I've recently hit the national rating of 1700. I don't have any specific openings though. I've experimented a little here but I'm not sure. Can anyone recommend an opening? I don't have the time to memorize pages of moves, but just a few first 5-6 moves that may lead to similar positions?
Originally posted by anthias I've recently hit the national rating of 1700. I don't have any specific openings though. I've experimented a little here but I'm not sure. Can anyone recommend an opening? I don't have the time to memorize pages of moves, but just a few first 5-6 moves that may lead to similar positions?
Originally posted by anthias I've recently hit the national rating of 1700. I don't have any specific openings though. I've experimented a little here but I'm not sure. Can anyone recommend an opening? I don't have the time to memorize pages of moves, but just a few first 5-6 moves that may lead to similar positions?
As someone else commented, it depends heavily on what style of chess you most enjoy playing.
Originally posted by anthias I've recently hit the national rating of 1700. I don't have any specific openings though. I've experimented a little here but I'm not sure. Can anyone recommend an opening? I don't have the time to memorize pages of moves, but just a few first 5-6 moves that may lead to similar positions?
Play closed position like closed Sicilian or closed French. You don't have to remember many lines but black can sometime easily equalize. Go with the Dutch against d4.
Originally posted by diskamyl play some systems if you like. they are relatively easy to learn. (like the colle, london etc).
Why does everyone go on about easiness to learn? People aren't lazy, they want to improve, and playing the same system will end up slaughtering you at higher level.
Originally posted by curseknight Why does everyone go on about easiness to learn? People aren't lazy, they want to improve, and playing the same system will end up slaughtering you at higher level.
its quite an interesting observation, however i cannot understand why playing a system you know well will get you, 'slaughtered at a higher level', unless of course you do not understand the system in the first place. here is an excellent example of someone, Rene Philips who has played the same system, the London with good success for over 18 years, even against grandmasters,in this case Gabriel Schwartsman check it out
Originally posted by robbie carrobie its quite an interesting observation, however i cannot understand why playing a system you know well will get you, 'slaughtered at a higher level', unless of course you do not understand the system in the first place. here is an excellent example of someone, Rene Philips who has played the same system, the London with good success for over 18 years, ...[text shortened]... Schwartsman check it out
If you always play a system, strong players who know this will not allow you to play it or often just destroy it with a previous plan after it has been set up. You need more than one opening (if a system is an "opening"...). Try and branch into traps and also as White, play for an advantage instead of defending. Someone has to launch the attacks.
Originally posted by curseknight If you always play a system, strong players who know this will not allow you to play it or often just destroy it with a previous plan after it has been set up. You need more than one opening (if a system is an "opening"...). Try and branch into traps and also as White, play for an advantage instead of defending. Someone has to launch the attacks.
yes this is true, however, if you know the system so well you can make your own personal preferences as well, in the example game that i gave the reference to, the white player delayed the book move 4.e3 because he wanted to play 4.h3 instead to allow breathing space for his dark squared bishop which was sitting outside of the pawnchain on f4 if my memory serves me correctly, so learning a system is not all about auto pilot, there is room for style and personal preference and innovation as well, mm i think😀
Originally posted by robbie carrobie yes this is true, however, if you know the system so well you can make your own personal preferences as well, in the example game that i gave the reference to, the white player delayed the book move 4.e3 because he wanted to play 4.h3 instead to allow breathing space for his dark squared bishop which was sitting outside of the pawnchain on f4 if my m ...[text shortened]... auto pilot, there is room for style and personal preference and innovation as well, mm i think😀
I think I wasn't clear enough. When I said similar positions I meant positions that are usually open or closed (I have no preference, I should force myself to as many different positions as possible at my level to improve- and lose quite a lot of them in the process-), not the exact position like systems offer. I've played the Colle Zuckertort and the London for about 2 years and I am convinced that they are the main reason I did not improve fast enough.
Now, I am having quite a hard time playing normal openings because I was too lazy to understand the basic opening principles and just put my pieces to their squares.
After all, if I am a stronger player than my opponent, I will beat him anyway. If he is stronger, then I will learn a decent lesson after the match.
Originally posted by anthias I think I wasn't clear enough. When I said similar positions I meant positions that are usually open or closed (I have no preference, I should force myself to as many different positions as possible at my level to improve- and lose quite a lot of them in the process-), not the exact position like systems offer. I've played the Colle Zuckertort and the London ...[text shortened]... I will beat him anyway. If he is stronger, then I will learn a decent lesson after the match.
I am wondering why a "1700-rated" player does not understand opening principles.
01 May '08 06:53
Selecting an Opening
Back to Top