Confessions of a beginner looking for an opening repertoire.

I think everybody goes through the experience of looking for a first opening repertoire that they are truly happy with.  Some may resonate with my experience.  Others may wish to relate a different experience.  Still others may be able to point out where I might have some beginner-related misconceptions, and may not get what I want out of my chosen repertoires.  I welcome all comments.  Bottom line, I’m excited about diving into the KIA and Reti for white, and maybe the KID and 1… b6 for black.  Here’s the journey that has led me there.   If you want to skip the “journey,” and just give your thoughts on my questions at the bottom, that’s welcomed, too.

 

For the first several months I was following the basic advice for beginner openings (lessons on Chess Master and elsewhere, blissfully unaware of book associated with gambits, Sicilian, Ruy, etc.) This usually led me to an approximation of the Philidor.   Often though my position felt cramped, like there were no good moves immediately after the pieces were fully developed  (center pawns out, Ns and Bs out, castled, rooks connected.) The next few moves were mostly about trying to decide where I wanted to make piece trades for considerations of minor piece strength, space, pawn structure.  (As an aside, is this called positional play?)   As these considerations are not yet crystal clear to me, a lot of times I just didn’t see anything that looked clearly good so I would feel stifled in the position, or my fate left to chance.  (I’m working on it.  Studying “The Amateur’s Mind,” Silman, mostly.) 

 

I recently played the Sicilian once as white (the one game that shows on my recent games on this site.)  I was just following book in response to black’s 1… c5.  I experienced it for white much the way I’ve read about it.  The tension built up until one side (black in this case) initiated the battle.  When the dust cleared I was down a pawn.  I couldn’t find any plan that would give me an advantage, so ended up making a series of even material trades, and going into a rook and pawn endgame with an inferior pawn structure.  Granted, I was playing a much stronger opponent, but so far I can’t see why white would want to follow the Sicilian lines in response to 1. e4 c5.  I would prefer to avoid the Sicilian in the future, especially as white.

 

As a remedy to some of the problems above, I’ve lately been looking for something modern that could be played against most black defenses, and more tactics intensive, less positional, and gives me control of my game.  I found the Reti and really like it.  (“Hypermodern Opening Repertoire for White,” Schiller.)  I’ve tried it just on Chess Master so far, against Josh, age 6, rated 1200 (I suspect intended to emulate Josh Waitzkin at that age.)  I’d never been able to come even close to beating him with my Philidor, the little booger!  He plays a modern opening, has his pieces working together, and is aggressive.  With the Reti I almost beat him a couple times.  (I did if taking back a couple moves, but that’s not fair and square.)  Sometimes he initiates the attack on my king side before I’m entirely set up on the queen side (rook on a2 ready to be doubled up on an open file, queen on a1 doubled up with the fianchettoed bishop.)  Other times I’ve  succeeded in setting up the queen side only to have never used the queen on the diagonal, or doubled rooks, in battle, so felt like I wasted moves to set that up.  (This plays into why I like the KIA, below.)  Overall though, I like it.  There seems to be a number of good tactical possibilities coming out of the opening.  I find the resulting tactics very memorable, so feel like I’m learning a lot on every game.  Also, in studying the modern openings in general, I feel like I spend more time learning about tactics and positional considerations in the middle game related to that opening system, and less time reading about long book lines and branches.

 

I’ve played very little as black, and need to play it more.  My experience with the Reti caused me to want to find something similar for black.  In my search, I came across the Indian.  KIA for white, which looks to me like a simplified Reti.  And KID for black, which looks like it has a lot of variations, so I’m a little concerned that it might be too complex for me at this stage.

 

A friend loaned me some study materials last night, which included a video on KIA, so I’m now digging even deeper into opening systems for white, and still neglecting my play as black.   The KIA really got me hooked, though.  The opening position of the KIA looks exactly like the king side of the Reti, so I have the option to transpose to the Reti by setting up the queen side (a3, Ra2, Qa1) only if needed, or can get into the battle quicker if desired without the Reti queen side setup.  The KIA seems pretty effective as a modern opening, while remaining simple and versatile.  I tried the KIA against Josh (the little booger) last night and beat him fair and square!  Bottom line, I’m really excited about the KIA. 

 

Ah, but what to do for black?  I want to look into the KID but am concerned that it is too complex and doesn’t cover 1.e4 openings so not as versatile for black as the KIA is for white.  I may also look into 1… b6 for black.  “Play 1... b6: A Dynamic and Hypermodern Opening System for Black,” Bauer.  Maybe also called the Owen defense.

 

A few questions.  (This is from the perspective of a serious beginner, maybe the equivalent of 1300 on this site.)

 

1. Is there a modern opening system for black that is analogous to the KIA, or Reti, for white?  I’m looking for modern, versatile, and simple. 

 

I’m interested in learning more about the KID but wondering if it will turn out to be too complex and if my time would be better spent elsewhere on my first system for black.  The KID for black seems analogous to the KIA for white in that it’s initial king side bishop and knight position are the same, but there seem to be many more variations and longer lines for the KID.  Also, my understanding is the KIA is pretty versatile and effective against most black systems, where the KID is not appropriate for White’s 1.e4.

