Originally posted by GammastyleNo clue
Game 2255766
I think I've solved chess! 😀 I mean c'mon he played perfectly and couldn't stop me!
*EDIT* How do you link games in your posts?
Game 2255766
The opening sucks and that's all there really is to it. It sucks so completely that even White is at a disadvantage when using it. I've analyzed it with strong engines (not CM like the author) and there is always a significant disadvantage. In fact, the disadvantage is larg enough that I'm certain you would get a better game following good opening principles without knowing any theory.
Furthermore, this is the wrong kind of opening for a beginner. Beginners will lose more and also get bored with chess. This opening is for the most part closed and requires precise positional understanding in order to just stay in the game. To have this kind of positional understanding, one needs good tactical skills. However, this is exactly what beginners lack! This isn't an opening that will make them any better. Moreover, the positional nature of this opening makes it "slow" and most beginners find these kinds of games boring. In the end, it is simply a turnoff for chess.
If you must have a "system" for White rather than just simple and logical moves, I suggest the King's Indian attack. For black, you can try the Pirc. While both are vastly better than the opening presented, they are still positional and quite complex. I still recommend against such an approach, particularly for black.
Originally posted by exigentskyI thumb my nose at your analysis. Why is slow bad? I like slow closed games. Maybe a beginner would also. Maybe your high flying tactical onslaughts are what turn off beginners. They never have a chance. At least in a slow game, they have time to see a plan develop and learn from that. It's not the best opening and I've never said it was. Whatever the engines say about an opening doesn't really matter much anyway. They suck at the openings. Thats why they have to have a book programed in. The only real criteria for an opening to be viable is that is isn't losing by force. Other than that, it is just as good as anything else. As of yet, no one has shown it to be losing by force. Therefore, it is just as good as 1.e4 until otherwise proven.
The opening sucks and that's all there really is to it. It sucks so completely that even White is at a disadvantage when using it. I've analyzed it with strong engines (not CM like the author) and there is always a significant disadvantage. In fact, the disadvantage is larg enough that I'm certain you would get a better game following good opening princip ...[text shortened]... and quite complex. I still recommend against such an approach, particularly for black.
Originally posted by GammastyleI never said slow was bad. However, positional chess is an extension of tactical chess. Positional moves prevent unfavorable tactics or set the possibility for them. To have a solid positional understanding, tactics must be mastered. It doesn't make sense to start with positional chess. It's like trying to learn Calculus before you learned Algebra.
I thumb my nose at your analysis. Why is slow bad? I like slow closed games. Maybe a beginner would also. Maybe your high flying tactical onslaughts are what turn off beginners. They never have a chance. At least in a slow game, they have time to see a plan develop and learn from that. It's not the best opening and I've never said it was. Whatever ...[text shortened]... own it to be losing by force. Therefore, it is just as good as 1.e4 until otherwise proven.
Maybe beginners would like slow games? Sure. Maybe. But somehow, I doubt it. Positional chess often bores even those who understand it. Imagine how bored a clueless beginner would be.
Also, I think beginners would have a better chance in a more conventional game than they would in this opening. For a person who only knows arithmetic, what do you think would be easier for them, Calculus or Algebra? I think they will play better if they start with the basics and tactics are the building blocks of chess. I've seen beginners play offbeat closed openings against me and it's never pretty. They last longer, but past the tenth move, they start making stupid moves and get a far worse position. A position in which they slowly suffocate without having a chance. I've found beginners playing more conventional openings to offer me a greater challenge.
And I don't think it's fair to say any opening is as good as e4 until proven otherwise. e4 has been time tested at all levels of play. This opening has been tested for less than a year exclusively against Chessmaster. The burden of proof lies on this opening to prove itself and it is illogical to consider it an equal until it has done so.
Originally posted by GammastyleGame 2255766
Game 2255766
I think I've solved chess! 😀 I mean c'mon he played perfectly and couldn't stop me!
*EDIT* How do you link games in your posts?
Reply and quote to this to see how.
Originally posted by exigentskyPositional chess isn't some big mystery that no beginner can possibly understand. Yes you should study tactics first, but some understanding of positional matters can be had by just about everbody. Maybe not complete mastery of positional chess, but a lot more accessable than calculus is to those without algebra. And keep in mind that you learn calculus before you are done with algebra (Linear Algebra, Group Theory, and Ring Theory for example).
I never said slow was bad. However, positional chess is an extension of tactical chess. Positional moves prevent unfavorable tactics or set the possibility for them. To have a solid positional understanding, tactics must be mastered. It doesn't make sense to start with positional chess. It's like trying to learn Calculus before you learned Algebra.
May ...[text shortened]... opening to prove itself and it is illogical to consider it an equal until it has done so.
However I will agree with you that lots of people, beginners and otherwise, will hate the slowness here. There are slow games, and then there is this opening which seems almost glacial.
And I agree that the passiveness will kill this opening. As you seem to be saying, there doesn't need to be (and probably isn't) a forced tactical win in this opening. That does not make it good because White will just do what he wants and a decent player will suffocate you as you waste all your time on pointless pawn moves.
My advice to the guy who started this thread, don't use a system, the only reason it works against everything is that it doesn't do anything. Just play off basic opening principals and make it up as you go along, you will have much better results and end up with a much better chance at attack in the middle game than with this worthless system.
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowPositional chess comes with tactics. Case and point I just played a very positional game on Playchess and got a draw out of it (I probably had the better position though) against an opponent rated much higher than myself. Did I get this because he doesn't know positional chess and I do? No, because I don't 😛, I do know some tactics (still working on them, as always) and through this I was able to get myself an even game with a very satisfactory position. (3 advanced pawns, and probably would have won if I hadn't dropped a pawn :/). Basically, study your tactics, they help much more than you will believe.
Positional chess isn't some big mystery that no beginner can possibly understand. Yes you should study tactics first, but some understanding of positional matters can be had by just about everbody. Maybe not complete mastery of positional chess, but a lot more accessable than calculus is to those without algebra. And keep in mind that you learn calc ...[text shortened]... up with a much better chance at attack in the middle game than with this worthless system.
Thanks everyone for your input. I just wanted to see if the players on here were more open minded than the other sights that just bashed an idea because "Kasparov hasn't played it so it must be bad." The opening is weak, I am the first to admit it, but it isn't "losing" in the sense that it has been refuted. It doesn't provide any real chance other than it allows you to see where your opponent has overcommitted and exploit it. Against a strong player that doesn't allow those sorts of openings, it will probably lose. For someone that wants to go on to bigger and better things, this is probably not an opening you want to use above say the 1600 level on RHP. However, for the patzer that doesn't really care about ratings and just wants to enjoy a nice long positional game for the fun of it, I think it has some merit. Also, from the games I've played on here with it, I've noticed that people get really flustered by it and try to stay in their book when the position calls for a different move. If I ever got to the point where I wanted to really make a push on my rating, I would probably have to study a more traditional opening again. But, until I stop playing poker, I don't think I will have that kind of commitment to the game.
Originally posted by TommyCI saw a book by i think GM Andrew Soltis on the Hippopotamaus at my local chess center.
This is the Hippopotamaus then. It's alright. But if you only occupy three rows of the four in your half, you can barely expect to have an advantage or fight for the initiative. Also you leave central pawn structure up to your opponent, whom might therefore be able to cancel out one of your bishops (eg the b2 one if you are white, by c5, e5, d5-d4, etc.) Then ...[text shortened]... Nbd2) etc, or variations upon that theme. The "Boring Systems" they are sometimes known as.
Originally posted by GammastyleThe problem is that it is unlikely that black can equalize, or even come close unless white plays ridiculously passively. White will build up a big spacial advantage quite quickly, and I doubt that the c5/f5 pawn breaks are going to slow him down much. The problem with this opening is that you'll just end up defending difficult positions in the hope that white overextends.
Thanks everyone for your input. I just wanted to see if the players on here were more open minded than the other sights that just bashed an idea because "Kasparov hasn't played it so it must be bad." The opening is weak, I am the first to admit it, but it isn't "losing" in the sense that it has been refuted. It doesn't provide any real chance other tha ...[text shortened]... I stop playing poker, I don't think I will have that kind of commitment to the game.
It is easier to find moves if you have the initiative, so try to play actively in the opening and go for immeadiate central occupation with 1. e4 e5 and learn to cope with the complications you get in the opening phase. You'll go wrong and lose a lot of games due to oversights, but you won't be stuck in a dreadful cramped position where you have no good moves. Basically I think beginners are more likely to be put off chess by the opening you've described as black gets no play, rather than a more standard approach where at least they'll have something to do.
Two things struck me as wrong while reading the gameknot forum.
First all the games in the book are played against chessmaster. First off while the computer may have a master level rating, it is well known that computers weaknesses are against these sort of unagressive, passive, closed positional games. As an extension of this, while they may have an equivalent playing strength, computers play differntly than humans. If you must play an engine, Rybka or a more human like engine would be preferable. Go to a local chess club and play it against your standard amatuer and see how it fares. It may be possible that memorizing openings is so prevalent nowadays that you will fluster many people.
Second, and more importantly it violates the most basic opening goal, to control the center. Sure you are playing hypermodern chess and using the bishops for control, but it's just so slow that I doubt you could have much success with it against class C players.
I've been experimenting with it and so far it has been positive. I am 8-1 so far and out of the six games I'm playing I think 4 are clearly winning with 2 just starting (please no comments on these games). Is this a justification of the opening or am I just outplaying them in the middlegame. They are continuing to drop pawns and hang pieces against me. Maybe I am not playing a high enough level to judge it. If anyone can comment on the games already concluded with it, that would be great. Right now, I am leaning towards crappy opposition play as opposed to the opening being strong.
Just because you win many games with an opening that virtually no one has seen before does not mean it is a good opening. Try to see how you like the opening after leaving Rybka 2.1 to ponder the best response to the opening for at least a day. Continue to do this up until about 10 moves deep. If you're still satisfied with the position, keep using it.