14367 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!
It seems like everytime an opening is based on tactics it gets analysed to death and near refuted. Benoni's is doing badly, Benko is too, KID is not as common as it used to be, Only the Marshal gambit and Grunfeld seem to still get played a lot and a lot of people just sidestep the Marshal. :( I thought the Dragon would survive all this but maybe it won't.
Benoni is doing fine, as far as theory goes and no where near getting refuted. It is less seen in OTB because of the POPULARITY of 1... d5 being way way easier to play in many lines. GIven how accurate and powerful White's play can be, it is a STRONG sign of vitality that the Benoni is very popular in correspondence chess. If it does well at the highest levels of correspondence chess, it is a strong sign that the Benoni is not ANYWHERE close refutation.
KID is also played a lot in correspondence, another sign of it being strong. Grunfeld is not seen as much in correspondence.
Why are KID and Benoni so popular in correspondence? Because it is very promising to play for a win given its rich strategical struggle and because who understands the positions better is the one who wins. The struggles are very very complex and in correspondence chess, the more complex it is the richer the possibilities to win for either side.
Many top GMs do not employ Benoni or KID at the very top of OTB competition, it may very well be because it is so complex for practical benefits to justify it being used since White usually has an easier time because the White side is less rich in complexity.
I will quote another example:
1.e4 e6 ( I am also a strong advocate of the French not just the Sicilian )
2. Qe2 (this is not seen much in OTB)
Eventhough Qe2 is not seen much in OTB, it is no where near being refuted, and not even close to being "bad". I am currently involved in a correspondence match, not in Chess.com, but real correspondence chess at regular time control. In the current game the 2.Qe2 is being used by White. I do not underestimate it at all nor do I breath a sigh of relief.
The positions are very rich in strategic content and struggle, and Black can easily lose if a strategic mistake is done. Mistakes in correspondence chess are hardly ever forgiven compared to OTB chess. I have seen a lot of positions where Black can easily be left without a chance for counterplay and then squeezed to death. I have seen the same for when White does a mistake and then it goes the other way. The complexity of positions are a big reason which motivate a player to play it or not in a game since the choices are compared one with another. 1. e4 e6 2.Qe2 is not seen as much in OTB since developments have indicated that Black can get a comfortable game in OTB standards, but the truth of how good 2.Qe2 is is not really determined by its use in OTB.
The more the White player is trained and versed in 2.Qe2 in the French, the chances increase of him playing it in OTB in order to gain a pragmatic advantage over Black.
9...Bxf6 is not normal and seems to be bad on account of nd5 and nc4
Can you try something like 14.h4 Bh6 15.g4 here?
Now when you say that they are not appropriate, in what context do you mean.
Are you saying it's too dificult(in terms of practicality) for a non-master to properly develop their opening skills by focusing on this or do you mean that there are simply too many things to be taken into consideration, that non-masters are aware of(quiet moves).
I was just amused that when I played him, and I was Black, he played a really really really harmless line as White (he was aiming to try a Maroczy bind ) in which Black had very good chances to win.
I am not making fun nor do I want to disrespect him; I was just very surprised that the OP would not play a more engaging line, more ambitious line in order to create problems or seek good chances to win as White or secure an advantage.
It was after our game, according to what he said, that he changed his line vs Black.
Grabbing the Queen for Queening
by tigerprowl5 7 minutes ago
can monkey's play chess?
by kleelof 11 minutes ago
Hurt/Heal Opening Traps
by rqi3 11 minutes ago
What is the answer to life, the universe, and everything (and chess)?
by StMichealD 13 minutes ago
Why is it we never hear of Maxime Vachier-Lagrave even though he's in the top 10
by EscherehcsE 18 minutes ago
Is Aronian overrated
by mnhsr 19 minutes ago
Kings Indian Question. No early d6.
by WhatIsThisHereNow 20 minutes ago
Chessmaster XI: Me vs Josh - Age 6
by EscherehcsE 34 minutes ago
Do you think the Budapest Gambit is better than the Sicilian for club level?
by mike_tal 45 minutes ago
Is this true?
by RomyGer 47 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!