 

2. Thoughts on the 1… b6 Hypermodern for black to meet my needs and style?   Would it be similar to the Reti for white?

 

3.  If I do go with KID for black against 1.d4, what would you recommend for a modern opening against 1.e4?  Would the KID plus one other modern system cover me for defense against all or most of white's systems? 

 

4.  Should the KIA suffice for all situations as white, for a while, if I like it, or will I need other openings?

 

5.  As an aside, is there something inherent about modern opening systems for black, or black in general, that result in more variations within the system?      

Wow, what a long post!  I'm pretty sure a lot of people would have replied to this post had it been a paragraph shorter.

 

 To make it short I'll just answer your questions:

 

1.While the KIA is pretty versatile, it doesn't score well against semi-open openings like the Sicilian for some reason. You should include the KID in your repertoire as the same defense could be used against many of White's d4 opening. As it is not effective against the e4 openings, you can adopt the Pirc which has a lot of same ideas in the KID.

 

Both the KIA and KID have near-similar ideas. Some subtle ideas, like the fashionable exchange sacrifice in the KID and the advance of the b pawn to b4 (positional sacrifice) might interest you. The KID is a solid defense and, once thought to be positionally suspect, was brought back to the fore when Garry played it with great success. It also has the advantage of lessening the time for the study of openings. You should avoid the ...d5 highway of massive theory until your positional armament is up to the level required to play these openings. They require a lots of slow maneuvering. And another thing, there is no such thing as modern openings anymore; there are only modern lines.

 

 2. 1....b6 is very flexible and many of the later positions may be reached via transposition from many KID or Nimzo-Indian openings. I suggest yous stick to a few that you are planning to play before attempting to add it to your repertoire. At the level you are playing now it might be playable but it would be a whole lot easier to play with openings you are at home with. I am not sure what your style is though but one thing stands true: beginners have to play open games whether they like it or not. This has been prescribed by Reti and he couldn't impress it more upon a beginner. I haven't made any study into the Reti opening so I'm not in the position to make a comparison between the two hypermodern openings.

 

 3. I would recommend aiming for the Ruy Lopez but if you want to have something similar to the KID, I would recommend the Pirc. And yes, both are decent enough to cover all (yes, all) of White's opening tries. (KID for c4, d4 etc, Pirc e4)

 

4. It has trouble against semi-open openings like the Sicilian so I suggest learning some Sicilian lines or a special opening for it like the Smith Morra Gambit, Grand Prix attack etc just in case.

 

5. No. It's just that theory has evolved so much that variations are more influenced by tiny improvements which is easily available via databases and home preparation than because of a player's style.

 

Lastly, be prepared to read from many "You are a beginner! Study the endgames, bla bla bla study tactics bla bla bla". Every beginner does that. You deserve to only read replies which try to answer your questions. I hope some of my answers  would help in that regard.

 

 Good luck!

I'm also a beginner 1300+ and i like to play the ponziani opening.

Not many people know the opening and make faults.

The opening start with same 4moves as the Ruy Lopez (Spanish) =

1.e4 e5

2.Nf3 Nc6

Now in the Ruy Lopez the next move will be 3.Bb5  .

But in the ponziani the next move is 3.c3 .
Most of my opponents and computers-opponents now do 3. ... Nf6  .

Now the next moves goes like this:

3. ... Nf6

4.d4 exd4

5.e5 Ng4

6.cxd4 ...

Now white is controlling the center and is soon gonna get the B's in the game and then castle.

 

I hope u can do something with this ... 

Thanks for all the info.  Very helpful.   I'll consider learning the Sicilian defense rather than the Pirc, against 1.e4.

 

I found yet another opening for white that I think is interesting.  The Colle.  Another example of fairly brief opening lines, fiancetto bishop, then quickly into the tactics.  I like the idea of learning to use the power of bishops on adjacent diagonals, too.   Seems like there's more simple modern openings for white than for black, maybe because white get's the first move.  I keep looking for simple modern systems for black against 1.e4 and keep tripping over yet another modern system for white :).  There is the Pirc defense.  Thanks for that suggestion.

 

I appreciate all the thoughts and will re-read them several more times as I settle some openings  for my next round of emphasis.

I really think beginners really need to learn how to play in the center, before they start playing hyper-modern openings. Before you give up the center with a move like 1...b6, you really should understand what your are giving up. I think that the most important thing for a beginners to do in the opening is get his pieces out quickly so he can learn how to use them in the middle game. These are the openings I play: As white: Giuoco Piano/Moller Attack, Giuoco Piano/7.Bd2, Evans Gambit. Against the Two Knights Defense I like 4.d4 exd4 5.0-0. I also play the Scotch Game from time to time. Against the Sicilian, I play the morra-smith gambit. As black after 1.e4 I play e5, I play the slav or the albin counter gambit against the queens gambit. These aren't the best openings in chess but they are all simple and allow quick development, and normally lead to open positions, and should give you good winning chances.  

A book you should get your hands on if at all possible is Chess the Easy Way by Ruben Fine. It's really old and might be out of print, but he explains 10 simple rules to follow in the opening, that make openings seem much more simple.    

pvmike, now you tell me ;)  I just the day before yesterday dropped $150 US on books on the KIA, KID, Pirc.  They should arrive tomorrow.  So I consider myself vested to try these openings for 6 moths.  I did play according to the basic rules for openings for the first 3 months, always starting with 1.e4 as white, so at least got a little feel for it.  I'll probably loop back around and try some of the gamits later.

 

I don't mind, by the way, being told that I might be making a mistake.  I'm very open in discussions, so that I can learn from the rest of you.

The KIA is a perfectly playable opening for beginners that don't want to study theory. Saying that it doesn't score well in semi-open positions is taken on the scores of FM, IM and GM games and if you want to have an opening that scores better, you're going to have to study theory.

The KID is a mirrored image of the KIA, but it is different because white moves first and the attacks white uses will be different than those black uses against the KIA. Also, the KID has fairly obscene amounts of variations.

The pirc and KID both have closed positions, so they are similar in that way, but the pirc has less variations (I've tried playing the pirc and it's too passive in my opinion, but it's still a solid opening that many enjoy).

1...b6 is playable, but the fact that you'll probably want to castle on the queenside or wait a long time to kingside castle makes it seem somewhat inferior (I have no knowledge of any 1...b6 variations, but that is my immediate deduction about the opening).

Make sure you like playing in closed positions because with your choices or KIA, pirc and KID you'll be seeing a lot of them.

And finally, on a side note, the reti and KIA are not the same. Reti just means 1.Nf3

I bounce around from opening to opening, but I finally think I have my repertoire in place.  Keep trying to find openings that suit your style.

I not saying that you making a mistake playing hyper-modern opening, when I first started playing I played Larsen's Opening for the longest time. For Beginners and even intermediate players studying openings isn't always the best way to improve your chess. I know a couple lines of the Piano 20 moves deep, but I haven't even played the Piano in a rated game, almost every game I play as white has been the Sicilian. For somebody rated around 1300 I wouldn't expect their opponents to play book openings for more than a couple moves. Focus more on the middle game and endgame.    

   I've always recommended that beginners start with e4 openings for white answered with e5 for black and study those possible openings. Those games tend to be full of tactics thus I avoid them. I always open d4 for white whether a QG line or the Trompovsky Attack.  Bg5 is very aggressive but I'm tired of the opening and could really us some study with the QG. D4 openings tend to be more strategic and hence positional. For black I feel you need two openings one for e4 and one for d4. For e4 I always use some Sicilian line. For a long time have I used the Scheveningen/Kan/Paulsen lines. They all transpose easily to one another. I feel they can get a bit cramped and have begun studying the Dragon. I actually played my first game where my opponent new the Yugoslav Attack and it is the first game I have ever played where we actually used the line even close to how the truly good players use it.The Dragon does make for a very aggressive tactical game. A lot of fun. The advantage to opening with c5 to e4 is that it gets the symmetry out of the game early. I have used the KID for quite some time against d4 but am looking for a change. Here again my game gets quite cramped and I'm tired of that. Also I have used the Dutch Defense Stonewall variation which is a lot of fun but weird as can be. I did use the Reti for some time but when I went down with it I really went down in flames.

 Beyond this I do recommend a classic book for the endgame that is out of print but can still be found Basic Chess Endings by Reubin Fine

I thought I would follow-up on my experience so far with the hypermodern openings; KIA as white, Pirc and KID as black.   As with my first post, I may be off on some of my impressions, so chime in to enlighten or share other points of view. 

So that any one post isn’t too long, I will post separately for each main point of consideration for choosing a repertoire; open vs closed game, amount of theory, etc., as I write it. I’ll often pose at least one question for more experienced players.

Part of the draw of the hypermoderns for me as a beginner is that a lot of players at my level don’t know that much about them.  In that sense, sharing this information feels a little the way I imagine a competitive fisherman might feel about sharing information on his favorite fishing spots.  If everyone has the information then the playing field is leveled. On the other hand, I’ll learn more myself by discussing it.  Also, more experienced players who can "out fish" us beginners anyway, may be willing to share  insights of their own. 

Here’s the first topic.

tactical and positional considerations

One of my original interests in the hypermoderns was to put more emphasis on tactics.  The asymitry between white and black is supposed to make for sharp counterplay. 

Early in the game though the hypermoderns feel more positional than tactical.  Your opponent takes the center (you let them have it) with their pawns.  Then you have to decide how to take it back, usually with a pawn push.  You have to choose the pawn/s and timing that will leave you in a good position whichever way your opponent chooses to respond.  With the KIA, it’s almost always e4, sometimes c4.  With the Pirc, it’s often c5, sometimes e5.   I haven’t played a KID yet, just because no one has yet played 1.d4 against me.

I think the hypermodern games in their transition from opening to middle game are very positional.  An understanding of pawn structures, weak and strong squares, active and inactive minor pieces, is very helpful.  When and where you push a pawn or capture a minor piece may have big consequences.  Maybe they have just as big a consequences in the classical openings, and I just don’t realize it because I haven’t studied them.  I don’t know.

I would agree there is a lot of counterplay, sometimes rapid liquidation, in the middle game. 

I enjoy playing positional in the beginning, then going for a rapid liquidation (if appropriate), into an endgame that I think I can win, being up a pawn and/or a minor piece.  So this aspect of hypermodernism works for me.

Question for more experienced players

Do you feel that positional considerations generally play a bigger role in the transition from opening to middle game in the hypermodern lines than in the classical?

open vs closed games

I was under the mistaken impression when I first got interested in the hypermoderns that they resulted in open games.  This was due to my vague understanding of the concept.  Open means there are open files, no pawns on the file.  Half open I think means your pawn is not on the file but your opponents is.   An open game would be one in which the center files are open.  Gambits accepted for example would tend to be open games.

It turns out that the hypermodern games can be open, semi open, or closed.  Often semi open, and often depending on your opponent's choices.  When you push a pawn to challenge the center, you are essentially presenting a gambit to you opponent.  They may wish to capture (opening or semi opening the center), pass by (locking the center.  See AquaMan vs glenndunn, 9 May, 2008, move 7, for an example) or do nothing for now.  If they do nothing then they somewhat put the question back to you.

I thought I would like open games.  I’ve read they are easier for beginners, and I had some vague idea that they resulted in more straight forward tactics.  Maybe so.  I find thought that I tend to like closed games.  I like to narrow the game down to certain areas of the board.  And I like playing the flanks just fine when necessary.  While the play may be complicated in those areas, because more pieces are directed to those areas, I like to be able to put my attention on fewer squares. 

So in summary, I like the rich counterplay directed to smaller areas of the board that results in closed games. 

pinkerton wrote:

Lastly, be prepared to read from many "You are a beginner! Study the endgames, bla bla bla study tactics bla bla bla". Every beginner does that. You deserve to only read replies which try to answer your questions. I hope some of my answers  would help in that regard.

---

 AquaMan, I hope that you'll pay attention to what I'm about to say. Please understand that I don't intend to sound pompous or condescending, if it ends up sounding that way. The thing is, I feel that if only I had followed the advice I'm about to give I would have shaved a lot of time off of my own learning curve. Right now I'm only starting to learn things I should have learned long ago, and I'm trying to pass this advice on to you because I feel, from my own struggles with learning and improving, that it is truly good advice.

I used to think that I liked closed games. I used to believe that it "better suited my style". The thing is, in open games there are usually more opportunities for tactics and combinations for both sides. By playing closed games, you take away a lot of those tactical opportunities. As an "advanced beginner" (and I'm speaking with my own experience in mind) you may find that in open games you are often getting mated on move 20 by stronger players whereas in closed games you can survive until move 40 or longer. Thus, you feel closed games "suit your style". But, in reality, you're just putting a band-aid over your own weaknesses. If you aren't good at tactics, make it a positional struggle. The problem is, instead of playing an open tactical game where you make 2 huge mistakes and get mated on move 20, you play a closed "positional" game where you make 20 small mistakes and end up in a losing endgame (or whatever). 

The reason that beginners are normally advised to play open games (start with 1.e4..e5, respond to 1.d4 with 1...d5, etc.) is that beginners are usually very weak on tactics. Beginners need to learn to be able to consistently recognize things like "his knight is threatening to fork my queen and rook" or "he's pinning my pawn so my bishop is not actually defended" and so forth. Open games usually encourage this sort of thing (because failing to recognize these threats often results in disaster very quickly! - so you learn by brutal, punishing experience).

"Study tactics" is excellent advice. Get a book like "303 Tricky Chess Puzzles" by Wilson and Albertson, and do all of them over and over until you can easily recognize the solution right away. As pinkerton said, you probably know this already so I apologize if I'm telling you something you've already heard. But the point is that open games tend to force you to put your tactical knowlege into action, much more than closed games do.

The bottom line is, it doesn't matter if you know a whole bunch of opening lines 10 moves deep or if you prefer opening X rather than opening Y - if you're losing games because "oh, I didn't see that he could fork my king and queen" then studying openings is basically a waste of time. 

Edit: one more thing: below an expert/master level, basically any reasonable opening is playable.

lance, I like hearing your advice.  Sharing ideas and learning from others is the whole point.  If nothing else, your particular advice will tend to keep other beginners out of my current fishing hole ;).

I did play 1.e4 casually for several months in more of an OTB style, maybe 10 or 15 games.  Since about Feb this year I've been playing mostly corespondence where I spend an hour or more on an analysis board before making a move.  I played a couple 1.e4 correspondense games, one in Feb, one in March, then switched to the hypermoderns in April.  Perhaps you're saying I should play 1.e4 for a year or more. 

I'm probably a little less of a beginner than I've implied in my posts above.  If you don't mind, take a look at my recent games, March and later, and tell me what you think.  Same request of other experienced players.  I don't mean the request as a counterpoint. I'm really interested in what you think from viewing my games.

Prior to those games I was definitely blundering on tactics.  Hard to know how much of it was because I was playing open games where it can happen more easily, and how much was lack of experience.  I think it was mostly the latter.  My first serious correspondence chess game, in Feb, not on this site, I played the Philidor.  I captured the queen with a pin followed by a fork combination.  Then successfully recognized a sacrifice attempt that would have resultend in my losing material in a later fork.  Then I sent my queen out alone and lost it to a discovered check.  Then I lost another piece to a discovered check, and lost the game.  At that point, yes I needed more work mostly on tactics.  Arguably  though, sending my queen out alone was a positional mistake.  (Also, against DD977 here, playing the KIA, I sent my rook out alone, which hurt me positionally.  I think I've finally learned my lesson on that, maybe.)  I've since studied further along in "Winning Chess Tactics," Seirawan, including all the exercises, and am past all the pin, fork, etc., material, and am now on mating patterns.  I definitely need work on mating patterns. It's a little different beast than other piece tactics.  I'm sure a lot more work on tactics is good too.

I'm also working on endgame, studying Siman's Complete Endgame Course, starting from page 1, on page 69 right now, in the chapter, "Endgame for class D players," king and pawn endgames.

I like to diversify the study.  Studying all aspects of the game in parallel.

Maybe I should be playing open games.  I don't know.  More on that when I post the topic, "What I think I've learned studying the hypermodern openings."  Maybe next.

There are probably two things that will make it hard for me to switch off of the hypermoderns right now.  1. I've invested a few weekends studying the openings, and time playing the games.  2. I've won 4 of 5 corrrespondence games playing the hypermoderns :).  Also, I can consistantly destroy Josh age 6 now on Chessmaster, as black or as white, and other computerized players up to rating 1250, where before I could never beat the computerized players in the 1200s.  I don't even bother with that now.  

Feel free to keep discussing this point.  I know you have my best interest in mind.  If nothing else, I might play a Ruy or another Philidor, sooner rather than later, and see what I think.  

Paul

Amount of opening theory

I take the term “theory” to mean that enough analysis has been done and enough testing has been done in games, that there is a reasonable consensus that the move or moves (lines) are strong.  A theory tree would be tall if the theory extends out a large number of moves.  I think of the Ruy Lopez as being a tall tree.  The tree would be wide if there were a lot of variations (branches.)  I think of the Sicilian as being a wide tree, and a tall too, for that matter.

The KIA does not have much theory, period.  If you want to be pretty sure you will be playing the KIA, you set up your king fortress with 1.Nf3, 2.g3, 3.Bg2 (and 0-0 soon after), then 4.d3 then likely Nbd2, to prepare to push e4 or sometimes c4, almost no matter what black does.  You may likely also play Re1and Qe2 to further support e4 or even a push to e5.  There are ideas from there, depending on what black has played, but not strict lines. 

The Pirc has about 5 main variations, each with some minor variations, that can go about 12 moves deep total.  So the tree is maybe medium wide and medium tall.  Against players at my level though, I probably don’t need any more theory than I have for the KIA.  Just set up the same king fortress, this time for black, and prepare to push c5, in a few cases e5, and go from there.  (Note: the likelihood of c vs e is reversed from the KIA.  In the KIA, you usually push e, sometimes c.  In the Pirc, you usually push c, sometimes e.)  Your first move is 1…d6 in response to 1.e4  (I presume that playing d6 on move 1 rather than about move 4, is to keep white from pushing 2.e5 next move.)  Then you go 2…Nf6, 3…g6, 4…Bg7 (and 0-0 soon after), to set up your fortress, almost no matter what white does.  For OTB, my plan is to think of the main branches as themes, and try to play accordingly depending on what white does.  (I haven’t actually tried this yet.)  For correspondence, of course, you can refer to the book, and you still probably won’t need it unless you’re playing someone around 1800+.

I haven’t played the KID yet, but I’ve read about it.  The main modern line goes about 12 deep and is reported to be used about half the time.  I’ve got it memorized :).  I’ve read that there is a lot of theory for the KID.  I guess that makes it a wide tree, about 12 moves tall.  Again, the king fortress is the same.  You can play the KID against anything except 1.e4, in which case you can play the Pirc.  For the KID, the first moves are a mirror image of the KIA.  You set up your fortress then play d6 to prepare to push e5 then go from there.  Again, there’s more theory with the KID, but as with the Pirc, I’m hoping I don’t need it for OTB play at my level, and can use the books for correspondence chess.

I do think this is a major positive consideration for the hypermoderns for advanced beginners.  There’s not that much theory that needs to be memorized below, say, rating 1600.  Also, the king fortress is exactly the same for the KIA, Reti, KID, Pirc.  So the themes and tactics for defending the fortress are the same across all the openings.  Same for use of the knight and bishop that are part of the fortress.

P.S.  I hope I didn't brain glitch on some of the PGN here.  Let me know if I did. 

AquaMan wrote:

lance, I like hearing your advice.  Sharing ideas and learning from others is the whole point.

---

 Thank you. I fully agree that is the point of these forums. I've learned quite a lot from seeing and participating in discussions on forums like these. I think that we are all trying to improve and we can all learn something from each other.

I'm probably a little less of a beginner than I've implied in my posts above.

Sorry . In retrospect it sounds like I put my foot in my mouth with my previous post.

If you don't mind, take a look at my recent games, March and later, and tell me what you think.

