Originally posted by kmac27i would say nimzo is really popular higher up, compared to the dutch
The reason I wanted to know what systems were played at the top levels is because why should I spend time learning an opening that will be of no benefit when I reach the higher levels of play?
In general, I would say that the Dutch Stonewall is a good opening up to about 1700 strength-Your opponents will be unlikely to exploit it's positional downsides and it's easy to play aggressively on the k-side if white dithers too much.
From 1700-2000, the King's Indian Defence is very playable, although here there is more theory to learn.
Above 2000, well, everything gets more difficult. I've been very successful with the Czech Benoni up to about 2300 level, but it's not to everyone's tastes. Probably the sharpr Slav lines are more appropriate?!
The Nimzo-Indian isn't particularly aggressive unless white allows it to be at higher levels. Don't waste your time with tricky/trappy replies to 1.d4-you might win some games, but you'll learn/improve very little.
Don't worry about playing something now that won't quite stand up to scrutiny when you reach a higher level. All the openings I've mentioned have been used by top players at some point. Fashion and theory changes, but they're still perfectly reasonable/respectable openings.
Hope this helps.
Andy
2 edits
Originally posted by kmac27most GMs play only openings which minimize the possibility of their opponent getting the (small) edge, regardless of how little possibilities are left for themselves. they're fine with drawing most of their games, if it saves them from losses. that's why I don't think it's that good an idea for an amateur to play 'top level openings'. (we can't hold the 'draws' but yet we get the 'low level of possibilities' part of the bargain.)
The reason I wanted to know what systems were played at the top levels is because why should I spend time learning an opening that will be of no benefit when I reach the higher levels of play?
unless you really like some of their choices of course. but I haven't really seen a top level opening which I felt comfortable with, they all feel so... drawish, in the sense that I described above. they'll never play dragon, KG or even leningrad in large numbers, unless the romantic attacking chess makes a big return, because those openings give the opponent too much chances.
that said, every opening will have it's own typical type of positions, which you will learn to play well. and when you move on to another opening, you'll take that generalized knowlegde with you, and understand better any new position which even remotely resembles the ones you already know how to play. so I think there's no such thing as an opening which "will be of no benefit when I reach the higher levels of play". in fact, I think it'll be a strength.
look at carlsen for example. obviously he must have a lot less experience than his opponents, and yet he seems to play pretty much anything. same with nakamura. neither of them can possibly have had as much time to work on a particular opening as their older opponents, and still they're doing pretty well.
Originally posted by kmac27Just play whatever you enjoy playing. Unless you're 8-10 years old with your current rating, you'll never reach a level high enough to make your opening choice a decisive disadvantage.
The reason I wanted to know what systems were played at the top levels is because why should I spend time learning an opening that will be of no benefit when I reach the higher levels of play?
I'm not being pessimistic or anything, but if you're already on your high teens or low twenties, the odds of you becoming a 2600+ player are pretty low, even with full-time dedication.
Originally posted by Heroic Metoolif five-year-olds were continuously told something similar by their parents, there would be zero teenage masters.
Just play whatever you enjoy playing. Unless you're 8-10 years old with your current rating, you'll never reach a level high enough to make your opening choice a decisive disadvantage.
I'm not being pessimistic or anything, but if you're already on your high teens or low twenties, the odds of you becoming a 2600+ player are pretty low, even with full-time dedication.
1 edit
Originally posted by wormwoodWhat does that have to do with what I said, exactly? 5 is an excellent age to start if you want to become a master.
if five-year-olds were continuously told something similar by their parents, there would be zero teenage masters.
If you're 18 and still on your 1700s, though, you're way too far behind and won't have the time and dedication to catch up with those guys who started at 5. Once you're out of school, you'll have college and work to worry about, while kids will still have all the time in the world to study chess, train and practice with computers.
The fact that there are teenage masters reinforces my point, instead of refuting it.
i have tried 1...g6, ...Bg7 and ..c5 against all that white can play with the exception of b3 and b4, i dunno what it is called but it sure interesting and usually the little pawn on c5 is reclaimable at some point should white decide that he is hungry although sometimes one has to expose ones queen, but its a small price to pay for virtually no theory. but right now wormwood has inspired me to study endgame principles so wish me luck and i will see you when and if i i get back, regards to all - robbie carrobie 😀
Originally posted by Heroic Metoolno matter how good chances the kids would have to make it, they would never make it if they were continuously told they can't make it.
What does that have to do with what I said, exactly? 5 is an excellent age to start if you want to become a master.
If you're 18 and still on your 1700s, though, you're way too far behind and won't have the time and dedication to catch up with those guys who started at 5. Once you're out of school, you'll have college and work to worry about, while ...[text shortened]... rs.
The fact that there are teenage masters reinforces my point, instead of refuting it.
I started chess from zero at age 30, now I'm 1981 here. I don't seem to have any problems in improving so far. but then again, I haven't ever believed in such nonsense as "you can't get good if you don't start as a young child."
not saying that I was aiming to become a GM, because I'm not. I've never put in the amount of work I think it would require. -but like I said, there hasn't been any indication that I can't learn as fast as kids so far. and in fact it seems it's the kids who can't keep up with me.
Originally posted by KatastroofIt is mostly fashion. For example, a lot of GMs are attracted to the Moscow since it was invented in just the last few years and provides very unclear dynamic play in which preparation is key and a lot is unexplored.
I advocate the czech benoni,although I don't think it's played much at the highest level but then I never cared about that 🙂
Never played the KID but I seem to remember hearing or reading it ran into troubles that have yet to be solved.I could be wrong though,maybe it is just currently out of fashion?
There is nothing wrong with the KID. After all Black develops quickly and gains space on the opposite flank where White does not have as much space. Radjabov has proven that even today, the KID is completely viable as a mainstay defense at the highest levels. In fact, filtering to 2600+, the KID scores very well for Black - better than virtually all other defenses including the Nimzo, Grunfeld or Semi-Slav. For example, after 11. Ne5 in the Semi-Slav main line, White nets 63% while after 9. ..a5 in the KID main line, White scores 45.2% from a few dozen games.
One line of the a5 variation:
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Be2 e5 7. O-O Nc6 8. d5
Ne7 9. b4 a5 10. Ba3 (bxa5 holds less danger after Rxa5) b6 11. bxa5 Nh5 12. Re1 f5 13. Bb4 bxa5 14. Ba3
As we know from the many tries against the KID, if the main line with Be2 is not causing Black all that many problems, there is little to worry about objectively. However, the KID is a complicated beast and there is indeed a lot of theory and many moves to deal with. Luckily it's usually still less than the likes of the Grunfeld or Semi-Slav.
5 edits
Originally posted by wormwoodYeah, the Dutch is definitely not bad and a young rapidly rising 2250+ that played at my club used it all the time with phenomenal success. Although, the KID is more flexible and scores better at the 2600+ level (not that anyone really cares). Even if it weren't totally sound at that level, virtually all strong players play many different openings.
I played KID for a while, and even liked it, but it got so easily cramped (my fault of course, but still). then I tried leningrad dutch, and found it has everything I liked about KID, without any of it's drawbacks. they're very similar, and many fischer KID games act as learning material for leningrad. I can't see how someone can claim one is great and the ngrad so much that now I'm playing it with reversed colors as well.
1 edit
Originally posted by wormwoodI'm not telling kids they can't make it. I'm telling a 1700 who is on his high teens (I suppose) that the odds of him reaching 2600 are pretty low and he just shouldn't care about the openings 2600 players play... which is a very sensible thing to say, if you look at the career of people who reach such high levels.
no matter how good chances the kids would have to make it, they would never make it if they were continuously told they can't make it.
I started chess from zero at age 30, now I'm 1981 here. I don't seem to have any problems in improving so far. but then again, I haven't ever believed in such nonsense as "you can't get good if you don't start as a fast as kids so far. and in fact it seems it's the kids who can't keep up with me.
Originally posted by Heroic MetoolI'd say even many kids simply do not have the capacity to reach that level. On the other hand, I suppose if someone was fully dedicated and with an above average intelligence (at least in the parts that help for chess), there are very high chances of becoming a master (2200).
I'm not telling kids they can't make it. I'm telling a 1700 who is on his high teens (I suppose) that the odds of him reaching 2600 are pretty low and he just shouldn't care about the openings 2600 players play... which is a very sensible thing to say, if you look at the career of people who reach such high levels.