1. Fianchetto their bishop when they have no clue how to deal with an edge pawn rush?
2. Memorise opening lines and then fall into opening traps in their pet openings?
3. Memorise opening lines?
4. Worry about their rating when they are rated below 2600?
5. Refuse to develop their pieces with a purpose?
Originally posted by MISTER CHESS1) They can't deal with it anyway, so might as well Fianchetto.
1. Fianchetto their bishop when they have no clue how to deal with an edge pawn rush?
2. Memorise opening lines and then fall into opening traps in their pet openings?
3. Memorise opening lines?
4. Worry about their rating when they are rated below 2600?
5. Refuse to develop their pieces with a purpose?
2) They missed that line.
3) Trying to avoid 2).
4) Because rating is a measure of how you are performing, and if yours is lower than all your friends, they might start thinking that you suck, at least compared to them.
5) Development is a purpose. They might be missing a higher purpose, but hey, that's what makes this game difficult.
08 Oct 13
Originally posted by MISTER CHESSmemorising opening lines is important, people say its not, but it is. What they should say is that memorising opening lines without understanding is bad. some openings are just so tricky that if you don't know what you are about, you will suffer!
1. Fianchetto their bishop when they have no clue how to deal with an edge pawn rush?
2. Memorise opening lines and then fall into opening traps in their pet openings?
3. Memorise opening lines?
4. Worry about their rating when they are rated below 2600?
5. Refuse to develop their pieces with a purpose?
08 Oct 13
Originally posted by MISTER CHESS#1 maybe because they themselves had a hard time against it and decided to adopt the same strategy...or they want to see how to deal with it next time they play against it? That or it just looks cool.
1. Fianchetto their bishop when they have no clue how to deal with an edge pawn rush?
2. Memorise opening lines and then fall into opening traps in their pet openings?
3. Memorise opening lines?
4. Worry about their rating when they are rated below 2600?
5. Refuse to develop their pieces with a purpose?
#2 because they rely too much on memorization and not the understanding of the ideas behind the opening
#3 to compete in tournaments
#4 only until they realize they will never be 2600, which is usually just after a few tournaments or games
#5 They don't refuse. They just don't understand concepts of development, mobility, center control, etc. That will come with experience for most.
09 Oct 13
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo. Memorise the patterns just like every other aspect of chess. Then you can transpose into positions you know from any opening.
memorising opening lines is important, people say its not, but it is. What they should say is that memorising opening lines without understanding is bad. some openings are just so tricky that if you don't know what you are about, you will suffer!
IMO treating the game as three separate phases is the worst thing you can do.
09 Oct 13
2 edits
Originally posted by MISTER CHESSnah dude, i don't believe it, GM's play up until the twentieth move almost entirely on memory,
No. Memorise the patterns just like every other aspect of chess. Then you can transpose into positions you know from any opening.
IMO treating the game as three separate phases is the worst thing you can do.
Irina Krush writes after this game (she was black)
I was paired with the top seed, Evgeni Alekseev in round three. I played rather naively in the opening, took a dangerous pawn, ran into his computer-assisted knowledge of the line, and was crushed very aesthetically.
'computer assisted knowledge', in other words my illustrious friend, Mr Alekssev was playing from, you got it, memory!
09 Oct 13
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieEh, that comment is just sore losing. She called her own opening 'naive' and I'm betting she didn't need a computer to figure that out. I'm sure the GM was thinking the same thing. And the GM isn't spending prep time on lines that assume the opponent will blunder.
nah dude, i don't believe it, GM's play up until the twentieth move almost entirely on memory,
[pgn] 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.Bb5+ Nd7 4.d4 Ngf6 5.O-O Nxe4 6.Re1 Nef6 7.dxc5 dxc5 8.Ng5 e6 9.Nc3 Be7 10.Qe2 a6 11.Nxf7 Kxf7 12.Qxe6+ Kf8 13.Bc4 Qe8 14.Bf4 Nb8 15.Qd6 Nc6 16.Rxe7 Qxe7 17.Re1 Ne8 18.Qd1 Qf6 19.Nd5 Qg6 20.Nc7 Bg4 21.Qd5 Rd8 22.Qxc5+ Nd6 23.Bxd ...[text shortened]... wledge', in other words my illustrious friend, Mr Alekssev was playing from, you got it, memory!
09 Oct 13
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitDude, you got to believe in me! and Miss Krush! look at her full statement she says she was undone in a beautiful way, that's not the comment of a sore loser, she must have gone over the game and the GM divulged to her that she played into a prepared computer line after ...Nxe4
Eh, that comment is just sore losing. She called her own opening 'naive' and I'm betting she didn't need a computer to figure that out. I'm sure the GM was thinking the same thing. And the GM isn't spending prep time on lines that assume the opponent will blunder.
09 Oct 13
4 edits
Hi Robbie.
" Mr Alekssev was playing from, you got it, memory!"
A little bit of home prep that was all.
The game you posted was played in 2013. But in 1999 in the same position as Black:
H. Akopyan - I Krush San Francisco 1999
Irena took the same 'naive pawn' 5...Nxe4 and won!
If Alekseev did reveal in the post game analysis it was a prep'd line
It would have been to get her into a certain position and he would take over.
players graded 2700+ are not too bad at playing such positions.
All he required was this very difficult Black position to handle and her ticking clock.
His box may have even told him he was OK. That was all he he needed.
(What were the times taken - according to you Alekseev used what...5 minutes?)
If as you suggest he memorised all his computer analysis she too would
have to play exact computer moves.
I've not even looked but I know that will not be the case.
So if we take a wee look at this line where Irana naively took the pawn
and perhaps inspired by the forgotten game, Bakian - Degraeve, Belguim 1997.
Maybe there is fertile fishing grounds with sacs on e6/f7 knocking about.
When good players are noting up their losses read the white stuff as
well as the black. (look in between the lines.)
09 Oct 13
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI don't believe 'in' her, dude. Sometimes the sorest comments are cloaked in polite platitudes. The 'aesthetically' bit could have even been sarcastic.
Dude, you got to believe in me! and Miss Krush! look at her full statement she says she was undone in a beautiful way, that's not the comment of a sore loser, she must have gone over the game and the GM divulged to her that she played into a prepared computer line after ...Nxe4
09 Oct 13
Originally posted by greenpawn34Its possible GP but there are enough comments by top players for us mere mortals to know that memory plays a huge part. Fischer on his way back from Japan stated as much, plus there are some openings that if you play you simply need to know, probably the sharper they get, the more you need.
Hi Robbie.
" Mr Alekssev was playing from, you got it, memory!"
A little bit of home prep that was all.
The game you posted was played in 2013. But in 1999 in the same position as Black:
H. Akopyan - I Krush San Francisco 1999
[fen]r1bqkb1r/pp1npppp/3p1n2/1Bp5/3PP3/5N2/PPP2PPP/RNBQ1RK1 b kq d3 0 5[/fen]
Irena took the same 'naive pawn' 5. ...[text shortened]... noting up their losses read the white stuff as
well as the black. (look in between the lines.)
For example, lets say you found yourself on the black side of the two knights (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 and all you could remember was up to move 5, you wouldn't know about the strange looking or correct gambit, 5...Na5! 6.Bb5+ and c6! Instead you would rely on logic and reason and play 5...Nxd5 or 5...Na5/Bd7?! and your lack of memory would punish you!