12893 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
I've often played an unknown line only to discover later (using an E/N/MCO, database etc.) that I've actually been in book a whole lot longer than I thought. Noticed that this happens more in some systems than others where the accurate moves that theory mandates is often less than intuitive. Evidently, these pleasant discoveries have had me adding these lines to my repertoire because I seem to know how to play these positions without having to bury my head in a book.
( Of course, I'm assuming one knows enough about basic opening guidelines and has a decent feel for getting his pieces out harmoniously to begin with. A beginner's "natural looking move" is way different from that of a player with more experience).
Wondering if anyone has or would take a stab at classifying the "easy to play/natural looking" openings from the rest?
I'm guessing that the scholastic coaches recommend the Giuoco piano/Advance French for the very same reason?
Well the most natural openings are probably double king pawn openings. Bishops can mostly get out to good squares and the knights land on c and f 3/6. Logical.
Of course some are more natural than others. I mean, compare the two knight's defence or Italian game to the main lines of the Sveshnikov or anti-moscow gambit for instance. I find the unnatural ones that break the principals of opening theory, like the svesh, are often more fun to play, but also a lot easier to end up in a lost position with if you don't know what you are doing.
I have almost never had this experience (of course, I'm not very good at the openings either).
Really? Maybe I need to do a better job explaining this => I'm merely talking about being an additional 3-4 ply (rarely more!) within theory before either me or my opponent finally deviate. It's just that in these cases, I enter unknown territory (that apparently had theory that I never bothered to look up) and noticed later, when going over the the moves with an opening reference that my attempt to "wing" things were actually book moves.
Wish it happened all the time (works well with my laziness to study :) ) but it just happens in a subset of the openings that I'm currently shopping around/trying out.
It can depend on the person. I find many of the moves in the petroff very natural but ive heard even strong GMs complain that they tried to learn the petroff and found many of the moves unnatural so they skipped over it.
At the same time many openings that other people consider to be natural, like the najdorf sicilian or QGD or something I find are very unnatural and I struggle to find any coherent plans at all (for either side).
I do agree that then there are some openings that are just very natural for pretty much anyone, just as the Italian game.
It would seem obvious that its best to play openings that come natural to you. But fashion can blind people to this. Took me forever to realize that some 'fashionable' openings I used to play simply didnt suit me.
and sure, ive had ideas in openings, and had no idea that there was theory on them, and played 15-20 moves into a main line i never knew existed...
I wouldnt think this is so rare...main lines are the main line for a reason.
@fiveofswords: Precisely! My coach's been trying to wean me away from the usual garbage I'm playing and I'm currently like a kid in a toystore, trying out a bunch of his suggestions => hence this observation + question.
As you put it => I seem to be drawn to the lines that just seem to make more "instantaneous" sense for me when I play them ....regardless of how fashionable they are or aren't.
Yes, some opening lines follow very natural courses longer than others, while many do require moves that a player who doesn't understand the ideas behind those moves would see as odd.
Which is which can vary by individual, though, so you are correct to favor the lines you intuitively can follow the furthest. There are some positions (pawn structures, usually) in which a player feels more comfortable than others, and it is a factor in how you play.
For example, for many years I played the French exclusively, and several variations which at first glance look awful for Black, but knowing how to play the pawn structures through many tournament games played in them, I felt quite at home and had good results.
Well, 3-4 ply is not much at all! I'm sure that happens to me sometimes (and it does feel good) but although if you look at the database I'm sure it would take awhile to get to the point where no masters have played your position (because in this database there are over a million games, so a lot of stuff tried), that doesn't mean opening theory thought those were the best moves or even in the top 2 or 3.
I mean openings like the scandinavian are fairly natural, at least in how it looks, yet if you actually look at the theory it's not just natural moves. Sometimes h3 and g4 is played to break a ...Bg4 pin, sometimes Qe2 is played for some wierd reason, etc. Not that you wouldn't do ok as white by just developing, as long as you had a plan. But yes the basic king pawn openings or openings like the scandi allow natural development, as well as some d4 openings like the colle. I find those openings a little less strategically interesting though, but that's just me.
Queen or Two Rooks
by harryz a few minutes ago
How far should you expect to get after about a year of studying/playing chess?
by DrCheckevertim a few minutes ago
Jailhouse Opening For Pigeons
by flubdub a few minutes ago
How wide is scope of Time Per Move?
by Martin_Stahl a few minutes ago
what the #$%^was he playing and how did he win?
by Jaglavak a few minutes ago
Vishy or Garry?
by Timothy_P a few minutes ago
Tracking albeit censored
by kco a few minutes ago
How to delete groups you've created ?
by bulletheadbilly 7 minutes ago
Can Anyone Become Grandmaster?
by waffllemaster 7 minutes ago
12/7/2013 - 1001 Brilliant ways to Checkmate by Reinfeld, #404
by xray 8 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!