Originally posted by DeadRobotah, an excellent question. i play as white 1.c4, 2.g3 and Bg2 English/Reti and as black i simply reverse it, 1...c5, 2....g7, 3....Bg7, against almost anything. why, because i know absolutely no theory, the moves are a little off beat, they are very flexible and can transpose , even if i lose i can blame it on my opening, they are easy to remember, they lead to tactical games, the plans are very easy to follow, i cannot use pawns properly, but most importantly than all, i will not blindly follow a database game and reach a position where i haven't got a clue how i arrived there, bishops belong on the long diagonal, i l am a poser at heart and like to band around terms like hyper and modern, etc etc etc 🙂
Just wondering what opening you play and for what reason. I'm trying to find an opening that I like and that strays away from e4 or even d4.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieyou shouldn't be running into to many tactics in the Reti-Hypermodern/Dynamic English
ah, an excellent question. i play as white 1.c4, 2.g3 and Bg2 English/Reti and as black i simply reverse it, 1...c5, 2....g7, 3....Bg7, against almost anything. why, because i know absolutely no theory, the moves are a little off beat, they are very flexible and can transpose , even if i lose i can blame it on my opening, they are easy to remember l, i l am a poser at heart and like to band around terms like hyper and modern, etc etc etc 🙂
unless your opponent is grossly understudied. Most motivations should be largely positional
early. It will often play similar to classical Queen's Gambit type games. That said, the
hypermodern school does play pieces in such a way that they have allot of stored energy.
When positional nuances are ignored, their energy can burst open into a beautiful combination of tactics.
1.c4 is a very strong wing opening, which is extremely flexible and attacks "the" central
square. d5, and allows Nc3 early without hampering the play of the c pawn. Although I see
that you want to stay away from 1.d4 and 1.e4 (can't blame you I guess) you should study
the theory behind these ideas. The idea of these pawn moves are important in every
opening, and learning the properties of opening play for the hypermodern school, must be
built upon the knowledge of classical central control.
-GIN
Originally posted by Nowakowskiwhen i finish my Reti book, all will be revealed! however it seems to me, that as my friend Black beetle commented once, its best if we can realize our own strengths and choose our own weaknesses. 🙂
you shouldn't be running into to many tactics in the Reti-Hypermodern/Dynamic English
unless your opponent is grossly understudied. Most motivations should be largely positional
early. It will often play similar to classical Queen's Gambit type games. That said, the
hypermodern school does play pieces in such a way that they have allot of stored ...[text shortened]... ypermodern school, must be
built upon the knowledge of classical central control.
-GIN
Your opening should be designed to get you into a middle
game that suits your style. One you have a 'feel' for.
No opening is 'safe' from gambit play 1.Nf3 g5 game on.
And all sharp known gambits have 'quiet' lines.
Knowledge of opening theory is a must at 2200+ level when players
are good enough to nurse a small opening plus through a middle
game and perhaps into an ending.
At our level we blow any plus we picked up from the opening
with a few inexact moves - not blunders, but not the best moves.
Our job in the opening is first to survive it - get the bits out!
and then steer it into a middle game where we have an inkling what is going on.
To answer the original question.
As White I play 1.e4 (Black calls the shots as to the type of game
that then follows.)
As Black I play anything that does allow a sysmetrical pawn structure.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHow are those games tactical? I play the same English opening because I am tactically deficient. It usually plays out like WW I trench warfare middle game, and just looking for a botched plan and an undefended piece/pawn.
ah, an excellent question. i play as white 1.c4, 2.g3 and Bg2 English/Reti and as black i simply reverse it, 1...c5, 2....g7, 3....Bg7, against almost anything. why, because i know absolutely no theory, the moves are a little off beat, they are very flexible and can transpose , even if i lose i can blame it on my opening, they are easy to remember ...[text shortened]... l, i l am a poser at heart and like to band around terms like hyper and modern, etc etc etc 🙂
Originally posted by cheshirecatstevensThat was the basic premise to why I began opening with one c4. That and a love of
How are those games tactical? I play the same English opening because I am tactically deficient. It usually plays out like WW I trench warfare middle game, and just looking for a botched plan and an undefended piece/pawn.
hypermodern play. However, I found out very quickly that it would not be of any use if I had
absolutely no tactical abilities. All the positional knowledge in the world will only get you to a
great spot, that you'll be unable to take advantage of.
