chess theories "all" subject to refutation
Sort:
there are about millions of chess openings, and more ever so its theories. noveltys, new ideas, and new improvements comes by understanding by heart chess variations in the opening until the endgame. refuting those theories, noveltys, and new ideas deals with hard work- home work ( research, study, and experiencing tourn play). one of my experience playing the ruy lopez as black....i often get beaten with this chess variation as black. so, heavy home work, it was my high school days, i found a way to refute the prepared theory and by playing it many times and analyzing it, you can refute it. but, this varaition is not publish nor be found in any chess database. recently, i tried playing it with FICS computer challenge (highest chess engine), i beat the computer 3 times. i guess, this discovery, is not at all well publish.. try looking it at the database you wont see this refutation. if there is...then only a few. this is one trade secret i want to share. try playing it and next time i will post full details of the game. hope u enjoy!
Well ok, amongst amateurs and club players it's ok to deviate, or to improvise during your opening BUT, what if you play on a tournament? For money or other prize? Do you feel comfortable with your bad black bishop at d6? Even worst are the things if you are a GM. Then, I think that at this level somewhere in the way the opponent will take advantage of the weaknesses you have (including the black bishop!) and will find a way to win. It's not that I disagree with your idea, in fact I like it, as it's not bad at all, but maybe you 'll be in trouble against very strong players...
Well, the truth is nobody really knows everything when it comes to theory, not even the strongest grandmasters. The game is simply too vast. There could be new, good ideas lurking somewhere, or perhaps improvements over existing lines, though it won't be easy to find because a lot of stuff is tried. Evaluations of sharp positions change all the time. So today I don't fully trust any theory; I first consult it with my own judgment and if I think another move is more logical, I play it for that time. Even if I am wrong, I am still playing the move that's most consistent with my understanding of the position, which means I should be able to follow-up that plan more convincingly than some GM idea I memorized but of which I forgot its reasoning.
Still, most of the time you are wrong, you just don't know why :)
Bxf3 is one of the mainlines there. The idea is to swap off the bishop for the pesky knight, and there is nothing with doing so. I prefer black in both variations, with the pin after Bh5 or swapping off.
Im not sure, is it a mainline? I thought it was, maybe im wrong o.O homework for me.
As for learning, I always play a game which I dont know the theory for "properly", but i play so frequently and lose so many times. then ONE day when im not feeling lazy, i plug it into my engine and find the right defensive moves. There comes the barrier of chance of me remembering it... then it sticks into my head. As it is, tehre are so many variations that I just forget the moves and even the main ideas. But I suppose im not very hardworking at chess; its just a hobby for me. Fun though... fun... *falls to sleep*
You have to first try to understand it yourself, with full effort, to get anything out of the engine. Perhaps when the engine is running you're tempted to try to keep up with its pace (when you will indeed be confused as hell as an engine thinks faster than anyone), and same for theory, but remember that both the theoreticians and the computer had to think a lot before determining the "best" (ambiguous of course) move which you can see in a matter of seconds. Of course in the latter case the engine may have thought about a lot of things but it doesn't take long for it to do just that!
In fact, anything that offers instruction simply MUST be actively attempted individually first -- this is something I learned the hard way. I remember watching IM Danny Rensch's excellent videos on rook endgames, but it was of a more passive nature "[refuses to pause video upon Danny's request] oh yeah, that makes sense." Then I try to play these positions, which I think I know, against the engine, and I can't. I have vague ideas of what to do, ("I think the rook cuts off the king sometimes, or maybe this is the one where you don't but he can't take your pawn for some reason...") but I can't really put it together because I didn't truly understand those rook positions. Instead of using logic to figure them out, I would try to figure out what vague idea matches with which position, which is of course hopelessly artificial. By being actively involved, it guarantees for one thing that you're thinking about chess while you're learning, and moreover it allows you to compare strong player logic with your logic, and thus helps you revise your thinking and understanding.
If you do this, the engine's analysis should be rather enlightening than outright confusing and trivial.
thax for your comments...this variations is not just pure logic...its a variation played few times and the Bxf3 is a tempting and deceptive move, many dnt know this is a tempo and initiative move....try playing it..........when i come back. i will tell u guys the full details.....ull find it interesting to play this variations
the engine moves are enlightning at most times. Because I go a little depth into them and see what suddenly that whtie CAN and CANT do, and why they dont work, and play aroudn with some ideas for white which I at first don't really understand why they still dont work in this variation, then ah! this allows that now.... and etc.
But your right about them not sticking in. vague ideas. but in some lines, there are sharp moves, but actually ive forgotten them all lol. Maybe when the position comes up though ill remember :D
lol, the best is when it develops to a protected square so nonchalantly, and it takes like 6 moves of analysis to find out why it can't be taken.