Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Ruy Lopez: Transpositions Please?


  • 5 months ago · Quote · #41

    jempty_method

    temp_ddg wrote:
    jempty_method wrote:

    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.

  • 5 months ago · Quote · #42

    henderson2134

    Jimmy stop attacking people just because of some chess opening. If that is what you do for fun, I feel sorry for you.

  • 5 months ago · Quote · #43

    ThrillerFan

    TacticalSymphony wrote:

    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!

  • 5 months ago · Quote · #44

    TacticalSymphony

    Expertise87 wrote:

    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.

  • 5 months ago · Quote · #45

    TacticalSymphony

    Dutchday wrote:

    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.

  • 5 months ago · Quote · #46

    TacticalSymphony

    henderson2134 wrote:

    Jimmy stop attacking people just because of some chess opening. If that is what you do for fun, I feel sorry for you.

    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.

  • 5 months ago · Quote · #47

    Dutchday

    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.

  • 5 months ago · Quote · #48

    TacticalSymphony

    "Just take them one at a time" - Will do.  

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #49

    AdamRinkleff

    TacticalSymphony wrote:

    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.

    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.

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #50

    jempty_method

    AdamRinkleff wrote:
    TacticalSymphony wrote:

    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.

    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.

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #51

    AdamRinkleff

    jempty_method wrote:

    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.

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #52

    Expertise87

    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.

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #53

    ThrillerFan

    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:

    http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/how-to-practice-for-long-time-controls

    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.

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #54

    Expertise87

    It's good to know that what I've been doing and how I got over 2000 only works if you are below 1000.

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #55

    AdamRinkleff

    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.


Back to Top

Post your reply: