1 edit
Is it good for a player to develope a forte' (IE: great knowledge of king's pawn starts, or great ability to checkmate with rooks)? When coupled with good basic skills, can a player force an opponent into "his game" (IE: making a series of even exchanges to narrow the game down to only rooks, if that player feels he has excellent rook ability)?
-thanks
Originally posted by DanFaggellaNot that I followed it when I started playing,because I didn't know where to start from,but the advice I have ever heard and read from several columns and books is to start to learn the basic endgames first.
Is it good for a player to develope a forte' (IE: great knowledge of king's pawn starts, or great ability to checkmate with rooks)? When coupled with good basic skills, can a player force an opponent into "his game" (IE: making a series of even exchanges to narrow the game down to only rooks, if that player feels he has excellent rook ability)?
-thanks
Obviously is also useful knowing some opening principles but surely not blindly memorizing the first 15 moves of a Yugoslav attack without even knowing what to do after those 15 moves.
As I already said in this forum,check out Dan Heisman's columns which are useful to me and I bet they can be useful to many other beginners reading this forum.
Here's the link to the archives where there are all Heisman's columns wrote on Chesscafe so far,take a look,it's a nice reading and you will surely find answers to your questions.
http://www.chesscafe.com/archives/archives.htm#Novice%20Nook
Originally posted by DanFaggellaYou're new here. Make some moves and read previous posts. All of your questions have been asked and answered in the past.
Is it good for a player to develope a forte' (IE: great knowledge of king's pawn starts, or great ability to checkmate with rooks)? When coupled with good basic skills, can a player force an opponent into "his game" (IE: making a series of even exchanges to narrow the game down to only rooks, if that player feels he has excellent rook ability)?
-thanks
I enjoy it as well, pretty layed back as compared to where my family once lived, Rhode Island.
Also, I really can't find any old threats about making people play YOUR game (IE: If you are good with pawn endings, you can make a bunch of even exchanges and then in the end you will have an advantage because he is now playing a game that YOU are specifically good at).
Can someone comment on this issue? (I don't mean to bug you guys with noobie questions but this one isn't so noobie is it?)
Throw me a bone.
Thanks.
Originally posted by buffalobillWell maybe, but then we'd never get new threads - and each time the debate is started anew there are novel points of view.
You're new here. Make some moves and read previous posts. All of your questions have been asked and answered in the past.
As to the general question - if there are positions you feel comfortable with it makes sense to head for them, but not at the price of messing up your position. If you like rook endgames, and personally I think you're mad to, then swap off by all means as long as it's not going to cost.
Originally posted by DanFaggellaI don't think it is a good idea to DELIBERATELY specialise in one area of the game over another. You need to play every kind of position well to be a good chess player. There are no guarantees that the game will reach a position you like. Look at the Queen's Gambit. In this opening a lot of people think to be very positional there are some very tactical lines.
I enjoy it as well, pretty layed back as compared to where my family once lived, Rhode Island.
Also, I really can't find any old threats about making people play YOUR game (IE: If you are good with pawn endings, you can make a bunch of even exchanges and then in the end you will have an advantage because he is now playing a game that YOU are specifica ...[text shortened]... uys with noobie questions but this one isn't so noobie is it?)
Throw me a bone.
Thanks.
I think that understanding chess is understanding all the little things in it and putting all the little understandings together.
Originally posted by DanFaggellaThe Ruy Lopez Exchange variation is a classic example I used to adopt in the past where the Qs get swapped early and you end up with strategies based on kingside pawn majority of 4 v 3 (which is explained in previous thread(s))
Is it good for a player to develope a forte' (IE: great knowledge of king's pawn starts, or great ability to checkmate with rooks)? When coupled with good basic skills, can a player force an opponent into "his game" (IE: making a series of even exchanges to narrow the game down to only rooks, if that player feels he has excellent rook ability)?
-thanks