Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Back to Mainlines

[previous round]

Given that I spend no time studying openings, while the general trend in tournament circles is studying more and more openings, I have a persistent question of what openings to play. Throughout my chess-playing career, I have greatly enjoyed complicated and dynamic games that come out of mainline openings. But these are precisely the openings that are most susceptible to computer analysis, and thus won't bear fruits against the majority of well-prepared players out there now.

Sometimes, I try to avoid the opponent's prep, in order to improve my statistical results. (I have looked at the data, my results are definitely now better outside of mainlines, where they used to be better in mainlines). Other times, I just try to play the most principled moves, as well as I can, which can lead to good games, but also frustrating experiences when the opponent bashes out one move after the next without a thought.

Of course, it would be best to be settling such questions of "what openings do I want to play?" *well* before arriving at an actual tournament. And let's mark that up right now as one of my goals for the L.A. Intl in 2 weeks.

Meanwhile, today, I decided to "go for it," and played a classic old-school mainline of the Winawer. I had not really studied it, but when I checked it out after the game with database and houdini, it seemed that I had found my way correctly.

Shanky played a fine game today with black against Grachev. It followed analysis of his into a marginally worse endgame, which he had evaluated as a fortress. However, during the game, he found he still had a couple problems to figure out, which he did successfully. With that draw, he has 3.5/5, and plays down tomorrow.

I will have black against GM Mazé, who plays a wide variety of openings, and does not appear to rely on opening theory much. So hopefully we get a pretty free-wheeling game.

Meanwhile, in the elite section, another win for Wang Hao built his lead a bit. It's great to see such a nice guy winning so much!

Next round -->

Comments


  • 10 months ago

    ChocolateTeapot

    I would have gone for 34.Ra1+ Kb5, 35.Ra5+ bxa5, 36.Qc5+ Ka4, 37.Qxa5+ Kb3, 38.Qa3+ Kc2, 39.Qa2+ myself. It takes longer, but it is kind of cool to mate your opponent on your own back rank.

  • 10 months ago

    Black__Knight

    Congrats at finding you way through the opening and a well play game, earning yourself the full point. I look forward to hearing some more good news.

  • 10 months ago

    Crazychessplaya

    The moment I went through your game, I thought "Tal-Botvinnik." But which game? The one with the weird rook lift, or some other one? After a brief search, I knew the answer:

    http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1032529&kpage=1#reply11

    Same shift from the kingside play to the queenside play. Must be something about the Winawer in general.

  • 10 months ago

    Gaffneychess

    Nice game David!  Don't study openings too much myself, though mine is because of a 5 year old and a 2 year old, but that's neither here nor there.  Great game!  Sometimes it seems that people bang out the most recent theory and forget to study the "oldies."   Grats!

  • 10 months ago

    Davidjordan

    nice read for me

  • 10 months ago

    jpr1

    I so relate to your general approach!  to be sure, there are pitfalls to not studying openings, but to some degree, it reminds me of the person who memorizes mathematical formulas, vs. the one who is able to derive them himself in the middle of the test.  the latter bespeaks a much deeper understanding of math.  I don't know if the analogy fully holds to chess,  (and at the level I'm at I'm trying to study all aspects of the game :-), but something in your approach very much strikes a chord with me.  thanks!

Back to Top

Post your reply: