11482 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!
If you and your chesstempo 1600-FIDE rating know so much, what are you asking on here for? You are so utterly confused about openings (i.e. not responding to my comment that, if you reach the position from which you can play the Scotch, than you can certainly play the Ruy Lopez instead), that you might want to take some advice from somebody who has FORTY years experience WASTING their time learning openings. What do you do if your opponent doesn't let you play the Ruy Lopez? You learn a sh!tload of openings, that's what, starting with the Sicilian, French, then the Caro-Kann, Scandinavian, Pirc, Alekhine, Modern, Nimzovich, Petroff, etc. It's a waste at your level. 1. d4 followed by 2. Nf3 are foolproof and you don't have to learn theory but rather a system, be that a KIA with 3. g3 next or "Colle" with 3. e3. But go your own way, and I guarantee you'll suck just as bad next year, the year after that, five years from now, and ten as well. Good luck.
Funny, an experienced player disagree:
"Ok, good luck! Can you tell me a chess secret?Everyone should play 1.e4 when learning the game and stick with 1.e4 e5 as Black for quite a while. Get a good foundation in the classical positions first, and then when you do switch openings you’ll play them so much better. And especially avoid “system” openings as White like the Colle, the Torre and the worst of all, the Stonewall. They’ll hold you back the most when learning as you won’t experience the range of positions that you need."
James Coleman - http://www.chess.com/article/view/chesscom-player-profiles-jamescoleman
1. e4 e5 as Black is sufficient, piling on top 1.e4 as White when first learning is too much. Instead, in addition learning a "system" as White will expose the beginner to *more* positions: closed as White, open as Black. Later with experience he can decide which he likes better and gear his entire repertoire to suit his style.
Jimmy stop attacking people just because of some chess opening. If that is what you do for fun, I feel sorry for you.
Thanks for the reply. The one thing is that some of you really seem to underestimate how many "beginners" these days are studying and know book openings. No matter how much you practice or study "the basics", you're going to always end up in an inferior position right off the bat and lose most of your games. I mean what's the basics - tactics? I have a 1600+ estimated FIDE on chesstempo.
I'm simply saying that if black doesn't bring their knight out onto the c file , there's no knight for me to pin with my bishop. It's no longer the Ruy Lopez. So, as my original question approached - what do you do when you see unorthodox (like the KID...he can go into it whether it's called for or not. I can't control that) openings or ones where he never brings out the knight onto the c file early?
Further, this has to be the first time I've seen anywhere advice telling a beginner to play 1.d4. Do you realize nobody is preaching to open exclusively with 1.d4 these days?
The other guy is right, you are confused.
NO, Black can NOT go into a King's Indian. If what you are referring to is 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.f4 Bg7, that's NOT a King's Indian, that's a Pirc. The difference is White's c-pawn. If he plays the Modern via 1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7, White can play 3.c4 d6 4.Nc3, and if Black then wishes, he can go into a King's Indian, but you are not obligated to play 3.c4. You could play 3.Nf3, 3.Nc3, or 3.c3.
So again, forget about Ruy Lopez theory, and understand opening concepts, like occupying and controlling the center, developing your minor pieces first, etc. Clearly you are not a 2300 player. Your opponent won't be whipping out 25 moves of book theory with knowledge of what to do for each of White's responses, including those that go out of book.
My rating is 2059 (Over the Board), and I faced a 2133 in a Benko Gambit (I had White). I made an unusual 11th move. After 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 4.cxb5 a6 5.bxa6 g6 6.Nc3 Bxa6 7.g3 d6 8.Bg2 Bg7 9.Nf3 Nbd7 10.O-O Nb6, normal here is 11.Ne1, and there are a few other options, but 11.Nd2 isn't a book move. I played 11.Nd2, and managed to smash my opponent who resigned on move 28.
So we are both experts, and even we only got thru 10 moves of book each. So again, don't be worrying about opening theory at this time. You have more important things to work on first!
No, it's not rare. It's one of the three most common responses. At beginner level sometimes you will see 2...Nf6?! which is well-met by either 3.cxd5 Nxd5 4.e4 or 4.Nf3 preparing 5.e4. The trap posted by AdamRinkleff is one I have played myself on many occasions, including tournament games against players rated around 1600 USCF.
