My "half-baked" opinion is that at the sub-2000 level (I'm USCF 1819, with a peak rating of 2022) almost all middlegames have the potential to turn into tactical melees. The difference between opening lines is usually a matter of how slow or quickly the tactical melee occurs. In most variations of the Caro-Kann, for example, there aren't a lot of open lines early on, and Black usually has no structual defects, although in many variations he or she is a bit cramped. On the other hand, in the Sicilian (at least the "Open Sicilian": 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6[or ...e6] 3 d4 cd 4 Nd4), lines open up early on that allows for more aggressive piece placements.
I totally agree with the poster who said that "positional" chess is basically a function of tactical considerations. Having a sound pawn-structure and a beautiful knight-outpost on e5 won't do you much good if you miss a three-move combination that makes you lose a bishop.
Originally posted by gaychessplayergreetings oh illustrious gaychessplayer dude, you and i both know that the Robatsch 1...g6, 2...Bg7, 3...c5 is the way to play with black, those 1.d4 players who are looking for an easy life, naturally developing their pieces and accumulating small but significant positional advantages are in for a bumpy ride from the very beginning, and those 1.e4 players are facing a super hyper accelerated Sicilian dragon!, that being said, ive fully come to the realization that i do not like those slow maneuvering pawn games. it has taken a while, the process has been painful, but now i realize!
My "half-baked" opinion is that at the sub-2000 level (I'm USCF 1819, with a peak rating of 2022) almost all middlegames have the potential to turn into tactical melees. The difference between opening lines is usually a matter of how slow or quickly the tactical melee occurs. In most variations of the Caro-Kann, for example, there aren't a lot of op ...[text shortened]... n't do you much good if you miss a three-move combination that makes you lose a bishop.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIn blitz I've been quite successful with the 1...g6, 2...Bg7, 3...c5 setup explained in a CD (or is it a DVD?) by GM Bangiev, but for some stupid reason I usually forget to play that setup, and play something else! I suspect that the reason is that I don't have the Bangiev material or any other book on that system. I DO have two books on the Modern Defense, but they both recommend either 3...d6 or 3...c6, instead of 3...c5.
greetings oh illustrious gaychessplayer dude, you and i both know that the Robatsch 1...g6, 2...Bg7, 3...c5 is the way to play with black, those 1.d4 players who are looking for an easy life, naturally developing their pieces and accumulating small but significant positional advantages are in for a bumpy ride from the very beginning, and those 1.e4 p ...[text shortened]... maneuvering pawn games. it has taken a while, the process has been painful, but now i realize!
Originally posted by gaychessplayeryes, its quite interesting. i think it was yourself who gave the recommendation for one of the books i purchased, David Norwoods, winning with the modern. on page 16/17 he states that the ...c5 advance is the most logical since it works in conjunction with the fianchettoed bishop, thus white could react with dxc5 and there is virtually no way to keep this pawn, after Qa5, or white can push the pawn to d5 giving a benoni type of position. his only reticence about playing an early ..c5 is that after Nc3, cxd4, Nxd4 we are in dragon territory, but hey, its a small price to pay for such fun! but yes normally ..d6 or ..c6 is the way that people have tended to play it. i was wondering if it would work with colors reversed?
In blitz I've been quite successful with the 1...g6, 2...Bg7, 3...c5 setup explained in a CD (or is it a DVD?) by GM Bangiev, but for some stupid reason I usually forget to play that setup, and play something else! I suspect that the reason is that I don't have the Bangiev material or any other book on that system. I DO have two books on the Modern Defense, but they both recommend either 3...d6 or 3...c6, instead of 3...c5.t
me and my friend just found a good refutation for the QG, if black wants to lure white into playing a tactical line.
the albin counter gambit
1. d4 d5
2. c4 e5
i didn't like the huge tactics on this line if im playing white. now ive been thinking of playing the queens gambit slightly differently to aviod albin counter gambit
1. d4 d5
2. Nf3 ?
you can usually transpose back into the QG. is their anything wrong with playing it this way?
Originally posted by Arrakyou might try the Colle, it is similar but more tactical
me and my friend just found a good refutation for the QG, if black wants to lure white into playing a tactical line.
the albin counter gambit
1. d4 d5
2. c4 e5
i didn't like the huge tactics on this line if im playing white. now ive been thinking of playing the queens gambit slightly differently to aviod albin counter gambit
1. d4 d5
2. Nf3 ? ...[text shortened]...
you can usually transpose back into the QG. is their anything wrong with playing it this way?
Originally posted by ArrakIf the Queens Gambit and Petroff work for you then it is not a big concern. I'd suggest trying to learn as much as you can about them. I was advised to "learn some about all openings, and a great deal about the openings I wish to use in competition" 😏
i find that im a better postional player then a tacitical player. for a while i was playing the sicilian but i found it too tactical and always ended up getting into problems. my favorite openings now are the queens gambit as white and the petroff as black. i find these 2 openings maybe less creative but also more postional (also grandmasters would call the ...[text shortened]... concern). would that be a correct assumption?
and what are some other positional openings?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI suspect that most setups that are good for Black should be as good if not better when played as White, since White is a move ahead. Norwood himself almost always played 1 g3 toward the end of his tournament career.
yes, its quite interesting. i think it was yourself who gave the recommendation for one of the books i purchased, David Norwoods, winning with the modern. on page 16/17 he states that the ...c5 advance is the most logical since it works in conjunction with the fianchettoed bishop, thus white could react with dxc5 and there is virtually no way to kee ...[text shortened]... way that people have tended to play it. i was wondering if it would work with colors reversed?
Originally posted by ArrakAfter 1 d4 d5, 2 Nf3 is an excellent move. It is very flexible in that White can usually transpose into a Queen's Gambit if he wants, or s/he can play a Colle System (3 e3 4 Bd3), a London System (3 Bf4) or a Torre Attack (3 Bg5).
1. d4 d5
2. Nf3 ?
you can usually transpose back into the QG. is their anything wrong with playing it this way?[/b]