Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Only Chess Forum

Only Chess Forum

  1. 18 Apr '11 19:31
    For a long time now I have been trying to figure out what is the best opening to suit my style and optimize my results. I have only found one that I am really sure about, which is the King's Indian defence, because with black you get a solid position and often you get to attack the white king.

    If you look at some of my games, what style do you think I have and what openings would be best for me?
  2. Standard member Thabtos
    I am become Death
    18 Apr '11 19:37
    Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
    For a long time now I have been trying to figure out what is the best opening to suit my style and optimize my results. I have only found one that I am really sure about, which is the King's Indian defence, because with black you get a solid position and often you get to attack the white king.

    If you look at some of my games, what style do you think I have and what openings would be best for me?
    The King's Indian attack.
  3. 19 Apr '11 16:18
    Originally posted by Thabtos
    The King's Indian attack.
    Good idea, I think I will try that, but what to play against e4?
  4. 19 Apr '11 16:49
    Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboard
    Good idea, I think I will try that, but what to play against e4?
    Pirc or Modern, either can give you something reasonably King's Indian shaped. Pirc will likely do you better as the Modern can go off into distinctively different paths if you let it.
  5. Standard member wargamer66
    Steve B.
    20 Apr '11 03:08
    I would suggest playing classical stuff where you fight directly for the center. Players our level get way over their heads fast with the King's Indian Defense vs players who know more. I tried playing the KID a long time ago, even buying two books on it, and found it was way too much.

    You optimize your results by surviving the opening, something that might be hard to do with the pirc, modern or KID. Higher rated guys like you to try stuff that is very subtle and hard to understand. Playing something like the Queen Gambit Declined and getting all your pieces developed safely might be easier to understand.
  6. Standard member Thabtos
    I am become Death
    20 Apr '11 03:28
    Originally posted by wargamer66
    I would suggest playing classical stuff where you fight directly for the center. Players our level get way over their heads fast with the King's Indian Defense vs players who know more. I tried playing the KID a long time ago, even buying two books on it, and found it was way too much.

    You optimize your results by surviving the opening, something t ...[text shortened]... een Gambit Declined and getting all your pieces developed safely might be easier to understand.
    That's a paradox. The classical defenses maybe simpler conceptually but there is centuries of theory behind a lot of lines, and a lot of that theory is worthless against box analysis. My long term goal us to answer e4 with e5 as well as I play the French...but there is so much damn theory to learn. I tried to play a scotch gambit game in a blitz match with a friend. I was following a Morphy game from 1855. My buddy got his line from Fritz. It was unpleasant.
  7. Standard member nimzo5
    Ronin
    20 Apr '11 12:31
    Originally posted by Thabtos
    That's a paradox. The classical defenses maybe simpler conceptually but there is centuries of theory behind a lot of lines, and a lot of that theory is worthless against box analysis. My long term goal us to answer e4 with e5 as well as I play the French...but there is so much damn theory to learn. I tried to play a scotch gambit game in a blitz match with ...[text shortened]... . I was following a Morphy game from 1855. My buddy got his line from Fritz. It was unpleasant.
    Obviously I agree with Wargamer on this one.

    These days there is a lot of theory in all openings unless you go way off the radar. You can't go in afraid of an opponents opening prep. after all, their rating is their rating if they are that good in the opening then odds are they stink in the middle game or endgame.

    So you played a line in the Scotch and got refuted. Patch up that line and get back out there! The upside to playing mainline stuff is that you can be fairly certain that the opening will hold up to intense scrutiny. A great example is the Ruy, it takes an incredibly strong player to hold their own in the Berlin Wall or the Marshall Attack, I wouldn't worry about a Class A club player railing off 32 moves of theory to hold a theoretical draw down a pawn.

    Club players love to have their home cooked analysis ready, dreaming of getting a quick win, but reality is that they probably can count the times their analysis was decisive on one hand.
  8. Subscriber Paul Leggett
    Chess Librarian
    20 Apr '11 13:08 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by nimzo5
    Obviously I agree with Wargamer on this one.

    These days there is a lot of theory in all openings unless you go way off the radar. You can't go in afraid of an opponents opening prep. after all, their rating is their rating if they are that good in the opening then odds are they stink in the middle game or endgame.

    So you played a line in the Scotch and but reality is that they probably can count the times their analysis was decisive on one hand.
    I have a theory (actual an opinion that I am dressing up with a little presumption) that the classical openings are "classical" because they are relatively straightforward and intuitive.

    When chess theory was still early in development, many strong players (in the absence of computers, databases, websites, or even a large number of books or magazines), worked hard, studied, and concluded that the openings we now call "classical" were the best approach to the game. As understanding of the game grew, the best players gravitated to these openings, especially as their results reinforced their ideas of what worked and what didn't.

    I am a big hypermodern fan, and there is no doubt that the original hypermoderns revised and expanded much of the classical understanding of the game, but the underlying premises of the classical approach were still intact.

    I think there is much to the idea that a person's chess development would benefit from mirroring the development of chess theory as it evolved.

    As a side note, I could really see a path of development that starts with Morphy and progresses through each of the world champions, with a focus on what each contributed to the evolution of the game (Kasparov's My Great Predecessors, but with a more educational slant.) It would also be a fun way to learn.

    Rambling over!
  9. 20 Apr '11 21:59
    Thanks for the feedback everyone, I think I will play king's indian attack with white and french with black. Because the french also has a closed pawn structure like the king's indian.
    I tried the pirc before, but when the opponent plays the austrian attack I just dont like the positions black gets into.