15132 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!
against 3.Bg5 whats wrong with ... f6
A fair point, but I would argue that whilst hypermodernism was brought to prominence 90 or so years ago (1920s I think) it was known about before then, AND, I would also argue that that was fairly early on in the real serious development of opening theory. The rules of chess as we know them weren't even finalised until the 19th century I think. Also, back then there only a handful of skilled players, working without computers. Nowadays I think there are over 1000 GMs alone in the world, with high-powered computers, and no-one has come up with anything as revolutionary as hypermodernism in the last, say, 20 years. I'm not an expert on chess history though.
Maybe I lack imagination here, but I just can't see any major area that hasn't at least been touched upon and analysed a bit. Stuff will go in and out of fashion, but the creation of a new "main" opening? I just can't see it. It's like trying to imagine a completely new colour (have you ever tried that one? )
If I wasn't clear enough the first time, I'm willing to analyze any opening, given a line. (That said, suggestions involving immediate major positional and/or tactical blunders don't count.) If you have forgotten, I actually took hours of my own time analyzing what originated the opening that you posted, making real suggestions while most people visited just for the giggles. In fact, I recieved not one, but two personal messages telling me that I was wasting my time trying to debate what most immediately rejected as trash without explaining why in your thread.
I analyzed what later was termed the 'Waite-Harrison Attack' for a number of reasons. First, for selfish reasons, I personally never recalled playing 1. d4 d5 games in my life, so I thought that analyzing it would be healthy for my chess. Second, that opening began with reasonable moves that abided by the opening principles and didn't lead to an immediate positional compromise. Third, tangible lines were offered, and healthy discussion eventually arose. Frankly, I learned a bit myself about the process of preparing an opening by participating in the discussion.
As for the Ruy Lopez, I don't think it was founded by a beginner. No offense intended--I don't think any opening I'd be able to 'come up with' would be sound, either. Why? As many good players have hinted at, it's because we novices have lots of holes in our understanding of the middlegame, much less the endgame. It's often said that playing a good opening stems from being able to play a good middlegame, which stems from having a solid endgame. It makes perfect sense, since the opening is supposed to lead into the middlegame, and that without a good middlegame, who is anyone to say that the opening is good? On top of that, sub-2000 players (obviously including myself) make tactical errors all the time. Perhaps we can spot a good idea from time to time, but coming up with a new opening, including all of the positional and subtly tactical nuances is practically impossible for someone of our level.
I saw an online database that had 80 games listed that started with 1.e4 e6 2.d4 Ne7. 60% won by white, 26% won by black.
Actually, I have but one question to ask the OP.
How come, in over a thousand years of play, you can find an improved variation of an opening that has been known for at least a century? Even better, this variation arises from a seperate opening that has been known for more than a century.
So you're basically turning a hundred years of theory on the most popular openings in the world on its ear, breaking opening principles and conventional chess wisdom in the process, and all with (most likely) a free chess engine available in five seconds with google and a laptop?
1) on the plus side at least the original poster is trying to think for himself. That is always good,... but
2) saying it is an improved version of the king's indian is a bit well just wrong. If it was improved GMs would play it that way since their paycheck is earned by winning tournaments.
3) the knight on e7 has several drawbacks as well, the bishop on c8 is blocked and it could be needed to pin/trade the knight on f3 depending on how white reacts. the knight on f6 also pressures e4 which forces white to play some certain moves to defend it. which is now lacking. the knight will also have to move again to become active (in the Kings indian Ng4 and Nh4 are sometimes necessary. Also it helps to defend h4-h5 attacks.
here are two games played by masters with your idea of playing for g6 etc.
keep thinking orgiginally but back it up with facts. I think some people might have taken offense with your WHAM comment and saying that it is improved version of something that has been studied by the best players ever (kasparov and fischer to name just two) is a bit hmm well you know..
What can you think for yourself if you lack even the basic understanding on a subject?You can't even cook.
Knowing Khalifman's thoroughness, I looked up the oddities section in Vol.5 of "Opening for White According to Anand." (p.246.)
Sure enough 1. e4 e6 2.d4 Ne7?! has been played before e.g. 3. Nc3 g6 4. h4 Bg7 5. h5 d5 6. h6 Bf8 7. Bg5 +/- (Fischer - Codman, Boston 1964).
Khalifman notes: "...his knight on e7 is so misplaced, since it hampers the development of his kingside, that his chances to equalise are just superficial."
So , Khalifman doesn't talk for an "improved King's Idian defense".
What a surprise!!!
You can reward the idea of challenging the norm. It is a good thing to encourage in a new player. My point was to 1) encourage thinking originally 2) to challenge your ideas with facts and study.
a lot like scientific methodolgy ;)
Would you go to a doctor that never studied medicine but thinks originally?Would you encourage him to continue "thinking originally" or study first.Is it possible that whatever treatment he thinks he discovered to be completely wrong because of the total lack of knowledge of human physiology?
In every field of science you should first study and then do research.
Isn't that scientific methodology?
that comparison is flawed (there is an offical term but i forget it right now). Doctors practice involves the health of a person, a mistake results in a problem for another person and thusly is limited. Chess is a game so your comparison is flawed. You can be passive or active in your study.