Ok, I've done so. For whatever reason I can only see the last 4 that you've played (and you won all 4!). If you don't mind, I'll make some comments on each of them:

1. AquaMan vs glenndunn (9 May 2008)

4...h6 seems to be a time wasting move for black. Ng5 wasn't very threatening, nor was Bg5. Perhaps Be7 is better.

9...Bh3? Loses the e5 pawn.

10...Nd8? Surely the purpose of the previous move was Bxg2. This move hangs the d4 pawn. Bc5 is likely better.

11...Ne6?? Hangs the bishop due to the pin! 

All in all, you played very well. Your opponent made several bad mistakes and you punished them. Well done. Just keep in mind that you won this game because your opponent hung lots of material, it had nothing to do with your opening. In fact, Chessmaster 10 (I don't have Fritz on this computer, it's on my other one) says that black is winning by about 0.3 to 0.5 pawns until your opponent started hanging material.

2. Aquaman vs MarquisCrocker (3 May 2008) 

An atrocious game by black! I used to think it was silly how Chessmaster/Fritz, on the lower levels, simply hang tons of material to let you win. I used to say, "no human would play like that!" Wow, I stand corrected.

7...e4 His first blunder. His queen's bishop isn't developed yet, perhaps he should do something about that? Instead he throws away a pawn.

12...b5? Throws away another pawn: 13.Ncxd6 cxd6 14.Qxd6

14. Bb2? You missed the hanging pawn.

14...a5? So did he.

15.Qxd6 Qxd6 16.Nxd6 Whew! Finally.

16...Bf5?? Hangs his own bishop. 

17.Nxf5 b4? He didn't notice the threat 18.f4, winning a knight. You did - good.

21.Rfe1?! I think you missed a tactic here. 21.Rxd7 wins a knight for a pawn: 21...Rxd7 22.Bxd7 Rxe2. Doesn't matter though, because you're winning by so much already anyway.

22...Rf8?? Now he moves into a forced mate in one! 22...Rxd7 23.Rxd7 gxf5 allows him to survive a while longer.

23.Nh6#. 

3. AquaMan vs ztron (27 April 2008) 

 Transposes into Damiano's defence and he falls into an old trap. Mate on move 11. Not much to say here.

4. ztron vs AquaMan (26 April 2008)

 6.Bb5+? Giving pointless checks is a common beginner tactic.

7.d4? Then why did he put it on d3 in the first place? Wasted move which loses the e-pawn after 7...h6. He should consider Nc3 instead. 

12...c5? You hung your d-pawn. What was the purpose of this move?

14.Bc4? A blunder. Now you can win your pawn back: 14...Bxd4 (or cxd4).

14...Nd7-f6? Forces his knight to move, but prevents you from recapturing the pawn.

18.Ne4? Blunder. Loses a pawn. 18.Nxd4 maintains equality, but perhaps he should consider developing his dark-square bishop instead?

31.Re1-e3. Why?

32.Bxe6?? Trades a bishop for 2 pawns. Black is now up a knight for a pawn.

39.Rf5?? Terrible. Allows 39...Nh4+, winning a whole rook.

39...Rf8? Blunder. He can avoid losing a rook with 40.Rxf8 Nxf8. 

40.Rf3?? He blunders away the rook, just like he did last time.

43.Rcxf2! (Edit: This should say 43...Rcxf2!) Good move. Mate in two: 44.Re2 Rxe2 45.(any move) Rg2#

44.Re3? Technically it's a blunder. Now it's mate: 44...Rg2#.

44...Rxa2?? You missed a mate in one!!

45.Rc3 Fortunately for you his situation is hopeless anyway.

45...Rg2#

--------------------------------------------------------------- 

I hope you will find the above somewhat useful. That took me a long time to do, so I'll come back and add a few more thoughts to this thread later. I have got to go now, sorry.

lance, thanks for all the analysis.  To see all my games, you have to click on "View my game archives" on the right just above my recent games. 

Not at all on foot in mouth.  The title of this thread is a little missleading.  It's a couple months old now, and I've been on a steep learning curve.  I figured I'd keep all the info in one thread though. 

I get your point.  I won more by my opponent's mistakes than by my opening.  And I made some mistakes too.  Do you think my tactics are good engough to be venturing into the hypermoderns, though?  

I did get value from your comments.  Since you did take the time to make them, I'll post a few follow-up comments and questions in red.  You may not wish to comment further and that's fine.  The analysis I didn't comment on was good too.  I just didn't have any questions or comments on it.

I hope people will indulge the analysis in the opening forum. 

-- 

1. AquaMan vs glenndunn (9 May 2008)

4...h6 seems to be a time wasting move for black. Ng5 wasn't very threatening, nor was Bg5. Perhaps Be7 is better.

What would 4…Be7 accomplish?  (I'm ralatively weak on understanding the purpose of some bishop moves in openings.) Develops a piece and supports the knight on f6?

9...Bh3? Loses the e5 pawn.  “Loses,” meaning different move might have saved e5, not that Bh3 specifically lost it, right?

Just keep in mind that you won this game because your opponent hung lots of material, it had nothing to do with your opening. In fact, Chessmaster 10 (I don't have Fritz on this computer, it's on my other one) says that black is winning by about 0.3 to 0.5 pawns until your opponent started hanging material.

