My Chess Trainer Changed My Openings to Gambits?? Part III
Hello! Stacia here and I'm going to continue my story about how I changed all my openings per my chess trainers. PART ONE was basically a story at how I came to this crazy, dubious decision and PART TWO was basically what happened in the first few months (click at your own risk.. it's not pretty!).
And now we continue with the adventure.... 
There was something implied last post that I haven't outright said yet. My coach, in his wisdom, made me change from 1. d4 to 1. e4... okay, fine. What I didn't say about that is that he also changed me to ALL GAMBITS. "You need to learn the value of a pawn," he said to me plainly, as if I were one of my first grader chess students.
Why Gambits?
Well, any gambiteer knows the value (and the fire!) of gambits. And everyone else, especially strong titled players it seems, shake their head and tell you to stop blundering a pawn in the opening. I suppose I should tell you that I didn't come to my coach and ask him for the best, most sound, long term opening repertoire he could recommend. No, I actually said my openings are great, but how can I get better at chess? I'm 1700 USCF and improving fast as an adult so how do I get to 2200 USCF? What would it really take to gain another 500 rating points...
It was after looking at several of my solid low risk games he told me a few things:
- You need to play the open game
- You need to learn how to play with the initiative
- You need to get better at tactics
- You need more chess foundation
And about the opening itself? He basically said, "Hey, play the KG (King's Gambit). You will learn how to give up a pawn and play with the initiative. It will teach you how to play the open game. You will get better at tactics because you will have to. There are more tactics than you are used to especially early on. This will build your chess foundation."
Makes sense to me! And because I'm brave (and stupid?) I jumped into this pool of sacrificial waters only be baptized as a new gambiteer.
But Did It Work?
This is a hard question to answer. I started 1. e4 and my gambits with the white pieces about 18 months ago now. I can tell you this. I understand A LOT more about chess as a result. If my goal was to increase my chess understanding, then mission accomplished! I see many more attacking and also scary lines than I used to. I know more openings and opening ideas than I used to. I know more middle game plans than I used to. I know what the initiative feels like and the importance of keeping it. I would not claim to be an expert at any of this, but I would say that I at least now understand on a basic level, and have become a more universal player as a result.
I Can Actually Attack Now?
And.... I wouldn't have had my first Sac, Sac, Mate! And as proud as I was of this game back in October, it's a few months later and honestly it looks a bit easy to me! All good signs.
And it took about a year, but I don't even have any desire to play 1. d4 anymore. What? Play 1. d4 and miss out on a King's Gambit or some Morra Mayhem!? They are super fun openings and tend to be super interesting. Also, I would have never played my first Sac, Sac, Mate game as shown above. I wouldn't have had a position where I was attacking like that. Not a chance. So I want to say that it's working.... I now can just about match my old rating strength by playing in a completely different way. That's a huge accomplishment in my eyes, but if you look at my rating graph it is anything but impressive.
And there's a huge downside to seeing more... and that's that there is more to analyze and more to explore which is all well and good until your clock ticks down. Yes, my time management issues are worse than ever. That doesn't bode well for my rating either!
So I'm full of excuses like any chess player. 
But also hopeful. I feel I am growing as a player, but I don't have the rating or the scalps to prove it just yet. So I'll be fighting hard to do just that just as soon as we have OTB tournaments again! lol
My Coach Speaks
And lastly, my coach National Master Michael Joelson DID post his own thoughts on this topic. I greatly respect this man and his thinking on these matters, so I thought I'd go ahead and share that here for you to enjoy as well.
Hello chessfans, This is the "evil" coach himself. It is good to see so many who want to rescue this "damsel in distress", to know that chivalry is not dead!! I also started my chess journey in adulthood, my first tournament game at 25. In 15 months I was rated 2115, then fell back to 1940 before becoming a Master 8 years later.
My coach, who also now also works with Stacia, gave me opening recommendations, which I followed religiously. Play e4, no Ruy Lopez before 2000, and as black answer e4 with e5 at least 50%. His rational is that the critical decision in a closed position is often whether or not open the game, so it is advisable to first understand the open game. I can't tell you how many times I have emphasized to students "when the game opens up it is almost always favorable to the player who has better development". My coach also believes it is a good idea for students to learn chess in the way it developed historically, starting with Morphy.
After analyzing Stacia's games I noticed that most of her wins were in G/30 Quads against men ages 50-85, many past their prime with little or no knowledge of QP theory. She would often get huge advantages in position and time. Whenever she ventured into tournaments with longer time controls or rapidly rising kids, she would fall flat. She has yet to beat her first expert. In my judgement, she needed considerable improvement in open game principals, tactics, and technique in order to reach the goals she has set for herself; thus I suggested e4. Understand that although it is great for starting conversations, I did not "make" Stacia change her openings! Those of you familiar with her know how hard it is to make Stacia do something she does not want to do!
Stacia's losing streak had very little to do with her opening choices or the whether or not the King's Gambit is sound. I am happy to report that her rating is back up to 1660 and in my opinion, she is playing the best chess of her life. She often obtains good positions, only to lose in the late middlegame, especially when in time pressure, which I must admit is exacerbated by the sharper positions she is playing.
The number one thing she needs to improve upon is playing in time pressure. Stacia has a tendency to go into panic mode, stops looking for the best move, and totally loses the thread of the position, throwing away many games which were well played strategically. Like many who start late in chess, her strategy is ahead of her tactics. Over time her tactics and time pressure play will improve, then "lookout" chessworld!
Hope you enjoyed and learn something! Happy checkmating.
-Stacia
#chessisbest
Check out my Attacking Chess video series.
Please like, subscribe and comment on my Chess Channel on YouTube:
Chess Is Best with Stacia Melinda
Follow me on my chess Twitter:
https://twitter.com/StaciaMelinda
