29 Jul 11
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarCorrect, but there is more. Nh3-f4 is a maneuver to get your knight to a useful square because there is a hole on f4 or some tactical threat or maybe even to get to yet another square. Nc3 is a move to develop your piece to a square where it helps to control the center and leaves plenty of options. For example, a knight from c3 would love to go to an unprotected e4 or d5 square or in two moves to an unprotected b6,d6 or f6 square. Sometimes though c3 isn't appropriate so you have to take two moves to develop your knight.
OK, I've thought about it and I see the difference. One move is intended to stay there until you see what your opponent does, while the other is a move that a move with the intention to move to a specific square.
29 Jul 11
Originally posted by EladarYou're not getting it. That's exactly what he was talking about.
Black's problem was how to develop his pieces and get castled. In the Scandinavian white doesn't have great central control, so I doubt his comment was about black's problem with central control.
It seems to me that Roman's comment was in regard to developing the bishops and finding an open file for one's rook.
Black's "problem" didn't come as a result of wandering up to a board where the scandinavian had already been set up. Black's "problem" came about because he sat down to play black. He had a problem before he played 1...d5.
The scandinavian is one potential solution to the "problem" just as any opening is just a potential solution.
All answers to 1.e4 have "problems". But those "problems" don't come as a result of all openings just being bad or something. Those problems exist because 1.e4 is a good move and creates problems for black. If white opened with 1.a3 and black played the same move he played in the scandinavian (d5) black wouldn't have any problems. In fact, it would be white trying to equalize.
"Black's problem was how to develop his pieces and get castled."
You're right to an extent, but where did those problems come from? They didn't just magically appear. I'll put it this way- If white entered 12 straight null moves would black still have those problems?
"In the Scandinavian white doesn't have great central control, "
That's not the right way to look at it. In the scandinavian, black attacks white's center pawn on the first move. If black could get in e5 without losing anything, he would be completely winning. Removing the opponent's central pawn is typically enough to equalize for black. (for example in sicilians and double king pawn openings black is usually considered to have equalized when he plays d5. ) But in doing so he has created new problems( remember what I said earlier about how the "problem" changes.).After Nc3, black will lose a tempo of development, his Q will be exposed and white can still maintain a superior center with d4. Those are the NEW problems but they came as a result of the original problem. The flow of the game will continue like that until black equalizes.
29 Jul 11
Originally posted by JS357That doesn't make any sense at all.
I would call the two things you suggest strategic, and I'd call center control a tactic that supports the strategic goals.
Aside from the fact that the words "strategy"and "tactics" are pretty clearly defined and understood in a chess context and all 3 would fit under the category of strategy...
The word "tactics" refers to short term planning and "strategy" to long term. Even if you were to look at it that way, certainly development and king safety would be more short term and the center more long term right?
29 Jul 11
Originally posted by EladarNc3 is a first move of a piece that directly engages the center. Nc3 attacks and supports the d4 and e5 squares.
Do you develop your knight to c3? Or do you intend to bring your knight to another square that might be more useful for attack. A knight on c3 isn't very useful for attack or defense if one plans to 0-0.
I don't think you intend to leave your pieces on the squares that you develop them with the first move.
29 Jul 11
Originally posted by EladarMy purpose of an opening in a general sense is to get to the early middle game with at least an even position/material, especially in OTB play where I don't have a games database at my fingertips. Moreover, if I am white, I would like to have at least a little edge to justify the first move initiative.
I've been working under the assumption that the purpose for an opening is to develop one's pieces and achieve king safety.
According to Savage, there is another purpose for an opening: to control the center. Is this actually a purpose for the opening or is this simply an overall goal for the game?
I suppose the purpose for an opening also depends on whether one is white or black?
With openings, my preference is to push the two center pawns each two squares when possible. Nothing like the domination of white center pawns resting on e4 and d4. I then typically develop minor pieces immediately toward the center (e.g., generally Nf3, Nc3, Bf4, Bc4), then castle (usually on the short side) for king safety and to connect rooks. Place rooks on e1 and d1, or stack on the e-file or d-file, or an open file. And try not to move a piece twice until fully developed. Typical classical play.
Many exceptions, of course.
Below is an illustration of a game I had as white against a timid black closed defense. An early RHP game for me last year when I getting back into chess, and I have sinced realized there were better opening moves for me. In general, not my greatest game and I won because he blundered in the middle game, but the game depicts the initial opening type of moves I mention above, and I did like my position better, though it has not been subjected to engine analysis.
