Which openings to learn

Originally posted by Eladar
Nope! Now I'm starting to play 1.f4!

Eventually I'll move over to 1.e4, but for now I'm giving the old Polar Bear a shot.

Here are a couple of my 1.f4 games:

8576079

8541299


I started playing 1.b3 because I believed it to be better than the Colle Zukertort which I played earlier. The b2 bishop is much more useful when the diagonal isn't clogged.

1.f4 eh? I've never tried this or played against it. It seems like after 1.f4 d5 black can get running on the queen side but I assume that white puts a hamper on this with g3 Bg2 and h4 to counter?

Originally posted by Eladar
My point was that opening principles should not shut down your thinking. If your opponent has created a weakness, then abandon your routine of developing your pieces and punish the mistake!

Never shut down your mind and play the board.

I remember when I first started that wing pawn storms used to kick my butt. I tried just doing what I was supposed to I attacked the weakness instead of following a routine, even the opening principles routine.

And my point was that the most principled move will typically punish the unprincipled move automatically. For example:

1.e4, h5 (black starting a wing pawn storm)

What's the most principled answer? 2. d4
What's the move that most punishes 1...a5? Also d4.

Originally posted by savage4731
And my point was that the most principled move will typically punish the unprincipled move automatically. For example:

1.e4, h5 (black starting a wing pawn storm)

What's the most principled answer? 2. d4
What's the move that most punishes 1...a5? Also d4.

I don't know if 2.d4 is the most punishing. I think that after h5 2.b3 is very strong.

There is no principled best move. Playing both of your center pawns two squares forward is very aggressive, which means very sharp, which means you are simply playing an aggressive line. Aggressive lines aren't always best. When you are being aggressive you are going to create weaknesses for yourself which might get exploited.

My favorite line when I play 1.b3 is this: 1.b3 e5 2.Nc6 d5 3.e3 d5 4.Bb5

As for principled opening moves, I think most beginners are told to activate their pieces.

1.e4 opens the diagonals for the queen and f bishop. 1.d4 opens the diagonal for the c bishop and gives the queen two squares to move. 1.d4 isn't as aggressive but is safer than 1.e4.

2.Nf3 and Nc3 develop their knights to the most logical squares and you should always play knights before bishops.

Never move the same piece twice!

I know that these are the basics that I was taught and I see them repeated many times. These ideas didn't do much for me, but I suppose when I was starting very little could. My board vision sucked! I really hated it when my opponent would offer me his knight and when I took it with my queen he'd be sneaky and take my queen with his bishop (sometimes he'd offer the bishop and recapture with his knight). Yes, my board vision was that bad and that you need to see if the piece is supported before taking it. Those sneaky guys kept my rating at FICS near 600 for several months!

Originally posted by tomtom232
1.f4 eh? I've never tried this or played against it. It seems like after 1.f4 d5 black can get running on the queen side but I assume that white puts a hamper on this with g3 Bg2 and h4 to counter?

For every give, there's a take. 1.f4 allows black the queen's side, but you put quite a hold on the e5 square and the king's side.

I am trying to play the Leningrad reversed (WW suggestion for another person in another thread) because I play the KID and the two openings are fairly similar. I like the idea of being able to play the same thing on both sides of the board.

Yes, the bishop on g2 helps to attack black's queen's side, but this is temporarly put in check by playing the knight to f3.

Originally posted by Eladar
I don't know if 2.d4 is the most punishing. I think that after h5 2.b3 is very strong.

There is no principled best move. Playing both of your center pawns two squares forward is very aggressive, which means very sharp, which means you are simply playing an aggressive line. Aggressive lines aren't always best. When you are being aggressive you are going ...[text shortened]... d before taking it. Those sneaky guys kept my rating at FICS near 600 for several months!

No, d4 is undoubtedly both the most principled move and the most punishing. While b3 may offer good (or even better) practical chances, objectively speaking, d4 is the better move.

It is undoubtedly the most principled move because ALL openings revolve around one side trying to control the center and the other side either trying to stop it or counterattacking. If one side gives up the center like that then (to paraphrase Fine) the opening is over because the problem of the opening has been solved. You literally couldn't even make the argument that another move is more principled. If I'm wrong then show me.

It is also the most punishing because it forces black into a position where black will have to spend most of the rest of the game just trying to equalize. Whereas 2.b3 doesn't force black into anything. For example, black can respond with 2.. e5 and still gain an equal share of the center. In fact, black can play any of the defenses that he would normally play against 1. e4 (albeit a tempo down and with a weakened kingside.) With 2.b3 white is still playing for an advantage but with 2.d4 white already has the advantage.

Your problem is that you're confusing your practical results with an opening with the objective results. Just because you've had good results with an opening doesn't mean that opening is objectively good. You also lack a clear understanding of some opening principles- specifically the center and how opening moves relate to the center. It would be very good for your game to switch to a more classical opening for awhile and work on those fundamentals. You can't really understand hyper-modern openings like 1.b3 until you have a very good understanding of classical centers.

There is no way to prove to someone that what he believes to be most principled isn't.

Which is more principled? Modern or Classical? Does an unobstructed bishop on b2 help to control the center?

Your problem is that you're confusing your practical results with an opening with the objective results. Just because you've had good results with an opening doesn't mean that opening is objectively good. You also lack a clear understanding of some opening principles- specifically the center and how opening moves relate to the center. It would be very good for your game to switch to a more classical opening for awhile and work on those fundamentals. You can't really understand hyper-modern openings like 1.b3 until you have a very good understanding of classical centers

Simply playing classical openings will not help my understanding, it will simply lead to mimicking.

Originally posted by Eladar
There is no way to prove to someone that what he believes to be most principled isn't.

