Originally posted by mateuloseDoes this ring a bell? "What is this retarded opening?....yadda yadda yadda......I might as well resign every time I see this move!"
You lost because you played like crap, not because the opening is crap. Listen, it goes like this, a hockey player says, "I have trouble scoring, I suck!", then the coach says, "have you ever tried backhands?", and then the hockey players says, "No, I'll try those, never practiced them before." And in every game he plays, he tries backhands and does ...[text shortened]... least, if you are really an attacking player Paul, learn the Sicilian in response to e4, darnit!
Practice what you preach, bro!!
SM
Originally posted by RavelloAh! OK...
No worries Alopinto,both me and paultopia were referring to mateulose's post.
There are two basic approaches to the opening:
1.Fanatic: One that only plays a very limited repertoire but knows it inside/out (e.g., Uhlmann with his French defense)
2.Flexible: Plays everything (e.g., David Bronstein)
One can emmulate 1 or 2 or be somewhere in between...
Originally posted by Alopintosee, I'm all about (1) as white (KG, baby!), but (2) appeals more as black, if only because there's no one defense that satisfies me. Against d4, I'm pretty comfortable in the dutch, leningrad or stonewall, and the albin, and working on the benoni. But against e4, I got nothin'... I tried alekhine's for months on end with lousy results...
Ah! OK...
There are two basic approaches to the opening:
1.Fanatic: One that only plays a very limited repertoire but knows it inside/out (e.g., Uhlmann with his French defense)
2.Flexible: Plays everything (e.g., David Bronstein)
One can emmulate 1 or 2 or be somewhere in between...
Originally posted by AlopintoI am # 2 for both colors. As white I play:
Ah! OK...
There are two basic approaches to the opening:
1.Fanatic: One that only plays a very limited repertoire but knows it inside/out (e.g., Uhlmann with his French defense)
2.Flexible: Plays everything (e.g., David Bronstein)
One can emmulate 1 or 2 or be somewhere in between...
b3, Nf3, g3, c4, e4, and d4, all pretty well. As black, against e4 I can play the French, Caro Kann, Modern, Pirc, and ..e5, going for the Larsen variation of the Phillidor. Or the Sicilian Nadjorf soon! Against d4, I normally play the Benoni or the QGA.
I like to counterattack against people and really beat people in. I like to duke it out and fight, so I steer the openings towards how I wanna play. I really think Paul needs to sit down at his computer. Search the internet, and find an awesome defense and delve into it. Keep playing something till it works. Then study up!
Paul, it sounds like you enjoy open positions as White and closed positions as black. Probably the best way to get Dutch/Benoni-like positions vs. e4 is playing the French.
If you want to go headhunting, I still think you should check out the Marshall Attack. Good article about it here:
http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_js/js_marshall_attack.html
Originally posted by mateuloseWow,
You lost because you played like crap, not because the opening is crap. Listen, it goes like this, a hockey player says, "I have trouble scoring, I suck!", then the coach says, "have you ever tried backhands?", and then the hockey players says, "No, I'll try those, never practiced them before." And in every game he plays, he tries backhands and does ...[text shortened]... least, if you are really an attacking player Paul, learn the Sicilian in response to e4, darnit!
All this chess understanding from someone who posts that 1.d4 d4 2.Bg5 is retarded opening and unplayable for black.
Why didint he know all this before starting the thread that lead to 55 posts.
Originally posted by lloydkBig mistake. Please edit this post before Paul sees it. You are toast! Lol...
Probably the best way to get Dutch/Benoni-like positions vs. e4 is playing the French.
If you want to go headhunting, I still think you should check out the Marshall Attack. Good article about it here:
http://www.jeremysilman.com/book_reviews_js/js_marshall_attack.html