Your point is well taken.  I wonder if he made some of the mistakes in part though because he was trying to deal with an opening he wasn’t familiar with?  His rating was right in there with mine at the time.

2. Aquaman vs MarquisCrocker (3 May 2008) 

An atrocious game by black!

I know.  In fairness though, he’s only rated 1000.  I might have been rated 1200 something when I played him,  based on not very many games. 

7...e4 His first blunder. His queen's bishop isn't developed yet, perhaps he should do something about that? Instead he throws away a pawn.

I thought at the time 7…e4 was a pretty good move, putting pressure on me for wasting time on 6.b3 and not having yet pushed e4. I thought he just failed to follow through and should have played 9…e3 to attack my fortress.  Instead he wasted a move on 9…Ng4 that was easily kicked later with h3, and lost his e pawn for nothing in doing so.  Maquis did cause me to think seriously about under what conditions to push e4 vs c4 and timing on the push.  Getting it wrong or waiting too long can be a problem.

21.Rfe1?! I think you missed a tactic here. 21.Rxd7 wins a knight for a pawn: 21...Rxd7 22.Bxd7 Rxe2. Doesn't matter though, because you're winning by so much already anyway.

I know.  Fritz told me that, too.  I saw that tactic but I felt like I needed to protect against 22…Rxe2 and an enemy rook on the 2^nd rank.  I intended to play the tactic in a little different order with 22. Bxd7 Rxd7 23.Rxd7, but didn’t get to finish it because, as you noted, his next move left mate in one.  Wouldn’t his rook on the 2^nd rank have been a problem for me?  Later threat of Rxc2 and Rxa2 for example?  I’m probably missing something.  Fritz also told me I should have played the tactic earlier.  I’ll go back and look at it against the engine.  Thanks.

3. AquaMan vs ztron (27 April 2008) 

 Transposes into Damiano's defence and he falls into an old trap. Mate on move 11. Not much to say here.

Yeah.  I wouldn’t have know about the trap except I did a game search because his 1…f6 to support 2…e4 didn’t seem right.  He should have played d6 to support e4 I think.  Here too, the 1.Nf3 common in the hypermoderns might have thrown him off.

4. ztron vs AquaMan (26 April 2008)

Haven't looked at your analysis on this one yet.  I will.

--------------------------------------------------------------- 

I hope you will find the above somewhat useful. I have.

I'll try my best to respond to your comments:

What would 4…Be7 accomplish?  (I'm ralatively weak on understanding the purpose of some bishop moves in openings.) Develops a piece and supports the knight on f6? Yes, and prepares castling kingside. Seems he played 4...h6 because he was worried about the bishop pinning the king's knight. 4...Be7 removes that possibility.

“Loses,” meaning different move might have saved e5, not that Bh3 specifically lost it, right? Right.

I wonder if he made some of the mistakes in part though because he was trying to deal with an opening he wasn’t familiar with?  That's possible. The thing is, your opponent committed several blunders and you punished them appropriately. That's why you won. Did the opening have something to do with it? Maybe. But according to Chessmaster, his position was slightly better than yours until his ninth move. My view is that white moves first and thus has an advantage to begin with, so a "good opening" for white is one which preserves his advantage into the middlegame. His opening - his first 8 moves in this game - can be called "a good opening for black". (Edit: According to chessmaster anyway, and ignoring his silly 4th move).

I thought at the time 7…e4 was a pretty good move, putting pressure on me for wasting time on 6.b3 and not having yet pushed e4.  I understand your point about the psychological effect a move like this can have. But, to borrow from Fischer, the move which is objectively best is also subjectively best. A move which loses material with no compensation is a bad move. Period.

Wouldn’t his rook on the 2^nd rank have been a problem for me?  Later threat of Rxc2 and Rxa2 for example?   A rook on the second rank can be a big problem indeed. But, in this case you're up a lot of material. Getting more material off the board is in your best interest. Less material for him = fewer chances for counterplay, and more chances of you (say) queening a pawn. After 22...Rxe2 you have many defences. 23.Rc1 guards the c-pawn, for example, or you could play 23.Rf2 and propose to trade off his last rook. 

He should have played d6 to support e4 I think.  Here too, the 1.Nf3 common in the hypermoderns might have thrown him off. His response to 1.Nf3 was sub-par, I'll agree. Your game began 1.Nf3 f6 2.e4 e5. Damiano's defence arises: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6? where 2...f6 is a well known blunder for black allowing 3.Nxe5. The point is that you transposed into a king's-pawn opening by playing 2.e4. Maybe 1.Nf3 threw him off, it's possible. But even still, why would he play 2...e5 and transpose into Damiano's defence? It's an example of an incredibly poor choice by black.

