get two adjacent pawns in the centre, all your opening problems will be greatly reduced. It matters not if they are on f4 and e4, or e4 and d4, or d4 and c4, get two adjacent pawns in the centre and its good under da hood (obviously the converse is true of black, f5 and e5, or e5 and d5, or d5 and c5). Why the post? playing games against slightly weaker players as black i have noticed a real reluctance to fight for the centre, of delaying central pawn moves, the result of which is that blacks gets great positions for almost no risk.
for example take a look at this very recent position, white opens with 1.Nf3 an
excellent choice, why well it prevents an immediate ...e5, black responds in kind with
1...Nf6 preventing an immediate 2.e4 therefore what now are whites options, 2.e4 is
prevented, f4 is blocked by the knight on f3, he is now left with the option of two adjacent
pawns on d4 and c4, instead he plays 2.Nc3, blocking his c4 pawn, black realises this and plays
an immediate 2...d5 preventing any hope of two adjacent pawns on d4 and e4 and
will follow up with a pawn to c5 having two adjacent pawns himself and a larger
share of the centre with a slight advantage only after three moves with no risk
2.Nc3? blocks 2.c4
2...d5 white is prevented from playing e4 and adopting two adjacent centre pawns.
3.d4 ...c5. black has two adjacent central pawns and is in good shape
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRec'd, but it's ironic that you are implicitly recommending the Queen's Gambit, the Scotch, and the King's Gambit, all of which are theoretical as hell.
get two adjacent pawns in the centre, all your opening problems will be greatly reduced. It matters not if they are on f4 and e4, or e4 and d4, or d4 and c4, get two adjacent pawns in the centre and its good under da hood (obviously the converse is true of black, f5 and e5, or e5 and d5, or d5 and c5). Why the post? playing games against slightly ...[text shortened]... central pawn moves, the result of which is that blacks gets great positions for almost no risk.
Originally posted by Thabtoshi Thabtos, not necessarily so my friend for the idea is to be free from theory, for the very same structures may occur in different openings, it therefore becomes more important to recognise the structures rather than the opening.
Rec'd, but it's ironic that you are implicitly recommending the Queen's Gambit, the Scotch, and the King's Gambit, all of which are theoretical as hell.
playing against a GM any opening will be theoretical as hell! Playing against me means getting a centre and waiting for me to fluff it up!
According to Nimzowich; "After playing 1.e4 e5 or 1. d4 d5, either 2. d4 or 2. e4 are always good moves!" (My System, first chapter somewhere)
Originally posted by DeauYeah, I think Robbie basically distilled the first chapter of My System.
According to Nimzowich; "After playing 1.e4 e5 or 1. d4 d5, either 2. d4 or 2. e4 are always good moves!" (My System, first chapter somewhere)
The only addendum would be "after you move the pawns, develop all you pieces."
Originally posted by Thabtosits interesting as I have not read the book, although no doubt other articles that i have read are obviously are influenced by it.
Yeah, I think Robbie basically distilled the first chapter of My System.
The only addendum would be "after you move the pawns, develop all you pieces."
I see the word 'beginners' in the title of the thread.
Yet after 10 posts I see nothing for a beginner but confusion.
"....and Black is in good shape."
Good Intentions Mr Mac but you fall into the same trap that have
caught a lot of modern writers.
They assume the reader is on par with them.
You can see Black is doing OK here and so can others around you.
a Beginner attracted to this thread by the word 'beginners' will look and
only see that White is going to win a pawn with 4.dxc5.
A further explanation is needed as to why Black is in good shape.
I'm not going to do it - it's your thread. 😉
On a personal level I would push them on building a centre (yet).
At that level openings have to take a back seat to the abilty to play and spot tactics,
The keenest and sharpest eye wins, No matter how crude or obvious the trap is,
From this opening quoted (by a simple transition) two examples.
Game 5162365
White has just played 12 Nd4
A typical trap that catches the unwary and worked here.
White spotted the King and Queen on the same diagonal.
Game 2269219
Black has the centre here alright and is 'in good shape.'
He breaks the adjacent pawn duo on d5 & e5 to set a trap using the
d5 pawn as bait.
The trap is sprung and Black wins the exchange.
Black has just played 13...e4!
The final trick based on a simple Queen fork is a bonus.
Originally posted by greenpawn34well I guess that will be that then!
I see the word 'beginners' in the title of the thread.
Yet after 10 posts I see nothing for a beginner but confusion.
[fen]rnbqkb1r/pp2pppp/5n2/2pp4/3P4/2N2N2/PPP1PPPP/R1BQKB1R w KQkq - 0 4[/fen]"....and Black is in good shape."
Good Intentions Mr Mac but you fall into the same trap that have
caught a lot of modern writers.
They assume the re PPP/R1BR2K1 w - - 0 14[/fen]
The final trick based on a simple Queen fork is a bonus.
actually greenpawn i have had some good feedback because of this post, for it
seems to me that we should be thinking about our moves from the very first
instead of aping moves made by Kasparov or Fischer on some database and a
simple strategic goal of two pawns in the centre ( so called flank pawns are included
for they directly influence the centre) would be quite helpful in avoiding all manner
of errors, which i tried to illustrate from a game against a beginner. It is not
enough to say just develop and attack, its too vague, we need something a little
more tangible. Even you yourself follow this principle when you play the Latvian
, two adjacent pawns on e5 and f5. Not only that it seems to me to form a kind of
universal system, so that when we meet unusual openings, we shall not be
surprised but can use strategy to formulate at least a reasoned try.
Take for example 1.f4, white if he could would like to establish two adjacent pawns
on f4 and e4, therefore we try to prevent this, how?, well by guarding the e4
square, we are presented with various moves, ...Nf6, ...d5 or the highly original
...f5, thus from the very first move we are reasoning and formulating a plan, well
ok, some might say why reinvent the wheel, but we need some basis on which to
hinge our thoughts otherwise they dissipate into nothingness and we make pointless
moves.
i really thought you would like the idea because it is anti opening book
memorisation, which itself is not chess , but memorisation.
actually it struck me today that in the opening no one can really prevent us from
advancing our queen pawn, for it is protected, there must be some kind of subtle
significance to this i cannot see at present, like if we are given the chance to advance
our king pawn unhindered, should we not do it! It also occurred to me flank moves like
c4 and ....c5 do not prevent the advance of the queen pawn but merely try to take the
sting out of it, again this must have some subtle significance i am not yet aware of at
present.
"I really thought you would like the idea..."
I do Robbie. Good post.
But you have to take it a bit further on the explanation side.
Loads of people reads these threads, not just the posters.
You say:
" which i tried to illustrate from a game against a beginner. "
I cannot see the game. That is what I thought post lacked.
An example. A complete example. (perhaps two).
My OTB choice of the latvian is three-fold.
It's rare and can often mean I have the lad in unchartered water from move 2!
It's can create some very odd and sharp postions which I have a knack for.
My Latvians rarely (never) go into endings. (and you kniow how I feel about endings.)
Originally posted by greenpawn34the beginner took the pawn on c5, tried to protect it with b4 and left the b4 pawn en prise, its really not that instructive to be honest nor complete, its an uprated game i am playing with a friend.
"I really thought you would like the idea..."
I do Robbie. Good post.
But you have to take it a bit further on the explanation side.
Loads of people reads these threads, not just the posters.
You say:
" which i tried to illustrate from a game against a beginner. "
I cannot see the game. That is what I thought post lacked.
An example. A c nack for.
My Latvians rarely go into endings. (and you kniow how I feel about endings.)