Can you give some examples? Please be sure to mention those and only those which are REALLY flexible.
An opening which suits my needs
Sort:
thechessplaya5 wrote:
Hello chess friends,
Today I want to ask you which opening for white leads to more active pieces and better center control (at least one pawn in the four central squares) and which is flexible, i.e, can be played in almost any game as white.
This is the kind of research you need to do.
Has anyone here even bothered to look at the OPs games?
Diakonia wrote:
thechessplaya5 wrote:
Hello chess friends,
Today I want to ask you which opening for white leads to more active pieces and better center control (at least one pawn in the four central squares) and which is flexible, i.e, can be played in almost any game as white.
This is the kind of research you need to do.
Ding ding ding. There are so many resources out there. And beyond that, to really get a feel for what opening suits you you have to try out the various lines.
Arawn_of_Annuvin wrote:
Diakonia wrote:
thechessplaya5 wrote:
Hello chess friends,
Today I want to ask you which opening for white leads to more active pieces and better center control (at least one pawn in the four central squares) and which is flexible, i.e, can be played in almost any game as white.
This is the kind of research you need to do.
Ding ding ding. There are so many resources out there. And beyond that, to really get a feel for what opening suits you you have to try out the various lines.
These kind of posts bewilder me. Does anyone even look at the OP's games? Do people offer openings because they play them? Random posts of "play this opening"
To the OP:
Follow Opeing Principles
You need to find openings you want to play
Learn the pawn strucures behind those openings. That way you will understand why each move is made.
Asking someone else "What opening should i play?" is like asking someone "What foods should i like?"
Jul 24, 2015
0
#8
i recommend you to play d4, queens gambit against d5(2.c4) and something like the trompovsky(2.Bg5) against Nf6. once you understood all the ideas of the positions you can play them in all of your games without needing to know much theory. My repertoire for white could be learned in like 30 minutes.
best regards
Diakona is , of course, right on with his remarks.... but its not exactly true that there's no guidance out there for openings you might want to start with, espacially if your very serious about tournament competition.
I've seen how-tos and guides that suggest that beginners ought to start with the open game, e4-e5 and learn how to play classical openings like- italian game, giuco piano, and the spanish opening.
if you play e4 on chess.com your going to run into stuff like the french and the sicilian.
myself, my reportoire is more like Til-98. d4-c4 as white and french game against e4 and e6 setups like the nitzmo indian against d4.
but the point is you don't learn just one opening. you make simple decisions about which center pawn and learn about their associated opening.
----
on the other hand, if you did really want to play just ONE opening, espacially as white, there's a couple opening systems that can be played against just about any black defense. the two biggest two are...
the Colle and the Kings Indian Attack. since learning openings isn't really about memorizing moves- knowing several names isn't that much harder than knowing one.
but both the colle and the KIA are senseable choices for white and have their fans and advocates. In the past I've played the colle-its not a bad opening.
-----
BTW, most coaches and online advice tells players to stay away from the opening systems.
A few years ago, there was a book called, How to Build Your Chess Opening Repertoire by Steve Giddins. One can see a review at https://web.archive.org/web/20140627000253/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen49.pdf . It might seem a bit much to buy a book like Mastering the Chess Openings Vol. 4 by John Watson for just one section, but, if one is willing to do that, one can read a quite lengthy discussion of opening selection. Also perhaps of interest is Openings for Amateurs by Pete Tamburro. ("... an excellent introduction to the openings for scholastic and club players." - Michael Goeller (2014)) I understand that New in Chess will soon be publishing Basic Chess Openings for Kids by Charles Hertan. Already available is Chess Openings for Kids by John Watson and Graham Burgess.
It may seem cold for someone to answer a question by saying, "This is the kind of research you need to do", but, to a large extent, that is the simple truth. Opening selection is surprisingly complicated and nobody can realistically do it for you based on a few words of general description. I forget who said it (Maya Angelou, Spiderman?), but the saying, "You find your path by walking it", seems to be very appropriate here.
One issue is the amount of work that one is willing to do. About a decade ago, Larry Kaufman wrote a book identifying some specific openings for the reader, but he emphasized at the start that his choices were not for everyone.