Chess is ideally suited for experimentation. Exploration through play is part of the human experience as long as it is appropriate. To experiment in a specific setting where the result of a failure doesnt cause any harm is and should be encouraged. I find that directed experimentation results in greater benefits. If the poster studied his line/idea and examined the pluses and minuses in it he would benefit greatly. His long term progress will be very good with his attitude to challenge and explore while keeping in mind to be critical of his own ideas and not just others.
The example was to emphasize the need for study.While it is well known in every science , (even cooking) that you have to first study and then research , in chess we think we can do it the other way around.
The result is that you encourage someone that has to study , to continue doing useless and worthless opening research that actually hinders his improvement.
A medicine student can't understand the results of a medical research before acquiring knowledge , chessplayers also need knowledge to be able to understand any kind of "research".
Right now only thing you do is encourage his confusion , not his improvement.
A simple fact.Find me one beginner's thread that "experiments" with middle game or endgame.Why all beginners experiment only with opening?
I would love to see a beginner analysing a good game and trying to find better moves than those played.No one does.Do you know why?Because that is tough , experimenting with openings is the easy solution.
That is what you encourage.
Well, I wrote this thread like, 3/4 months ago so I sucked back then...
Now I know its not losing, but still inferior...
But does anyone have a line against it (for curiousity)
And does anyone know any good middlegame books for about 1300-1400 level players?
Thanks to everyone for showing me why it sucked.
BTW: When I said Wham, I meant it as in it would surprise people, not offend them in anyway.
Here's my personal list of middlegame books to get plus books I have. Many were taken from suggestions on chess.com, in other threads.
1001 Brilliant Chess Sacrifices and Combinations - Fred Reinfeld
Can You Be a Positional Chess Genius - Angus Dunnington
Chess Strategy in Action - John Watson
Chess Tactics For Advanced Players - Yuri Averbakh
Complete Chess Strategy 1 (First Principles of the Middle Game) - Ludek Pachman
Complete Chess Strategy 2 (Principles of Pawn Play and the Center) - Ludek Pachman
Complete Chess Strategy 3 (Play on the Wings) - Ludek Pachman
Dynamic Pawn Play in Chess - Marovic
Grandmaster Chess Move by Move - John Nunn
How to Reassess Your Chess - Jeremy Silman
Improve Your Chess Now - Jonathan Tisdall
Judgment and Planning in Chess - Euwe
Lasker's Manual of Chess - Emanuel Lasker
Middlegame Planning - Romanovsky
Modern Chess Stategy - Ludek Pachman
My 60 Memorable Games - Bobby Fischer
My System - Aron Nimzowitsch
New Ideas in Chess - Larry Evans
Pawn Power in Chess - Hans Kmoch
Pawn Structure Chess - Andrew Soltis
Planning in Chess - Janos Flesch
Positional Ideas in Chess - John Love
Secret of Grandmaster Play - John Nunn & Peter Griffiths
Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy - John Watson
Secrets Of Practical Chess - John Nunn
Tactics in the French - Gennardy Nesis
The Art of Attack in Chess - Vladimir Vukovic
The Art of the Middle Game - Keres & Kotov
The Briliant Touch in Chess - Walter Korn
The Middlegame 1 (Static Features) - Euwe & Kramer
The Middlegame 2 (Dynamic & Subjective Features) - Euwe & Kramer
The Middlegame in Chess - Eugene Znosko-Borovsky
Think Like a Grandmaster - Alexander Kotov
Understanding Chess Middlegames - John Nunn
Understanding Chess Move by Move - John Nunn
Understanding Chess Tactics - Martin Weteschnik
Understanding Pawn Play in Chess - Drazen Marovic
Winning Chess Brilliancies - Yasser Seirawan
Winning Chess Combinations - Yasser Seirawan
Winning Pawn Structures - Alexander Baburin
Zurich International Chess Tournament 1953 - David Bronstein
OK, thanks! Not sure if I can find all of them though...
Start with the 3 books of Pachman "Complete Chess strategy" and a couple of good endgame books("Practical chess Endings" by Keres should be one of them).
You don't need a lot of books for now.You only need good ones.
Once you study these first 4 or 5 seriously , your undrstanding will improve and you will know what you need. Knowledge has to do mainly with quality , not quantity.More than 4 or 5 books will confuse you than educate you.But be sure they are GOOD ones.
I also REALLY like a newer book called chess strategy for tournament players by Gooten. One of the best i have read in a long time
Silman's book is also great too but gooten i think is more comprehensive silman newer edition and this book are a good combo
The title is missing a word:
Is there a young chess player who can equel Magnus?
by JohnnyKGB 3 minutes ago
12/11/2013 - Topalov-Kramnik, Dortmund 1996
by Ray-D-OActive 3 minutes ago
London Chess Classic - Super 16 Rapid 2013
by bing45 3 minutes ago
How do I make two chess engines play a match against eachother on (Arena GUI)
by EscherehcsE 7 minutes ago
Panno question for high level KID players
by aronchuck 8 minutes ago
The rating jump
by GeorgeBlackChess123 9 minutes ago
Help Arena GUI
by Peter-Pepper 9 minutes ago
Is blindfold chess harmful?
by EDB123 9 minutes ago
by EDB123 13 minutes ago
Crazy Move in Grunfeld! How to beat this annoying line?
by EDB123 15 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!