11892 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?
Backgammon, Yatzy, and more!
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 like playing the open games with Black because you don't have to worry about space disadvantages or development problems. What I don't like is the theory involved. In a lot of openings like the two knights defence, king's gambit, italian gambit, and Evan's gambit it's easy to lose very early in the opening if you forget a move. I really don't like losing because I don't like memorizing theory.
When I played semi-open games I was not memorizing any theory at all and got out of the openings fine. Even though my play was not accurate I would not lose immediately because of it. I've played things like the dragon, Alekhine's defence, Nimzowich defence, French defence and many others without a clue of what I was doing but I rarely ever lost early in the opening. Of course I would then also be left with problems that I could not solve that led to me losing the middlegame rather easily.
I notice that even my opponents can sometimes be beaten easily because of one move. Here is a game I won easily:
I can see how some people would enjoy this but I don't. I prefer to be dropped into a random position where I have to find tactics on my own. Can this be achieved with the open games?
Apparently, white forgot his theory when playing this line of the scotch gamibit by transposition. I have to say any opening has some theory involved be it little or large. Hence, i came to the conclusion that when i play certain openings, i must be familiar with certain pawn structures and piece positioning and lastly arrive at a favourable position in the middle game.
Yes I agree but a lot of the time in open games tactics tend to override positional points. In openings like the king's gambit White has isolated pawns all over the place but his threats are too strong to do anything about them immediately. So the entire game tends to revove around tactics.
This isn't such a bad thing until you realize that these tactics have been mapped out so far into the middlegame that you have to memorize a bunch of moves or you won't even have a middlegame!
Then you have openings like the sicilian where although opening theory can be a pain, you can still try to play offbeaat things and try to get by on things like piece placement and pawn structure. In the open games it feels like everything is just "attack this, attack that" with nothing to fall back on if you forget something.
I have taken great notice of this also because in most of my games my opponents have opted for the philidor after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 possibly 70% of the time as opposed to 2...Nc6. I like to pay 1.e4 as White but I haven't memorized anything at all and I seem to do ok even in open sicilians.
Maybe u should try the caro kann as black. Its the same type of pawn structure and piece positioning again and again. U wont lose the game if u forgot some theory.
Eventually, if you want to improve to a high level then you will have to learn theory.
But now it would/should be ok to try for openings where theory is not so important.
It's true that the most commonly used open games, being venerable in age and very prone to tactical resolutions, are largely mapped out.
There may however be some areas which are a bit less explored or less clear for your opponents. Here are some suggestions :
I think these should hold enough potential to annoy your opponents OTB, up to a certain level of course.
If you don't want to memorize lines, try learning the position-specific tactics and understanding when they can be applied? You really don't have to memorize lines by rote if you know what the positions look like and why the move-orders are what they are, and this actually helps your chess, while memorizing lines but not the associated tactics will not help.
I don't see why it's a problem for a certain level of tactical knowledge to be necessary in the most tactical openings (double king-pawn and double queen-pawn openings in particular, although there are of course other highly tactical openings) but if you don't like this, there are plenty of lines with less theory you can choose from. I like the Caro-Kann for Black, and I play 1.e4 as White but as White I like to win in the opening, which happens about 50+% of the time against lower-rated players (100% of Sicilians, plus whatever odd opening blunders my opponents try)
12/1/2015 - Kosolapov - Nezhmetdinov, Kazan 1936
by Stugga 5 minutes ago
What's the least amount of moves for a win?
by GMPatzer 10 minutes ago
I'll be a GM!
by hicetnunc 14 minutes ago
how to block someone
by power_2_the_people 17 minutes ago
Can Karpov become world champion again?
by Chief-Mouser 25 minutes ago
Chess VS. GO
by davidklausa 25 minutes ago
want to get insulted for free ?
by Chief-Mouser 30 minutes ago
Podium Prediction Plus (PPP) - "London Chess Classic 2015"
by ponz111 38 minutes ago
If Fischer would played Karpov for the World Champion, who would win?
by SpiritoftheVictory 41 minutes ago
Who Is The Best Players In Chess History
by SmyslovFan 45 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2015 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!