TacticalSymphony, I have a big problem with your claim that beginners know opening theory and that because of that if you don't know openings you will lose most of your games. Show me one game you have lost because you didn't know the opening. I will show you a game you lost because of tactics. (Hint: It'll be the same game)
And about the person hanging a Bishop and a Queen a few posts ago, that doesn't mean 1.d4 is a bad opening or even a bad choice for that player. They lost because they weren't paying attention to the squares controlled by the opponent's knights, not because they played 1.d4. This simple tactical understanding is much more important than any opening theory could ever be.
Well, I will say this - I spend next to no time on opening theory compared to how much I spend on tactics and endgame theory. I by no means prioritize openings.
That said - I hear you. It's just nice to have some kind of a routine down pat for openings so that you don't repeatedly put yourself into a weak position by move 12.
Don't know if it's been said alongside the bickering, but really it is only a Ruy if both players make the right moves.
See, this I do understand but I don't think I made that distinction in my earlier posts and that created the confusion.
I know that a book opening requires both players to be making the correct moves in order. What I was wondering was what are common openings that will come about after 1.e4, 2.nf3 when he doesn't bring his knight out to C6.
The pirc, mentioned in this thread more than once, is in fact one of the looks I've gotten a few times. I'm reviewing and studying this. The other game that seems to come about regularly is the four knights game - which I also intend on spending some time reviewing.
I appreciate the responses in this thread and people's attempts to clear up my confusion. As said, I'm putting a lot of time into this and I want to learn the game forwards and back. Thanks.
He seemed to think that I was "bragging" about my 1600 rating on Chesstempo. In reality, I was simply saying that I'm past the extreme basics of tactics. That's all.
I don't think a 1600 is anything impressive at all. A lot of the guys I talk to over on ICC have 2000+ Chesstempo ratings.
There can be many different openings, as you were told. Just take them one at a time. Don't ask for advice on every possible opening in one thread. Look up the name and ask again later if you have to.
"Just take them one at a time" - Will do.
i hit 2100+ on chesstempo, but i decided it wasn't doing much good. the problems were typically far more complex than the sorts of situations i encounter in real games.
How could it not help you to get better at puzzles that more complex than you typically encounter? Surely this has to make you better at the simpler ones you do encounter.
I'm sure it helped some, but it just wasn't an effective use of time. I think it's probably better to spend that time playing games, and if I miss a tactic, I'll notice it during the post-game analysis.
I think the opposite is true: it is much more valuable to solve relatively simple puzzles quickly rather than spend a large amount of time on more difficult puzzles. My chesstempo rating is a bit over 2200 but I use problem sets on there to customize the problems to have blitz ratings under 1800, for example, or mate in 1, or mate in 2 under 1600, etc. to get easy problem sets that I can solve quickly. I find this to be the most effective way to be able to find combinations and complex tactics in real games when you aren't prompted with 'white to play and win,' etc.
Solving easy cheesy problems only works if you are super-low, like below 1000. When you play an actual over the board game, things aren't that simple.
See post 5 in the following:
Black's 16th move isn't easy. Once White took with the King on move 23, I already knew the position we'd have after Black's 28th move, and that White had to take with the Knight. Etc.
It's good to know that what I've been doing and how I got over 2000 only works if you are below 1000.
The way I see it, the tactics that I'm most likely to see in a game, are the tactics I've seen in previous games. So I just analyze each game afterwards, and look at whatever tactics I missed.
Is Chess a 'Creative' Activity?
by ilgambittoo a few minutes ago
5/21/2013 - The Power of Imagination
by szammie 2 minutes ago
5/22/2013 - Good Night to the Enemy
by yomajo 3 minutes ago
by Schevenadorf 4 minutes ago
by sertas 8 minutes ago
Fritz 13 help
by ShyamGopal1 8 minutes ago
tactics and composing
by unjustice 10 minutes ago
Why isn't Bishop vs Knight considered to be a material imbalance?
by Irontiger 10 minutes ago
Any good Benko Gambit books?
by ploucroux 19 minutes ago
Help kids learn chess and play with Friends and Family
by FUN_with_CHESS 24 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com