Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

continuing opening when opponent doesnt follow?


  • 13 months ago · Quote · #21

    rolex575

    Really, playing the Ruy Lopez when your opponent chooses to play the Scandinavian defense?

    Seriously, as somebody once said "Learning openings learns you openings, learning endgames learns you chess".

    Also, be prepared that when you play 1.e4, your opponent wont always play 1...e5 In fact, he'll more often than not play 1...c5!

    Finally, when there's more than 1 possible continuation to your opening choice (ex: Queen's Gambit Accepted/Declined), I say you learn a simple line against all mainline variations (that is, not a 10 move long variation).

    ~~Rolex575~~

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #22

    Hi832

    Twinchicky wrote:
    minor7b5 wrote:

    The great thing about the main lines in openings is that the moves are objectively the strongest regardless of the response of your opponent. For example, if you decide to play the Ruy Lopez exchange variation and your opponent does not know the opening, play might continue as follows:

     

    1...d5 is not a patzer move, it's the Scandinavian Defense. Sure it's not an opening that a ton of people play, but it's still perfectly sound and I lose to it on a regular basis. My favorite line is 1. e4 d5 2. Nc3!? dxe4 3. d3 exd3 cxd3 and white has an isolated queen's pawn and a massive lead in development.

    By the way @minor7b5, it's a half-diminished chord. Get it right.

    isolated pawns are not supposed to good(yeesh)

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #23

    Scottrf

    Isolated pawns can be good or bad.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #24

    Hi832

    bobyyyy wrote:

    With both Black (unless white moves e4) and White I use the King's Indian. If my opponent makes some random stupid looking moves, I ignore it and continue with the King's Indian. Some strong players will intentionally make ridiculous moves to encourage a premature attack. I don't attack anything until all my pieces have been developed.

    lol so do i

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #25

    Hi832

    Scottrf wrote:

    Isolated pawns can be good or bad.


    in the line he gives, its not

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #26

    Swiss_Gambit

    Why not Bxd3 instead? It avoids an isolated pawn and develops a piece

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #27

    alec98

    bjapan96 wrote:

    I have always wondered what is one to do if you try to open with a specific opening, and your opponent just opens with a random order of moves and doesnt follow any real theory or correct order of development.

    If he's just shifting wood randomly in a happy go lucky fashion not playing with a plan and common sense kill him.

    Don't waste any time on such players!

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #28

    JFK-Ramsey

    varelse1 wrote:

    That is why you should should learn the underlieing principles of the opening, rather than specific moves.

    I've played chess for quite a few years and play most of my openings either by rote or, when we get "out of the book" then I try to follow good chess principles. I've not been able to find good explanations of underlying principles of the Openings. I have found chess books that advertise explanations of Opening principles seem to only list many alternative lines.

    Any suggestions on where/how to pick up the objectives/principles of the Openings?

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #29

    musicalhair

    your opening is a path to the middle game and really not much else.  So, what ever moves you play they open up possibilities on the board for you and grab some space somewhere.  So long as these moves do those things in a coherent manner and you see how your opponents moves are working in the same manner, and the dynamics between the way you're each grabbing space and enabling development and attacking chances and everything else in chess, then you can plan accordingly.  We often don't see all the possibilities for either side without practice and just getting burned.  But just look at the opening moves being played for what they are and what they are not objectively.  Like look at 1 d4.  1. ... d5, 1. ... Nf6 and 1. ... f5 all grab a piece of e4.  In one sense those openings say black is planting a stake in e4 (and d5 which is now protected by the queen, the pawn on d5 actually does nothing do control d5, he just sits there.  A piece or pawns own security is always given by others, never by themselves.  Pieces and pawns only control squares they are not on).  So, there are big differences in each of those moves (1. ... d5 also lets a bishop out), but the similarities exist too.  Just look at what is on the board and take note of when something is a miss.  Often when something looks wrong, it is wrong.  That might mean you can "punish" the move, but not always.  You might just gain space, or gain something small, or nothing-- there might be nothing wrong with the wrong looking move besides our lack of experience with it.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #30

    poet666

    Reminds me of a comment an opponent once said after losing a quick game.

     

    "I hate this server, no-one wants to play chess properly, they all just try to checkmate immediately"

     

    Wait... what?

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #31

    JFK-Ramsey

    JFK-Ramsey wrote:
    varelse1 wrote:

    That is why you should should learn the underlieing principles of the opening, rather than specific moves.

    I've played chess for quite a few years and play most of my openings either by rote or, when we get "out of the book" then I try to follow good chess principles. I've not been able to find good explanations of underlying principles of the Openings. I have found chess books that advertise explanations of Opening principles seem to only list many alternative lines.

