Advice on fighting fire with fire so to speak

Im finding that at my level(1400-I dont know what level this stops...) that everyone has a sideline for every opening. Or will do everything in their power to avoid theory. Not saying I know much myself but I like to try to stay in a line for 15 or so moves at least. Its a little annoying, even though I feel I can out play them in whatever system theyre trying.

Anyway, Im looking to get to them first. Im looking for a couple off-beat openings myself(white and black), and play the game on my turf(whether I feel confident outplaying them or not, it still is THEIR system, and someone is bound to destroy me by just knowing it inside and out). And hopefully someone could point me to where I could learn the opening fairly well

I know my way around the London System, but Im looking for something different. London seems to slow to me and black can screw around before I set it up(not to mention Im just flat out bored with that setup, even if I play it stupid aggressive)

Forget openings at your level. 

Learn the opening priciples

Pawn structures

Middlegame planning

Tactics

Of course learning so much theory that you won't ever need to play a move yourself is the answer to all possible problems.

Or you could just play chess you know... I'd hate it if my own moves would only start @ move 16+, what a boring way to waste time to play someone elses moves for the first 15 moves every game.

If you need an idea for an opening, try using an opening that the other side used, when you lost.  Then either you will win, or you will find out a way that might work better against that opening.  (This also works for tic-tac-toe.  It is possible to implement a learning system for tic-tac-toe using a game tree constructed out of paper cups or other holders to represent each position from the beginning, with counters to "reinforce" or "punish" the moves when they turn out to win the game or lose it.)

Last tourney, every one of my opponents went into a sideline before move 10.

I don't think it's common to get deep into theory until you're regularly playing masters.

What will help you deal with sidelines (other than understanding your openings like LIM said) is understanding the middlegame.  Pawn structures and different dynamic advantages like a lead in development.

Well, that's the long term solution.   You can also just adopt a system which solve your immediate problems more quickly, but tend to stagnate your development.  Colle, Torre Attack, Barry Attack, 150 Attack, these are systems you can learn and play every game.

I know it's standard. But that's my point. Anyways I have John Shaws book on the Kings Gambit, just haven't really got around to it yet. I played it for awhile just on my own and had some fun with it, but found myself in bad spots when they would decline it. So I gave it up til I found that book online.

Very true

I have some similar problems as I'm reasonably versed in theory but play against opponents who aren't and, for me, the solution has just been 'learn more theory'. It seems paradoxical, but you very quickly learn that sidelines are 'side' for important reasons. Let's look at a position that occurs in tons of of my games with black:

Another piece of advice (that I myself have trouble taking to heart) DON'T TAKE THE GAMBIT! Whatever gambit it is, unless you've read up and think you can handle it, don't accept gifts. Some players gambit to see what it does, others meticulously work out their lines, but it's better to have a dry, equal position than a dynamic position where you're a pawn up but being attacked from every direction. 

Interesting, because I did an analysis years ago of GM games (I forgot which book I used) where there was a loser, and I discovered that most of the losing mistakes were made in the first 10 moves. That's what motivated me to make it my main goal to get past the first 10 moves without mistakes! Part of that analysis, whose exact numbers and details I've forgotten, estimated how much the likelihood of survival increases with each correct move. If you estimate that 50% of players make a losing move within the first 10 moves, that means every correct move you play increases your chance of surviving by about 5%. Someday I hope to redo that study and post the results online. Even those rough estimates from what I remember are useful and motivating, though.

Goob63,

What the above means is that you'll be lucky to ever see somebody follow book moves for more than the first 10 moves. Can you tell us your philosophy of playing, especially if you're playing for a win versus a draw, whether you like open or closed games, whether you like tactics or strategy better, and so on?

Hear! Hear! I get tired of reading that one too.

If you had learned to play two months ago, I might agree, but at 1400 you've been around the block a few times and now you're motivated to learn something new and that's the best time to learn.

Yes, by all means have some fun learning an offbeat opening. The King's Gambit is a great choice. It avoids the Petroff's and Berlin, puts the game on your terms and will give you a very different experience from the London System. You'll also learn some chess history.

There's a balance between studying openings and studying other aspects of the game. Some players do get carried away with opening study but that's not what I'm hearing from you. I doubt you're going to start memorizing Shaw.

In the meantime you will be encountering more tactics, new pawn structures, new middle games -- all that good stuff.

Of course, no matter what you do, your opponent still has his say and even in your own opening things will diverge and you will be thrown on your own resources.

I've noticed that videos are a good to get an overview of an opening before diving into something as detailed as the Shaw book.

You might be able to pick up a used copy of the older, thinner Gallagher book "Winning with the KG." It's somewhat out of date but that won't matter. When I browsed it, it looked quite approachable. Plus it contains complete games which are great for learning the ideas of the opening and more general principles of chess. Gallagher is a good writer.

I definitely wouldn't have guessed that!  I think then these were games from early 1900s?  Modern GMs (heh, even modern masters Id say) very rarely make a '?' move before move 10.  There are a handful famous examples of super GMs blundering a pawn or piece this early, but other than those...

Now, some kind of inaccuracy that makes them a little worse, sure.  Not in the popular main lines which are book, in extreme cases, past move 30, but in a sideline it's believable.

Yes, now it does seem odd to me, so I wouldn't want anyone to rely on my informal analysis from years ago, especially since I don't remember which book(s) I used and how I analyzed it. They were probably Fischer games, but again, that does sound odd to me now since so many of those games were Sicilians and Ruy Lopezes whose opening book moves are often 15-20 moves deep. Still, even if the percentage were 2% or 4%, that would be enough motivation to keep me learning opening moves.

@Sqod I don't have much of a philosophy yet really. I just play online for the win. Stylistically I'm still not too sure of either. I find myself enjoying closed, strategic games, but I end up opening up the game and getting real aggressive the second I feel I have an advantage or just good chances. I've tried pretty well every respectable opening once or twice, and find myself coming back to french/KID, locked positions. And oddly enough on the white side I feel I'm better with e4 rather than d4, though I've been giving Nf3 a fair chance the last little while

Not true.  A player I used to play with all the time had about 40 different opening lines memorized and we would play for a whole night.  She would be lucky if she won a game.  Chess is a game of understanding more so than memorization

its alright knowing thousands of moves of theory, but you need to know WHY your playing those moves, so when someone does go out of theory, you can work out the best way of getting an advantage.

If you dont know why your playing those moves, then your more than likely not going to punish them for deviating from the line.

You have to remember, most theory is based on the best moves for both sides, if someone leaves theory they are making a move that is generally, not optimal in the position.

If you dont understand the ideas behind the moves youre memorizing it does no good to commit them to memory.

Erik!  Where ya been?  Dennys isnt the same without you :-)

"I'm finding that at my level(1400-I dont know what level this stops...) nobody knows any opening" would be the positive way to look at it.

Of course, every reasonable non-main line move will be a sideline somehow, but I doubt that is what the players at my level are intentionally going for.

You have to be careful about sidelines because if you try playing against a Dragon like a Najdorf for example it may lead to awkward situations: