Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Odd Move In the Ruy Lopez?

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #61


    Yes my point is, those rules of the opening apply to a certain idealogy, if you call it, of chess. The ones you are refering to, the most common, involve development, king safety, and controlling the center. However there are others. There is matrix as I already mentioned, and let's use hypermodernism as an example. They don't develope pieces to control the center. They do things like fianchettos to control the center from the flanks. If you plan on becoming a better chess player, you need to learn there are different systems from what you believe in.

    Also, another point is that openings, even at the highest level, aren't the entire game. Your knowledge of book openings is irrelevant if you make simple tactical errors in the mid and endgame. I could walk into a game with an IM, have an entire opening explorer with me, and get smoked after 20 moves. A knowledge of openings doesn't make one an IM. There is more to chess than openings.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #62


    dude, that is like not cool Bankwell

    anyway, I would like to challange The_Gavinator to a parham challange, I take black of course

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #63


    Bankwell, what's ironic is that you are rated less than 200 points higher than me.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #64


    ChristianSoldier007 wrote:

    One thing I like to do is play engine tournaments with some of the strongest free engines out there. Often times my engines dont have books, and just calculate from move 1. Often times I see them play the mov e below. It looks terrible to me, so my question is, why would they play it?


    Computers don't play chess in the sense that humans play chess.  They calculate lines and rank them with their evaluation algorithm.

    Why would developers spend so much time and effort?  Either for prestige in a high rank on the program list, or possibly for money if they're going to sell their program.

    So openings are ignored, the tests are run with opening books.  All evaluations are fine tuned for middlegame positions.  What they prefer without an opening book is meaningless, it's not a position it was designed to evaluate.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #65


    make it a forum game id like to participate jet

    bankwell you have 10 minutes to edit/delete your comment or I will delete you.

    And yes I know there are more to chess than openings, but if you know openings better then whos to say an advantage out of it is bad? its not the whole game, but just like the middlegame and endgame it is still a part of chess

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #66


    thanks wafflemaster that makes sense

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #67


    I understand that openings are an important part of chess, however, I don't believe having one's mind an opening book would necessarily make them better at chess. Until at least a master level, the midgame is really the deciding factor.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #68


    an openings book isnt good, you need to understand the ideas/strategies behind openings, not just moves or you will be dropped off in the middlegame with no idea what to do

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #69


    And as amateurs, I don't believe we understand all of the theory behind these openings.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #70


    I do because I read books and learned

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #71


    ChristianSoldier007 wrote:

    I do because I read books and learned

    LOL... Even GMs haven't mastered all of their openings...

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #72


    The more you know, the more you can get out of a book.  I don't think you've reached your limit on understanding openings ChristianSoldier.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #73


    Gavinator do you accept my challange

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #74


    ah sorry for the misunderstand of course I dont understand everything lol! I more or less mastered the Ruy Lopez closed and a little bit less of the dragon yugoslav, but I do have a fairly brief knowledge of most existing openings. Right now I'm focusing on the Sicilian, specificaly the dragon

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #75


    I will pwn all of you with the parham so i dont want to hear this crap anymore about how it is bad. Chess principles are dumb anyway. I never studied one opening and i was 3rd in the nation in 2nd grade, was 5th grade state champion (A while ago) and i pwn all of you. Until you are around 1900-2000 you dont need to study openings, you need to learn to play well.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #76


    excuse: oh i lost not because of the opening but because of tactics.

    good moves= good positions = good tactical chances.

    2. Qh5 questionable move= questionable position = questionable tactics

    when you change your attitude you will improve past 1400. blah blah excuse blah blah Matrix blah blah 

    While Parham was at one time a master he is now 2000. He had a flair for the attack and it begs one to wonder what he could have achieved if he was serious instead of trying to do something just for the same of being different.... its crap... he had a chance to play it against a 2300 master and what did he play? Mainline caro! whimp coward, or wait maybe he had a moment of lucidity and faced reality ,...


  • 3 years ago · Quote · #77


    This just proves it, he lost because he didnt play the parham. 1.e4 e5 2. Qh5 = automatic win for white.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #78


    it is not an automatic win for white, it gives black way too much

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #79


    Really, like what?

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #80


    quick easy development, and tempo once the Bc4 threat has been dealt with, and a nice center once white finishes having his queen chased around.

Back to Top

Post your reply: