attack, and at least the exchange for my 2 center pawns altogether given up; while if he declined he could take it off the board at a time of his choosing and I wouldn't be able to prevent that. Then I'd just be down 2 pawns with the endgame approaching.
He accepted, however, and the attack, when the dust settled, led to an easily won endgame. It was pure swindle. It seems, if we apply your reasoning, I should have felt bad about using my better understanding of tactics and positional play (not to mention luck, I mightn't have pulled it out of the crapper if he hadn't taken the second pawn) to swindle him out of the victory his superior opening and early middle game play had to have him feeling was surely within his grasp. Instead I breathed a sigh of relief and swore never to play the opening like such an idiot again (a vow that is easier to make than to keep)
A chess game is the interplay of all elements and phases of the game, and no two opponents are ever equally matched (even when of equal strength) in all areas. I've lost countless promising opening positions in the middlegame, and winning middlegames in the endgame; and have pulled of the reverse as well. And so it goes.
If this was a 100metre sprinting race and you trained very hard for it then beat your opponent would you then think - oh but he is the better sprinter I only beat him because I trained so hard.
Opening theory is to a large extent opening memorization and you've worked hard to acquire this knowledge. The answer to how much did it cost is surely "a lot of hard work". You deserved the win and should not allow anyone to attempt to belittle this achievement by dismissing it as merely "learned from a book"
Looks like it's time for you to try out some stronger opposition and put your hard work to the test.
A win is a win! "Knowledge" and "skill" are very multidimensional topics. If I squeeze out a genuine book win then I think I was rewarded for my Chess Studies. Still, it is much more rewarding to find a nice Tactics or a sacc but: "A win is a win"
Also, I think it is very important to be a "Good Winner". Even more important than being a "Good Looser"
Here are my two cents.......
even if one isn't familiar with specific openings, if they are skilled enough tactical/strategical players, they will follow what is considered "book" with surprising accuracy anyway, since "book" moves are considered the best moves in that specific situation. I definitely do not think guilt has any place in the chess world unless you've cheated. And boy Ih8 people who cheat 😛
I think you're taking everything a bit too seriously. Its not life or death.
Personally I don't use opening moves / books / databases and it shows. But I just enjoy myself.
If you thrashed me with a game that has derived from you studying and putting in the effort of learning the moves then that's fine and I've most probably learned something.
If I play Roger Federer at tennis - would he feel guilty when he beats me (ok - if he beats me 😉) ?
However, there are sweet wins, and there are just wins. The different wins are rewarded alike.
The wins are rewarded with rating and tournament points. The sweet wins are rewarded with a good feeling inside you as well.
If I win because of a blunde made by my opponent, it's not sweet. But if the win is the fruit out of exact play, long ahead strategic planning and hidden tactics, then it it feels just sooo sweet.
Originally posted by FabianFnasstill over 1700 I see
However, there are sweet wins, and there are just wins. The different wins are rewarded alike.
The wins are rewarded with rating and tournament points. The sweet wins are rewarded with a good feeling inside you as well.
If I win because of a blunde made by my opponent, it's not sweet. But if the win is the fruit out of exact play, long ahead strategic planning and hidden tactics, then it it feels just sooo sweet.