"If you are content with [equality with White, and somewhat inferior chances with Black], get a book that recommends some simple development scheme, read it in one afternoon, and your are done. This book is written for those who want the advantage they are entitled to by virtue of the first move when they are White, and who want near-equality with Black, with chances for advantage if White strays from grandmaster-approved lines."
By the way, my reaction to that was to wish that a specific "afternoon" book had been identified. I don't think I have ever seen an opening book that I could read in one afternoon.
Another issue is one's level of chess ambition. In 2012, Greg Shahade wrote, "If you don't have [ambitions to be great at chess someday or to be above 2000-2200], you can basically play whatever you want as long as you know something about it." My own experience causes me to suspect that, as one goes from 1500 to 2000, one can expect it to become increasingly common for one to encounter opponents who are well-prepared for the common simple development schemes.
One consideration that has always influenced my opening choices was whether or not I could find an understandable (for me) and readable (for me) book that was relevant.
Fischer was willing to play but there was a lot going on in the world at that time. Fischer's win was a slap in the face to the USSR and their entire way of life. They would have done anything and I mean ANYTHING to get the title back. There were two chess games going on at that time. One at the board and the other metaphorical chess game of geopolitics.
While I don't claim to know Fischer's reasoning I would argue that by not backing down to Soviet demands he ended up winning both at the board and away from it. In the end, No one ever beat Fischer and the USSR doesn't exist.
Come on. You know what natural talent is. I don't think there's any question that Morphy had great natural talent. Chess wasn't his profession and he didn't devote his life to the game as Fischer and others have. He had an innate ability and an understanding of the game that was well ahead of his time. But this is not about the most talented master in history; it's about the greatest master in history. I nominated Morphy, not because of his natural talent, but because of his domination of the greatest masters of his time - and his superior understanding of the game. Whether his domination resulted from natural talent or years of preparation is neither here nor there.
Capablanca was one of the best of his time but his results in matches and tournaments don't support the claim that he was the best. He may have been the most talented but that doesn't matter. Capablanca won the championship by defeating Lasker, who was well past his prime (and as you said, didn't even want to play). Then he lost his only title defense six years later.
Using both books(Najdorf's and Bronstein's) to study the games of this tournament would be probably ideal.
It is better though to get a general education about middlegame before you try these 2 books.You must know for example what isolated pawn is and how to play against it or with it.
In another topic Pachman's 3 books "Complete Chess Strategy" were suggested.These are excellent books , almost classics , from one of the best teachers of his time.Pachman is simple , easy to understand for everyone , without being simplistic with the complex middlegame concepts.His ability to explain the most difficult concepts with the most simple language is what separates him from any other author.Pachman's books were written for the serious student while most of today's books aim to the wide market of patzers and that unfortunately often lowers the quality.
Kotov's books(Think like a grandmaster , Play like a grandmaster, Train like a grandmaster) must be also mentioned but they are difficult books.Kotov doesn't even bother to be simple.Sometimes you will need to read and reread a paragraph to understand what he is trying to say.Especially his analysis is often very confusing but these are books only for the most determined.
Dvoretsky was one of the few that continued the Soviet tradition of excellent books with the 4 books "School of chess excellence" which are exactly what the title says:
A school for chess excellence.
Silman is a very good author , one of my favorites but there is really no room for his books when you can choose Bronstein , Pachman , Kotov , Dvoretsky , Kasparov , Tal .There is nothing his books say that all the above don't say it better.
If you were a beginner I would recommend Silman as a first acquaintance with middlegame but since you are not beginner , there is nothing that Silman's books can offer you.His endgame book is very good but again there are much better books on this field(Dvoretsky , Shereshevsky , Keres just to mention only a few of them).
You can't study everything and even if you can , you have to start from somewhere.
Choosing the correct books to study is the most important decision.You want the highest possible quality of information since the rating jump you will eventually do is closely related to it.
Jul 24, 2015
0
#12
thechessplaya5 wrote:
Hello chess friends,
Today I want to ask you which opening for white leads to more active pieces and better center control (at least one pawn in the four central squares) and which is flexible, i.e, can be played in almost any game as white.
the move a3 or h3 will control the center . . . . . . . . . .
Okay. So my needs were too general. What I wanted was a opening which gives an early advantage to white (unlike Scotch and the Italian, which offer various counterplays from Black) and gives me a solid middlegame to enforce tactics and startegies.