    Any suggestions on where/how to pick up the objectives/principles of the Openings?

    Anyone ?

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #32

    JFK-Ramsey

    Mersaphe wrote:

    I think this area is lacking. As in, most books and online resources give opening moves and sometimes some general rationale of the moves, but underlying principles behind opening moves are not explained very well anywhere. You'll find principles for understanding midgames and endgames, but because openings are so vast it's a lot harder to discuss the concepts and ideas behind most opening moves. Much of it is intuition and comes from experience

    I agree. The closest I found was Starting Out: The Sicilian by John Emms. It did actually talk about major goals for several of the more popular lines of the Sicilian. Other than that, not much (or at least nothing that I've been able to find). If one could find something with major objectives and underlying principles for Openings, I would pick it up in a NY minute.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #33

    musicalhair

    the best book I remember about this, JFK-Ramsey, is the old "How to Open a Chess Game" from RHM Press.  I guess the old "Logical Chess"-- was it Euwe?  or Chernev, it's so old that I could rightfully mix up those too very different authors-- deals with it.  Lasker's Manual of Chess, Tarrasch's The Game of Chess, Capablanca's Chess Fundamentals, oh a book by Edward Lasker I think deals with it but I lent that book out like 30 years ago.  The problem is that the basic principle of develop harmoniously is at once met with the question of "how?"  How you do something is then a question of technique, so every idea of how to play openings goes right to the techniques of how to get what you want from an opening each move, and this flows right into the middle game.  What I got from My System by Nimzowitch is that the opening should be approached like the middle game, because that is what you're setting up.  The books that deal with just chess fundamentals cover openings as well as basic middle game and ending ideas.  This is more than just 1 book, but the 4 volume Chess Openings Essentials are great books and if you read them from begining you get the principles right there in action.  Znosko-Borovsky's book on the Middle Game and his "how not to play chess" book are both great.  I suspect his book on openings would be good for principles even if the ideas are out dated.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #34

    DrSpudnik

    Reuben Fine's old "Ideas Behind the Chess Openings" is a little out of date with current practice, but the main ideas of various openings haven't changed at all.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #35

    gundamv

    bobyyyy wrote:

    With both Black (unless white moves e4) and White I use the King's Indian. If my opponent makes some random stupid looking moves, I ignore it and continue with the King's Indian. Some strong players will intentionally make ridiculous moves to encourage a premature attack. I don't attack anything until all my pieces have been developed.

    Can you do the same with the QID?  i.e. use it against random setups?

     

    As an aside, what I find most annoying aren't the objectively bad lines, but rather the theoretically playable lines like the Owens Defense or Alekhine's Defense (when I play White) or the London System, the Trompowsky, or the Grand Prix Attack (when I play Black).

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #36

    Crazychessplaya

    DrSpudnik wrote:

    Reuben Fine's old "Ideas Behind the Chess Openings" is a little out of date with current practice, but the main ideas of various openings haven't changed at all.

    +1. The book is woefully bad on the Sicilian, but otherwise okay.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #37

    sebhayes

    minor7b5 wrote:

    The great thing about the main lines in openings is that the moves are objectively the strongest regardless of the response of your opponent. For example, if you decide to play the Ruy Lopez exchange variation and your opponent does not know the opening, play might continue as follows:

     

    Bb5+ is a blunder as c6 leaves the knight en prise. After dxe4 Ng5 would be the correct continuation. Huge advantage to black. 

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #38

    Crazychessplaya

    At last someone paid attention to the actual game, LOL!

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #39

    baddogno

    At least 1 reviewer has compared Paul van der Sterren's FCO (Fundamental Chess Openings) to Reuben Fine's classic calling it essentially an updated and expanded version of the same theme.  It seems to be the current gold standard in opening encyclopedias that explain, rather than just list moves. As MusicalHair mentioned, the 4 volume Chess Opening Essentials is also excellent but only for those with deeper pockets.  I have them all and use them as a go to reference when encountering a new opening in correspondence chess.  Of course to really get into any opening you need to hit the databases as well, and I suppose on expert and above buy books on whatever opening you need to research.

  • 13 months ago · Quote · #40

    Crazychessplaya

    I'd be careful about calling FCO updated. For example, people in the know know (where did I learn English?) that Morozevich introduced the ...Nge7 plan for black in the Albin Countergambit around 2005. Yet there is no mention of it in FCO, even though it was a major contribution to the Albin theory.

    [Disclaimer: I do not employ the Albin on regular basis.]


Back to Top

Post your reply: