19363 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!
Every player has one. Our team once made the superior team play against itself by copying its moves on opposite-color boards, using their own replies against themselves. We abandoned it after some dirty looks from the TD.
What would you against you be played out as? Here's mine:
1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5 exd5 1/2-1/2
It used to be the classsical French with 7. f4 0-0
ONce you have a stem for overall, then for each opening, you can build your repertoire as branches on that tree. Each stem should represent absolute best play for both sides.
Should work in theory, but it would be really hard to carry out and memorize.
netzach, you have a two-sided opening whether you know it or not. Botvinnik was aware of this phenomenon and strived to never be tested in his own favorite lines.
I don't play set-openings nor do I used constrained thinking. Dislike intensely people with no credentials trying to indoctrinate gullible-people to adopt 'systems' or buy books without any sound basis of success.
BOS says nothing about his own chess verification/rating/credentials (in profile) and is brand-new member of chess.com. Despite that is keen to 'plug' his book.
You ghostofmaroczy apparently seem to be a player whom predominately plays 1.d4 openings and perfecting your own lines with that.
Would prefer to see BOS evidence some IRL results of his theories before making decision about them.
Probably something like
1.c4 c5 2.nf3 nf6 3.d4 cxd4 4.nxd4 nc6 5.nc3 g6
Would prefer to see BOS evidence some IRL results of his theories before making decision abou them.
My peak USCF rating was 2000, bck in 1989. With no incentive to improve the rating after that, I didn't care if it went up I sustained performance ratings of 2250 or so for 30-50 games twice, then hit the floor when I got a job, right before I quit.
I had a game published in Chess Life (reader games) where at 1956 I wsa crushing a 2508 rated player out of a Pirc when I ran out of time in action chess. I've held even positions against world-fclass players in tournament settings, though tracking down the scorecards would be unwise.
By attacking me, you are telling people to listen to you, assuming the very role for which you demand "credentials."
Since when is calling this audience "gullible" not an insult to them? I like to think people are quite capable of thinking for themselves. IF YOU don't like what I write, that's fine, and you won't want to read it, but you're stepping into the territory of not wanting *others* to read it. That's what they call "hating" these days.
Not hating. Suspicion. (because you are 'new-member' say little of yourself and instead make beeline for forums)
Have any well known players achieved success with this?
I'm not attacking you am critiscising (if you can discern the distinction) . What is interesting is that you have gone all defensive.
How many copies have you sold then??
I built a GM-level repertoire in the days before computers. My goal was to have one that I would never hvae gto change. In that I succeeded. I made a mini-comeback on ICC several years ago, but my eyesight abandoned me in 2009. With no use for my opening playbook, I published it. It sells moderately well and has lots of strong new theory, moves never before seen or played, which I would have debuted myself had I kept playing.
I don't worry about "credentials" because I no longer produce anything, teach, or play. I was a very strong opening player, Expert rated, back in the day. Used to study 70-80 hours a week, for four years, before quitting for the real world at age twenty-four
Most who do not play chess seriously have more respect for those who quit the game than those who win geek chest-thumping contest.
Will reserve judgement then and see how things go with yourself. gl.
3/2/2015 - Back Door Entry
by xray 3 minutes ago
Sixteen Reasons Why Chess Is Not Good For You
by ipcress12 13 minutes ago
Killed and don't know why.
by notmtwain 16 minutes ago
by ThrillerFan 18 minutes ago
by zborg 19 minutes ago
Learning 1.e4 e5 thoroughly
by TheGreatOogieBoogie 22 minutes ago
Chessbazaar's Dubrovnik 4" crimson problem?
by LuftWaffles 23 minutes ago
by Elroch 25 minutes ago
How Many Chess Sets Do You Own?
by Robert0905 46 minutes ago
What would be the rating of a top chess player in the late 1800s today
by SmyslovFan 47 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2015 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!