By the way, there are MANY openings which fail to provide a consistent and solid pawn in the center. For example, we have Advanced French, Berlin in Ruy Lopez, some variations of Caro-kann etc.
thechessplaya5 wrote:
Okay. So my needs were too general. What I wanted was a opening which gives an early advantage to white (unlike Scotch and the Italian, which offer various counterplays from Black) and gives me a solid middlegame to enforce tactics and startegies.
By the way, there are MANY openings which fail to provide a consistent and solid pawn in the center. For example, we have Advanced French, Berlin in Ruy Lopez, some variations of Caro-kann etc.
No, in all of those openings white has a pawn in the centre. And if you want an advantage "early in the game" I'm afraid you'll be dissapointed. Openings like the closed spanish will give white a slight edge, but with best play black will be able to equalise there, EVENTUALLY, whether that's 10 moves in or 30. Defenses like the Gruenfeld and the French make it very hard for white to get more than a symbolic advantage. However, despite this there ARE many openings which give white the easier game to play, with clearer plans and if you want to be very successful with your openings these are the things you really want to be aiming for.
Against 1.e4 e5 the two best ways to "strive" for an objective advantage are the spanish and the scotch. Against 1.d4 d5 the best way to strive for an objective advantage is anything with an earylish c4, for example the queens gambit.
You say you don't like openings which give blacks good counter chances/counterplay? If this is what you mean, then you are talking more of a practical advantage than an objective one. Just go through the database and find variations which you can parry each/most mainline defense(s) which make black's play as hard as possible, simple.
If there were an opening that could be definitely stated to give an early advantage to White and not to offer counterplay to Black, then I would think that that opening would dominate modern chess. One could eliminate some openings as definitely not giving an early advantage to White, but that leaves a lot of possibilities where there are CHANCES of an advantage. Your solidity requirements don't narrow things down very much. I suspect that what you need to do is browse through a book like Back to Basics: Openings by Carsten Hansen and try to pick out something that comes close to what you want.
Since you seem to want it, I'll mention one specific possibility: The Kaufman Repertoire for Black & White by Larry Kaufman. ("The goal as White is to reach a favorable position where your winning chances substantially exceed Black's winning chances." - LK (2011)) ("If you are looking for a solid repertoire that is ambitious and carries a punch, then this book will be of interest." - Carsten Hansen (2012)) https://web.archive.org/web/20140626221508/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen162.pdf
Come on. You know what natural talent is. I don't think there's any question that Morphy had great natural talent. Chess wasn't his profession and he didn't devote his life to the game as Fischer and others have. He had an innate ability and an understanding of the game that was well ahead of his time. But this is not about the most talented master in history; it's about the greatest master in history. I nominated Morphy, not because of his natural talent, but because of his domination of the greatest masters of his time - and his superior understanding of the game. Whether his domination resulted from natural talent or years of preparation is neither here nor there.
Capablanca was one of the best of his time but his results in matches and tournaments don't support the claim that he was the best. He may have been the most talented but that doesn't matter. Capablanca won the championship by defeating Lasker, who was well past his prime (and as you said, didn't even want to play). Then he lost his only title defense six years later.
I like GM Serper, but his blog had little to do with the 19th Century except for Blackburne's immortal brilliancy and a game between Blackburne and Steinitz.
@Coolchess_guy,
You seem to think that the lines you suggest are easier to play. If anything, some of them are MUCH harder to understand and play well! The Scheveningen, for example, requires Black to have utter sang froid in the face of a ferocious attack, often refraining from castling entirely in order to... protect the king! The Sicilian is a nasty game of cut and thrust. White's plan is almost always pretty simple: develop in the center and attack on the K-side. Black's plan is almost always much more difficult and not easily expressed in words.
I agree with you, Optimissed. Pfren's acerbic attacks are really nasty. They aren't remotely amusing, and just serve to belittle those he targets. He's right more often than he's wrong, but that doesn't excuse his tone or the personal nature of his attacks.
Kindaspongey,
you have shown in the past that you read whatever you like into a comment, then ask a question which actually highlights your own biases and ignorance.
i agreed that e5 creates holes. I did not agree that it is inaccurate.