Which is more principled? Modern or Classical? Does an unobstructed bishop on b2 help to control the center?

[b]Your problem is that you're confusing your practical results with an opening with the objective results. Just because you've had good results with an open laying classical openings will not help my understanding, it will simply lead to mimicking.

[/b]"There is no way to prove to someone that what he believes to be most principled isn't."

Its not a question of belief. Its objectively provable. After 1.e4, h5 2. d4 white has the best possible center he can have. There's no move that black can play that can change that. With reasonable play from white, white should be able to maintain an advantage for a very long time- if not the rest of the game. There's nothing black can do to change that. If I'm wrong then show me the line. Show me a line where black equalizes easily after 1.e4, h5 2. d4. (If you can find one I'll start playing it as my defense to e4 since even more established openings struggle to equalize. )

By the same token, 2.b3 does NOT do that. Black can play 2...e5 and grab an equal share of the center. It is essentially a double king pawn opening. Black can equalize the same way as long as the extra moves don't come into play. For example, 1.e4.h5 2. b3, e5 3. Bb2, Nc6 4.Bc4, Nf6 5. Nc3 looks equal to me. What moves can white play to gain an advantage? I don't see any.

"Which is more principled? Modern or Classical?"
At one time modern openings were considered completely unprincipled. The rules haven't changed they've only been modified. Classical openings are still considered the most principled. However, modern openings, if they can accomplish the same ends, can be considered as principled. The problem is if someone doesn't understand how to equalize in simple classical openings then hypermodern openings will seem exponentially more complex to them.

Your question is like asking "which is more principled : algebra or calculus? ". Neither is inherently unprincipled. But if someone is trying to learn math you don't start them out with calculus. Calculus builds on Algebra the same way hypermodern builds on classical.

"Does an unobstructed bishop on b2 help to control the center? "
Yes

"Simply playing classical openings will not help my understanding,"
I disagree. I haven't looked at your games, I'm just going by what you said. But, it sounds like you got stuck at one point in your development and instead of overcoming it you just avoided those types of positions. The result is while you may be 1500 or so tactically or in the endgame you're still stuck at 600 in some other areas. While you can improve for a while I think you'll find yourself getting stuck at some point and unable to progress until you understand the ideas that I'm talking about. Tactics can carry you for a long time but at some point you have to start understanding certain fundamentals in order in order to improve.

"it will simply lead to mimicking."
No, what you're doing now is mimicking. To go back to my math analogy- if someone told you they understood calculus and could even answer some calculus problems right occasionally, but that same person couldn't explain basic addition and subtraction and got those problems wrong most of the time what would your thoughts about them be? My guess would be that they were mimicking on the calculus. The analogy is very appropriate since doing calculus isn't very hard but understanding the reasons why are.

Originally posted by savage4731
I was thinking more of something along the lines of the 4.c3 lines. Beginners should learn to play in the center to the point of it being second nature.

In the Italian Game, 4.c3 is less boring that's for sure. But it is a non-center pawn move instead of moving a center pawn or developing a minor piece toward the center.

Originally posted by savage4731
That's a good opening if you want to bore someone to death. What will happen is they'll keeping getting crushed in kingside attacks (the attack against that position is pretty formulaic). So, they'll start playing h3 to prevent the pin (because thats whats starts the attack. ) Then, they'll play a3 because h3 "worked" so well. Then Nd2 to prevent a pin if ...[text shortened]... a hopelessly lost position. They'll lose most of the time . . . So, they give up chess.

You make good points about the pin and h3, which I have fallen prey to myself too many times.

With the Italian quiet game, I suggest to the beginners and explain why to avoid h3 and to not "worry" about the pin, at least not directly. And to not castle too soon. It may not be the best, but I find pleasure in rendering the potential king side attack as trivial, and maintaining the initiative.

Originally posted by savage4731
Beginners should learn to play in the center to the point of it being second nature. That's one the main reason I picked the Vienna gambit. White challenges black's center on move 3.

White could challenge the center with 3.Nf3 instead of 3.f4.

The Vienna gambit is kind of a delayed Kings gambit (which attacks the center even sooner with 2.f4). As black, I always accept the Kings gambit. Influenced by Fischer that way. But obviously I never accept the Vienna gambit. 3 . . . d5 seems to be a refutation of the Vienna gambit.

For white, the Vienna gambit can be fun, and there are many pitfalls for black, especially if black accepts. However, 2.Nf3 seems a more solid principled approach than 2.Nc3 with beginners.

It seems like you are saying in your posts that playing basic classical principles in opening development without a gambit is too boring for white and subjects white to a formulaic king-side attack, and thus the beginner will quit chess.

Originally posted by savage4731
"There is no way to prove to someone that what he believes to be most principled isn't."

Its not a question of belief. Its objectively provable. After 1.e4, h5 2. d4 white has the best possible center he can have. There's no move that black can play that can change that. With reasonable play from white, white should be able to maintain an advantage ...[text shortened]... g calculus isn't very hard but understanding the reasons why are.[/b]

Nice insights.

Originally posted by Eladar
There is no way to prove to someone that what he believes to be most principled isn't.

Principle is overrated, anyway.

In the King's Gambit, Black's most principled third move is g5. It loses, because of 4. h4. Black's best moves are probably Be7 and d6. They win, but they go all against the principle of proving that White has given away a pawn for nothing.
On the other side, after something like the modern defense, the most principled way of action for White would be to launch an all-out attack on the Black kingside with moves like Ne5 followed by Bc4 or Qh5 (or, if possible, Qf3). It's also a very good way to lose the game. By contrast, by taking back the gambit pawn and allowing Black to equalise on both material and development, White stands a chance.

Principle is bunk.

Richard