Purpose for an Opening

Originally posted by Eladar
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 ...[text shortened]... st games are lost due to some other thing: blunders or failure to see (prevent) a combination.

Eladar, good points.

1.b3 arguably gives up the white initiative but it surely has semi-surprise value against some, and plus being well-prepared is good. And playing the opening one is comfortable and has a feel for the nuances.

You might could try the Reti.

But I am definitley no expert. It is just hard for me to resist moving a center pawn too squares on my first move as white, primarily 1.e4.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
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 ...[text shortened]... xh7 36. Ng6+ Ke8 37. Nxe5 Bc8 38. Nxc4 Kd8 39. Nd6 Rg7 40. Kf2 Kc7 41. Nxc8 Kxc8 42. Rd6[/pgn]

Yes, what a massacre with the rook and knight play.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
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 ...[text shortened]... xh7 36. Ng6+ Ke8 37. Nxe5 Bc8 38. Nxc4 Kd8 39. Nd6 Rg7 40. Kf2 Kc7 41. Nxc8 Kxc8 42. Rd6[/pgn]

Excellently put.

Now that we can put 1.b3 aside, I think there is a greater question here, which is what makes an opening good? What is the purpose for the opening?

I suppose that also means what makes a square good? After all, it seems to me that the opening usually means putting your pieces on good squares!

Is the advancement of a pawn a good thing? Pawns can't move backwards, once you move a pawn, it can no longer support the squares that it has passed! Sure, you can move one pawn without creating a hole, but what if you move more than one? It seems to me that there is more to an opening than simply laying claim to the center with a pawn!

Originally posted by Eladar
Now that we can put 1.b3 aside, I think there is a greater question here, which is what makes an opening good? What is the purpose for the opening?
[/b]

So,after all this,you're back at square one! 😛

Originally posted by torten
So,after all this,you're back at square one! 😛

Yes I am!

People don't want to discuss the subject of why. People want to simply say how it's done! I'm more interested in the reason why.

Originally posted by Eladar
Yes I am!

People don't want to discuss the subject of why. People want to simply say how it's done! I'm more interested in the reason why.

Well, the reason you want to control the center is because most pieces in the center control more squares than on the side of the board....

So you are saying that the only thing you are trying to do in the opening is to lay claim to the center?

Mobility and completing development are secondary?

Eladar, you're not getting a convincing answer because your question is too vague. There's no way to characterize the opening, or any phase of the game, with language. If you want to be objective about a position everything needs to be explained in moves. I'm not saying language is not useful for discussing chess, only that you're not going to find a satisfying answer to your particular question. It's like asking, "are bishops better than knights?". Well, sometimes yes sometimes no. Even if the position is completely open or closed, if you want a satisfying answer you're going to have to evaluate the position in it's own right, and not according to any chess rules or maxims.

In your last post you asked another question, "Is the advancement of a pawn a good thing?". There's just no satisfying answer. Most people will tell you that pawn moves should not be your first priority in the opening. A good piece of advice, but one we've all heard before. And if you insist on that rule you're going to be bashing your head against a wall trying to refute this variation of the QGA which scores very well for black (looks ridiculous, I know):



So far in this topic one side seems to be saying, "play for the center," while you're saying something like, "get your pieces to the best squares." Well it turns out you're both right because you're not arguing with moves, just words. Your arguments are up in the clouds when in practice the moves will take place on the board, in a single line of a specific opening. People have been arguing about chess style and principles for hundreds of years and there's never been a single definitive answer. All you're going to find in this topic is more people throwing generalizations around that we all know by heart, and it's not going to help your game one bit.

No grandmaster sits down at the board and goes through a checklist of chess maxims every move. "Control the center, pawn structure, space... " It's unrealistic. He plays upon intuition, experience with similar positions, and above all concrete variations. He doesn't need chess rules of thumb anymore. This is why you're never going to hear about "Kasparov's Universal Theory of Chess Openings". He knows that kind of talk is hogwash. He knows he needs to play 23.Rf3 in the Najdorf because it's scored well so far and seems to meet the demands of the position, NOT because it "centralizes a piece".

Just play chess. Over and over. Develop your base. Experience is the great teacher. No one's going to reveal any chess secrets here, I guarantee it.



(Or in books, but that's another matter.)

Originally posted by Eladar
So you are saying that the only thing you are trying to do in the opening is to lay claim to the center?

Mobility and completing development are secondary?

Well if you develop properly in a manner that properly controls the center your pieces will have mobility.

Originally posted by Eladar
What is the purpose for the opening?

The purpose of the opening at the sub-1900 level is to
1)Reach a playable middle-game
2)Not waste a lot of time studying openings
3)you should pay the most attention to what the opening is teaching you.

Above 1900 you have to start looking at yourself and your own goals, evaluate what you want to get out of an opening and choose accordingly. Winning, proving an advantage with white and the types of positions you get start to become more important. From what I gather there is another similar plateau around 2300.

You reach a playable middle game by choosing solid openings that don't lead to a forced loss.

You avoid spending a lot of time on openings by relying on principles

And lastly look at what the openng is teaching you. Ideally you should like to reach 2000 with the capability of playing any type of position. If you can't you will struggle. You learn how to play the opening by learning opening principles. They will guide you in finding the right moves (most of the time) until you are capable of doing it on your own. They will also teach you why bad moves are bad so you gradually you train your thinking to look for good moves instead of bad ones. Furthermore, you need to be able to understand center/development/king safety inorder to evaluate who's better in a given position. If you can't do that you will definitely struggle at higher levels. There are other considerations like choosing openings that lead to tactical games to improve your tactics but I think you get the point.

Originally posted by Eladar
Yes I am!

People don't want to discuss the subject of why. People want to simply say how it's done! I'm more interested in the reason why.

I have heard that Susan Polgar has materials that are good at explaining the reasons behind opening principles to beginners.

As for the main principle of "control of the center", that provides piece mobility and cramps the opponent. Classical is to place pawns on the center squares and develop pieces toward the center. Hypermodern "controls" the center from afar, develops some pieces toward the center including maybe some flank moves, and waits till later in the game to move into the center.

Originally posted by Eladar
So you are saying that the only thing you are trying to do in the opening is to lay claim to the center?

Mobility and completing development are secondary?

You are trying to control as large a part of the board as you can, in order to have as much influence as possible on the middle game and remove as many of your opponent's options as you can. Development, mobility, and even control of the centre are both the instruments for, and the necessary results of, that one aim.
If you don't develop your pieces, what are you going to control your opponent's side of the board with? If your pieces aren't mobile, how are they going to do any controlling? If you only control one side of the board while your opponent has the centre, how are you going to get over to the other side?
Contrariwise, once you have control of most of the board, how is your opponent going to stop your pieces from developing? How is he going to nail them down to one spot? How will he ever keep your pawns and pieces out of the centre, if you're gunning at it from all sides?

Of course, in reality, both players are trying to do the same thing, often with different weapons. Therefore, you are never going to get everything you want, and control over much of the board will be shared. Equally of course, in cold, hard fact, grand strategies and fundamental aims are often disrupted by tactical necessities. So no opening is perfect. That know what you want to get out of the opening does not mean that you're going to get it...

Richard