I won't steer you away from any opening, because they're all stable enough at lower levels,
however, I'd not advise forgetting about tactics with the hope of winning with some positional
depth.
play e4 or "even" d4. ahaha is d4 even so weird?
I play d4, because I like positional analysis. usually playing g3, sometimes gambitting my c4 pawn; to get funny positional games!
As black I play the sicilian, most of the time the Sveshnikov, because it does not look like other sicilians; and it is a very counterintuitive opening; in which your weaknesses seem obvious, but still you can play.
I also play the English with advanced fianchetto: 1.c4 2.g3. Tend to start out more positional but can lead to tactical games. Many good, clear plans are available. I felt that I'm more comfortable and it's not a theory laden opening. I started playing 1.e4, and thought I like it, 1.c4 is more to my liking and I'm able to stare the game more into positions of my liking.
As black, the caro-kann vs 1.e4 (1.e4 c6) and slav vs 1.d4 (1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6). Similar positions, but two distinct openings. Both solid and sound.
Experiment with different openings, play lots of games, and see what kind of positions and games you like playing. Go over annotated master games with the openings you choose. Analyze your games and have fun! One piece of advice, when you do pick out some openings, play them constantly. Don't play different openings all the time. This will help you learn the intricacies of the opening more than any book will. Then after some time if you do change you have a good reason to and be able to better choose an opening for yourself because you'll clearly see what you didn't like before. Basically, if you stick to certain openings for a while and anlayze your games, you will learn "chess." It will all make more sense as you go on.
Originally posted by greenpawn34Greenpawn34:
Your opening should be designed to get [b]you into a middle
game that suits your style. One you have a 'feel' for.
No opening is 'safe' from gambit play 1.Nf3 g5 game on.
And all sharp known gambits have 'quiet' lines.
Knowledge of opening theory is a must at 2200+ level when players
are good enough to nurse a small opening plus through ...[text shortened]... t then follows.)
As Black I play anything that does allow a sysmetrical pawn structure.[/b]
Have you got any examples of games where 1. Nf3 g5 was actually played? I'd like to see that gambit in action.
Originally posted by dkurthhttp://www.chesslive.de/
Greenpawn34:
Have you got any examples of games where 1. Nf3 g5 was actually played? I'd like to see that gambit in action.
That online database has 46 such games.
I play 1.e4 because that's how I started out and I never changed.
Am thinking of trying out the english though.many seem to like it,it seems interesting and there's not too much theory to work through.
I picked up the English as white when I first started playing OTB because it was easy to understand and Tony Kosten's "The Dynamic English" provided a one stop shop to a decent position as white. Also, no one below 2000 knows any english theory at all (at least in the area I play).
I picked up the french because I was so impressed with Ari Ziegler's repertoire DVD for chessbase. Again, no one around my area knows any of the dangerous tries against the french so I've had good results.
The Benko Gambit was the first queen's pawn opening I learned properly. Someone mentioned it on a chess forum as being one of the most respected gambits, I looked it up and I really liked black's position in the accepted variation. I bought an Andrew Martin repertoire DVD and that was that.
Lately I've been trying to branch out a bit more in my opening choices as I play stronger and stronger players over the board. All of the 2000+ players in my club have extremely weak opening knowledge in comparison to the rest of their game. I've decided I'm going to start playing sharper, more theoretical openings in hopes of taking advantage of that.
Originally posted by ericmittensI have Aris French defense DVD also, its awesome, especially the line against the Kings Indian attack, the one, not in the base! 😉 but alas the French is not for me, although i learned a lot of excellent concepts from that DVD.
I picked up the English as white when I first started playing OTB because it was easy to understand and Tony Kosten's "The Dynamic English" provided a one stop shop to a decent position as white. Also, no one below 2000 knows any english theory at all (at least in the area I play).
I picked up the french because I was so impressed with Ari Ziegler's r ...[text shortened]... start playing sharper, more theoretical openings in hopes of taking advantage of that.