29 Jul 11
Originally posted by EladarLarsen with his 1.b3 was decisively beaten several times by strong players.
I think that 1.b3 is pretty much an opening that looks for a counter attack. Black can easily try to gain too much space without proper support. I've read a comment that Larsen was a very good middle game player and very good at counter attacks which was an explanation as to why we have the Nimzo-Larsen attack!
A problem with 1.b3 is that black has such an easy time gaining equality, and thus white wastes the first move initiative.
The only nicety of 1.b3 may be surprise value and to avoid tradtional lines and focus more on principles and tactical play, as Larsen like to do. Again, however, it is easy for black to reach equality and such a waste of the first move initiative.
Just my feeble opinon, though.
30 Jul 11
Originally posted by EladarThe purpose of an opening is to crush your enemy's pieces, to see them flee before you, and to hear the lamentations of the pawns.
I've been working under the assumption that the purpose for an opening is to develop one's pieces and achieve king safety.
According to Savage, there is another purpose for an opening: to control the center. Is this actually a purpose for the opening or is this simply an overall goal for the game?
I suppose the purpose for an opening also depends on whether one is white or black?
01 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by moon1969I wonder, would you have defeated Larsen's 1.b3 if you had played against him in his prime?
Larsen with his 1.b3 was decisively beaten several times by strong players.
A problem with 1.b3 is that black has such an easy time gaining equality, and thus white wastes the first move initiative.
The only nicety of 1.b3 may be surprise value and to avoid tradtional lines and focus more on principles and tactical play, as Larsen like to do. Aga ...[text shortened]... reach equality and such a waste of the first move initiative.
Just my feeble opinon, though.
02 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by EladarI would never beat Larsen under any circumstances. After all, he was one of the top chess players in the world. He was one of the first western players to challenge Soviet dominance in chess. (He died last year at age 75).
I wonder, would you have defeated Larsen's 1.b3 if you had played against him in his prime?
He could be in the nursing home, dribbling drool, and hearing voices, and he would beat me. No matter what the opening.
Yet, when he played 1.b3, he was decisively beaten by strong players throughout his career including in his prime. Spassky spanked Larsen in 17 moves in 1970 when Larsen did the feeble 1.b3.
Larsen was decisively defeated when he played the timid 1.b3 against Rosendo Balinas, Jr. in Manila in 1975, for example.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1318458
02 Aug 11
Moon,
I think your logic is a bit off. Even if the losses were due to the first move, does that mean that everyone would be able to do the same thing? What is good for a master, isn't necessarily good for us mortals. What is bad for a master isn't necessarily bad for us mortals.
I suppose it might depend upon how good those mortals are and how well a person is suited for playing 1.b3.
I think you, like a great many others, put too much emphasis on one move, even if it is the first move. A vast majority of chess games are neither won nor lost in the opening. Most games are lost due to some other thing: blunders or failure to see (prevent) a combination.
02 Aug 11
It is the player behind the move 1.b3 that makes the difference.
Playing 1.b3 does not turn you into that player.
The 1970 Palma de Mallorca International won by Fischer to qualify
for the candidates matches on the way to the world title.
Fischer won it by 3½ points!
You will recognise most of the names he left in his wake.
Fischer 18½
Larsen 15
Geller 15
Hübner 15
Taimanov 14
Uhlmann 14
Portisch 13½
Smyslov 13½
Polugaevsky 13
Gligoric 13
Panno 12½
Mecking 12½
Hort 11½
Ivkov 10½
Suttles 10
Minic 10
Reshevsky 9½
Matulovic 9
Addison 9
Filip 8½
Naranja 8½
Üitümen 8½
Rubinetti 6
Jiménez 5½
Fischer played 1.b3 twice against Filip and Mecking winning both games.
The Mecking game is a mini masterpiece made all the more remarkable by
the fact he had already clinched first place and had no need to exert himself.
Fischer - Mecking 1970
02 Aug 11
With all respect to GM Larsen who was at a major informational disadvantage throughout his career-
The persistant pressure created by a well prepared player of the white pieces is far mor effective than simply punting the first move and trying to find errors in your opponents play.
Counterattack and fianchetto type openings as White are extremely effective at the low club level because space advanage and weaknesses don't matter when you drop a piece.