9616 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!
I´m really a newbie who tries to learn chess but when I study any game from any level of play these rules are always broken by both sides... I play more Italian style openings but of you play Spanish you will probably have to move that bishop twice (or 3-4 times).
They shouldn't be called rules. They're more of a guideline that one should follow, but can deviate from at any time.
These guys approve:
Chess already has the distinction:
There are rules of chess which govern principles of play (such as control the center). These rules can be broken.
There are also Laws of chess which can't be broken without fear of retribution from the arbiter.
We don't need to play semantic games; the definitions have already been made.
One writer (I forget!) set the goal for the opening as: advance both center pawns, develop all minor pieces, and castle, withing ten moves. He explained that you seldom can accomplish this, but be conscious of the objective.
Many of my problems stemmed from not getting my center pawns advanced.
Here is my list:
1. Take the initiative!
The only rule you will ever need to know!
Yeah, parham is a perfect example of needing to break one of those opening rules, moving out the queen.
You say the King's Gambit is busted, but quote the Parham as a reason to need to break opening rules?
It isn't really a semantics game. My response was to the person that noticed the rules were constantly broken.
It hadn't occured to me that i was paraphrasing a line from PotC. I knew it sounded familiar!
lol, excellent pic.
Estragon, thanks for the link to Exeter Chess Club. I have just made a casual look, and think it will help in my development. Thanks for sharing...
DON'T bring out your QUEEN too early. -- agreed. When I break it, I usually lose the queen. When my opponent breaks it, I try pretty hard to relieve him of his queen.
CASTLE as soon as possible, preferably on the KING SIDE. -- I've been experimenting with a different strategy here. I played this rule for a while, but now I'm more often trying to keep both castle options in tact a few moves past the time my opponent castles. Then I take some time setting up my attack on his castle without giving away which side I will castle. It allows me to go the the side on which my opponent is concentrating less force.
I'm not sure it's a sound strategy, but seems to work more often that not.
KNIGHTS before BISHOPS. I do better in the endgame with bishops than knights. Therefore, I try to follow this rule pretty strictly.
9/1/2014 - Mate in 2
by shell_knight a few minutes ago
The engine prank
by RonaldJosephCote 5 minutes ago
Was my sacrifice justified by my attack?
by varelse1 9 minutes ago
Paul Morphy vs Wilhelm Steinitz
by Jhorwin 26 minutes ago
COMPUTER4 IMPOSSIBLE worst game he play like idiot
by WeakLightSquare 30 minutes ago
I'm starting a YouTube channel
by yedddy 42 minutes ago
Is The Fried Liver Attack Playable?
by fireflashghost 44 minutes ago
Bugs On Chess.com
by RonaldJosephCote 45 minutes ago
4/17/2009 - Mate in 4
by mauve_penguin 48 minutes ago
Hubris of a forum admin
by RonaldJosephCote 52 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 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!