".... Many ordinary club players might describe losing the game above [(http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1034538)] as follows: 'My opponent blundered a pawn in the opening, but then I fell for a fork! He was so lucky!' Don't become one of these boring and self-deluding people. If you think you are doing okay, but gradually become more and more confused, and then your opponent makes a winning combination, try to uncover the positional thread that led to disaster."
"I can get back to studying openings anytime. I've spent years doing it, and there's very few that I don't know at least somewhat well, as well as the plans and middle game positions that arise from them. Right now however, following a script when I play bores me. I'm cerntainly not trying to reinvent anything, just the opposite, just trying to shake it up for fun. Studying openings is a must for anyone who wants to be serious at this game, but not for someone that just feels like pushing wood and could care less about the results. I'm sure soon enough I will find the energy to get back to caring about chess improvement." - Slow_pawn (November 6, 2017)
Yes. Why? Because under 2000 you simply aren't good enough to continue to play logical moves forever. The moves that just so happen to be good in the opening phase are good not because the opening is a phase in which special rules change the way the game is played. But rather because they make sense according to the position. Regardless of whether it's move 3 or move 30 you must be able look at the position and play according to the position. But that's just being able to analyze positions yes? It's not some special skill that is used in the opening. It's used for the entire game. The opening may have practical challenges in the fact that nothing has moved but they are not so difficult that you should be forced to lose if you make a positional mistake against amateurs. A tactical mistake on the other hand can be decisive.
We can see this with engines. Players like Kasparov have called them stupid. Players say that they understand nothing. Take the opening books away and they play badly in the opening. But they don't seem to just lose in the opening or have the problems most people complain about. Why? Is it their amazing opening skill? No, rather it is the fact that they don't blunder very easily at all. Perhaps they get into horrible positions or even positionally lost ones. But they rarely lose outright in the opening. Because the fact is that someone has to blunder for that to happen. And guess how most games under 2000 are decided. It certainly isn't amazing understanding of the opening that's causing this.
What occurs at higher levels is simply that players have gotten to the point in which they are able to take advantage of even small positional issues and cause problems for the opponent. So those positional errors that aren't losing suddenly become a problem because your opponents will actually be able to take advantage of them and press for a very long time. Under 2000? No such thing. And even so plenty of GMs like Judit Polgar have talked about having trouble in the openings and having to win in the middlegames. Surely this is not impossible for us to do.
I'm not advocating playing without a plan at all. I'm advocating playing without wasting time with opening theory. These are not the same things. In fact we are in agreement that White needed to come up with a plan on the 9th move. However I'm more than sure that this could be done without looking at an opening book prior to the game. After all, it's something you do in all parts of the game and not simply the first moves. Would it be helpful? Sure. But it isn't necessary at all for most of us.
And no, you did not explain how opening knowledge would have prevented the move 20.Nb5? in your article or how it would allow White to see 1.Qg4+ in the OP. And funnily enough, but moves could have been seen had White simply looked for checks which is the most basic thing that tactics training teaches.
A simple calculation of, "If I play 20.Nb5 does he have any forcing moves? Oh yes 20...Be3+! Then 21.Kb1 weakens the rook and... Oh no! My rook is hanging!" This is what the entire point of the thread is. In both games the openings weren't great believe me and yet both sides managed to get into a blunderful middlegame in which tactics decided the game.
"Ok, first of all, don't play the hippo, or other such crap. Part of chess growth is learning to play the opening, meaning real openings that let you fight for an advantage. There is nothing wrong with incorporating learning openings into your overall chess training program.
What you should NOT do is blindly memorize theory without understanding the principles of the opening for both colors. When I started serious chess as a kid in Russia, they taught us comprehensively - endgames, tactics, and openings as well: main lines, including various open sicilians. If you understand he principles, the moves come much more easily. And if you find yourself in a different, unfamiliar line, knowing the principles will help you find the right idea." - FM chuddog (October 16, 2016)
"... There is no universal guide to the intended audience of chess books, nor even unanimous opinions. ..."
"... Play as many very slow games as possible. ... Don't worry about your rating or losing rating points. ..."
"... most of the roadblocks to improvement are from the failure to eliminate errors, rather than the failure to add new information. ... Of course, if you only eliminate errors and never learn new information that will surely stifle your improvement as well, so both methods of improvement are important and necessary. ... You need both theory and practice in tennis, golf, chess, math, or just about any subject of sufficient complexity. ... Tournament play gives you the kind of concentrated, slow chess that often helps improve your game, ... many of these basic ideas are explained in Averbakh's Essential Chess Endgames. ... Review each of your games, identifying opening (and other) mistakes with the goal of not repeatedly making the same mistake. ... if you want to improve at chess, you have to work hard at it. ... studying the most basic tactics over and over until you can recognize them almost instantly is likely the single best thing you can do when you begin studying chess! ..." - NM Dan Heisman
SmyslovFan: ... Lasker was right about the best way to begin to teach a novice: focus on the most basic endgames and work backwards.
BobbyTalparov: ... Book Two of Lasker's Manual introduces several openings to go over the ideas of those openings. ...
kindaspongey: With positional play later, he wasn't exactly working backwards, was he?
BobbyTalparov: ... He states why he covers openings when he does (basically, to get it out of the way because it is what beginners ask about most often). ...
BobbyTalparov: He literally spends 2 pages explaining what he is doing,
"... Nearly 170 pages [in The Mammoth Book of Chess] are ... devoted to various chess openings. ..." - Steve Goldberg (2010)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708093123/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review756.pdf
That sort of reading would be a pretty daunting task, but I think this book differs from most others in that it uses a lot of sample games.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708112658/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review315.pdf
About half a century ago, I think the Fine book was considered to be nearly essential reading, but now, I fear that its information is seriously out-of-date. Also, I do not think it has much in the way of sample games which, in my opinion, are the best way to get a quick idea about whether or not one would want to learn more about an opening. The Mammoth book is not devoted exclusively to openings, but about 170 pages are on that subject.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708095832/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review769.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20140717063824/http://www.chesscafe.com/archives/reviews.htm
wrote:
Indirect wrote (#14):
mickynj wrote:
In chess, as in sport, or the sciences, the truly great tower over their contemporaries and through their genius teach the next generation. Of course today's masters play much better than Morphy. They have been taught by Morphy, and by Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, Botvinnik, Fischer, and Kasparov! But Morphy was the greatest player in the world and passed on some of his genius to the next generation.
I definitely agree with that. Chess knowledge, like many things we do, are passed down through generations, and the knowledge accumulates. Morphy was a genius way ahead of his time, but his chess knowledge compared to today isn't all that great. It's like Math, Sir Isaac Newton was a genius and he invented Calculus, but it's clearly obvious that a college student taking a Calculus course knows more than he did. There's a big difference between genius and knowledge.
I definitely agree with that. Chess knowledge, like many things we do, are passed down through generations
wrote:
Indirect wrote (#408):
mickynj wrote:
This whole discussion is based on a complete misunderstanding of what ELO rating means. The ELO rating is based on your performance with a given pool of players. It makes absolutely no sense for a modern player to look at Morphy's games and say, "Well, he looks like a 2200 to me." That's complete nonsense. Morphy played in the 1850's and his "ELO" is determined by his performance against the pool of actually existing players of his day. And since we have some data about how those players stacked up against each other, we can make reasonably decent estimates of their ratings in relation to each other. But since there were far fewer tournaments in those days, and record keeping wasn't as good, all we have are estimates. Chessmetrics has his rating in around 2700, and edochess estimates his peak rating at about 2800. Since he was clearly the strongest player in the world at his peak, both ratings seems reasonable.
2800 seems reasonable? Need I remind you Bobby Fischer never reached 2800. Spassky never reached 2700. And given they came almost a century after Morphy, with new knowledge, new innovations, new ways of thinking, so what makes you think Morphy's elo would be higher than theirs? One more thing, ratings will go up with time given that there are more players and more information about the game is acquired. And it's the same thing in other games, not just chess. In go (baduk) the top player's rating has gone up from 3200ish to 3600ish in just about half a century. So how can Morphy's rating possibly be 2700+?
2800 seems rea
carlsen 2961 kramnik 2868 kasparov 2816 fischer 2775 anand 2759 karpov 2698 capablanca 2664 tal 2636 spassky 2619 smyslov 2618 botvinnik 2602 euwe 2547 alekhine 2547 petrosian 2543 lasker 2498 morphy 2409 steinitz 2323
"Yes, you can easily become a master. All you need to do is some serious, focused work on your play.
That "chess is 99% tactics and blah-blah" thing is crap. Chess is several things (opening, endgame, middlegame strategy, positional play, tactics, psychology, time management...) which should be treated properly as a whole. getting just one element of lay and working exclusively on it is of very doubtful value, and at worst it may well turn out being a waste of time." - IM pfren (August 21,2017) Panayotis Frendzas
[–]danielrensch 9 points 1 year ago
As a professional player and teacher, I've thought about this a lot actually. I think it's because I had a strong "Russian" training of endgames, positional chess, pawn structure, etc -- with tactics being an obvious necessity to become a good player, but not something my trainers ever "DRILLED" into me with the ruthless statements of "chess is all tactics" or "chess is 99% tactics" etc. Then, as I started to teach and I found myself focusing my students attention on the the bigger picture aspects that can and WILL lead to good tactics, rather than just the tactics itself, I again, was aligned with the thinking that "tactics are a part of the game but positional chess and planning is what OUTPLAYS your opponent".
Now, all that said, and though I still believe this to be true, I've realized over time that I might have been wrong to teach chess this way. For a few reasons, but mainly, as someone from this thread has already pointed out, tactics eventually DECIDE every game. No matter what. At any level. Yes, the factors that lead to good or bad tactics are more strategically, prepositionally based, but without the pattern recognition of all the commonly requiring tactics, people WILL miss their opportunities to win. And isn't that what it's all about? We are chess players, not chess scientists after all?
So in the end, I come back to the belief that teaching tactics first and foremost, and that tactics are SO important (drilling the patterns home) is a good idea so that your students can start winning games. With balance of course. I can never leave my drunkin' Russian roots behind -- BUT I think if people don't win and enjoy the process of chess, they will have a harder time staying with the more advanced planning and strategical principles later. Even if those bigger picture concepts are what ultimately govern who GETS GOOD TACTICS, but are harder to grasp, and knowing tactics patterns like the back of your hand. Like masters do in BLITZ and BULLET is important. It's intuitive. It wins games.
I have some sympathy for wanting to rebel against "supercilious intellectualism", but it seems to me to be desirable to strive to distinguish between the quality of exposition and the merit of an idea. I, of course, am not in a position to know what anyone else is thinking, but it strikes me as a good guess that there is not an intention to tell you that any one person can decide what real chess is. What one person can do is give you a view of the attitude that has prevailed in the chess world for centuries. That attitude has valued stuff like planning, playing long endgames, finding deep combinations, evaluating openings, etc. Consider the vast amount of writing that has been produced on such subjects. Does Blitz foster that sort of chess?
"... the kind of thinking it takes to plan, evaluate, play long endgames, and find deep combinations is just not possible in quick chess. ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2002)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627052239/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman16.pdf
Think NM Heisman is putting you on? Perhaps it isn't quite as absolute as NM Heisman made it sound, but do you have any doubt that planning and the other stuff is going to be of much higher quality in a slow game? And what about openings? Haven't you yourself written this?
"... Blackmar Diemer ... Obviously in a 30min game one might be able to pick it apart, but in 1 or 3 min games it is simply impossible for the opponent to calculate the countless possible lines, ..."
Aren't you, in effect, acknowledging that the quality of the moves is going to be higher in the slower game? I would not want to claim that you are completely out-of-step in placing value on the "pressure of playing". After all, the chess world wants to see battle in the arena of over-the-board play, where there is some sacrifice of deep computation, etc. in comparison with correspondence chess. However, what reason is there to believe that the chess world, as a whole, wants to make the greater sacrifice of putting the focus on Blitz? Perhaps you do believe that. In any event, is it an issue that is plausibly settled by the outcome of "a 3 min game"?
Isn't 6...h6 a bad move?
I am pretty certain that if black accepts the scotch gambit white is better. Also, if you want a flexible opening consider King's Indan Attack. At first it seems like you don't get the center, but you can strike with e4 and f4 later into the game and have a lot of strategies. However, these positions tend to get extremely complex and complicated sometimes
Jul 26, 2015
0
#19
Only the player involved understands their specific needs, and they have to work on this themselves. Some of your assumptions are not based in reality. For example, the scotch was popularised by Kasparov and used by him to win games in world championship matches.
Hello chess friends,
Today I want to ask you which opening for white leads to more active pieces and better center control (at least one pawn in the four central squares) and which is flexible, i.e, can be played in almost any game as white.