 I guess my main point is this: Yes, openings are an important part of chess. They deserve to be studied, along with all other aspects of the game. However, don't put too much faith in them. Games are won and lost because of blunders (with perfect play every game would be a draw). Grandmasters make blunders. Your opponents blundered. I blunder all the time. You blunder on occaision too. Everyone does it. But trying to minimize the occurance of our own blunders and take advantage of our opponent's blunders is the key to improving at chess. (That's where people come in with the "study tactics" mantra, and they do have a point.) I hope that you don't get into the line of thinking, "If I learn the X opening, I'll start winning more games" (or "I'll improve at chess" or whatever). Learning openings is useful, yes. If you want to play "hypermodern" openings, go for it. Just don't get too hung up about it, don't put too much stock in how many times you've won "with" a particular opening. Most games are won with middlegame tactics, not in the opening. (And of course, if you enjoy studying openings or feel that they're currently the weakest part of your game, or just want to mix them in with your other chess studies, then by all means do it!!)

AquaMan > I thought at the time 7…e4 was a pretty good move, putting pressure on me for wasting time on 6.b3 and not having yet pushed e4. 

lance > I understand your point about the psychological effect a move like this can have. But, to borrow from Fischer, the move which is objectively best is also subjectively best. A move which loses material with no compensation is a bad move. Period.

I was thinking at the time it was objectively a good move.  If he drives the pawn to e3, he forces me to capture with fxe3 removing one of my fortress pawns and doubling it on the e-file.  Maybe the chink in my fortress is not sufficient compensation for his e-pawn.  I see your point that he should have been developing further at that time.  Drive the e-pawn later if he has support for it and if it suits him positionally.

lance > A rook on the second rank can be a big problem indeed. But, in this case you're up a lot of material. Getting more material off the board is in your best interest. Less material for him = fewer chances for counterplay, and more chances of you (say) queening a pawn. After 22...Rxe2 you have many defences. 23.Rc1 guards the c-pawn, for example, or you could play 23.Rf2 and propose to trade off his last rook. 

Thanks, I get it now. 

lance> Games are won and lost because of blunders (with perfect play every game would be a draw). 

I completely agree with this.   

lance > But trying to minimize the occurrence of our own blunders and take advantage of our opponent's blunders is the key to improving at chess. (That's where people come in with the "study tactics" mantra, and they do have a point.) I hope that you don't get into the line of thinking, "If I learn the X opening, I'll start winning more games" (or "I'll improve at chess" or whatever). Learning openings is useful, yes. If you want to play "hypermodern" openings, go for it. Just don't get too hung up about it, don't put too much stock in how many times you've won "with" a particular opening. Most games are won with middlegame tactics, not in the opening. (And of course, if you enjoy studying openings or feel that they're currently the weakest part of your game, or just want to mix them in with your other chess studies, then by all means do it!!)

Thanks.  You've re-invigorated my interest in tactics.  One of the ways that I think I'm learning tactics is to spend a very long time on the analysis board between moves trying all sorts of combinations to see how they work out.  Sometimes hours.  I know I need more time recognizing motifs though.  I almost never solve the daily tactical puzzles here without a bunch of tries.  So a puzzle book is good.  I find positional and strategic considerations fascinating though, and am slowly studying "The Amateur's Mind," and "My System."

The thing about the openings, at least the indians and Pirc, is that the books go in detail into the various positions and tactics that result in the games.  So I feel like I'm picking up bits of motifs that are somewhat specific to the openings.  As I build up knowledge on these, my tool box of moves and combinations becomes more powerful.  (Like in the game against glenndunn, when I played 8.a4 to prepare for 9.Nc4 and then 10. Ncxe5.  The 8.a4 prevented glenn from being able to kick my night right away with 9...b5.  Got that from my opening book on the KIA.)  If I changed to a different opening, then the motifs would be somewhat different and I would need to re-tool the tool box somewhat.  This is a good thing overall, to gain more tools.  But in the short run, since there's a lot more motifs I can learn in the indians/Pirc I'm thinking stick with it for a year.  Add the Reti for white and maybe the accelerated dragon for black.  Later definitely go back to the Ruy and learn it.  This is all long term planning.  I don't mean I'm gonna just study openings.  It just happens to be the topic we're discussing now.

Gotta go to work.  Good conversation.  Thanks.

Thanks.  You've re-invigorated my interest in tactics. I'm glad I could help!

 I find positional and strategic considerations fascinating though Me too.

 and am slowly studying "The Amateur's Mind," and "My System." Many people speak very highly of these books. I haven't read them yet (they're on my to do list). For myself, I'm currently reading "Guide to the Chess Endings" by Max Euwe and David Hooper - in addition to working through a puzzle book.

The thing about the openings, at least the indians and Pirc, is that the books go in detail into the various positions and tactics that result in the games.  So I feel like I'm picking up bits of motifs that are somewhat specific to the openings.  As I build up knowledge on these, my tool box of moves and combinations becomes more powerful.  (Like in the game against glenndunn, when I played 8.a4 to prepare for 9.Nc4 and then 10. Ncxe5.  The 8.a4 prevented glenn from being able to kick my night right away with 9...b3.  Got that from my opening book on the KIA.)  If I changed to a different opening, then the motifs would be somewhat different and I would need to re-tool the tool box somewhat. Good point.

I don't mean I'm gonna just study openings.  It just happens to be the topic we're discussing now. I know. I'm sorry if I derailed the conversation. It's just that I know from my own experience that some people seem to think that learning openings is an "easy way out" (i.e., "if I learn this opening I'll ambush my opponent with it! I'll win more games that way!"). I wanted to help you avoid that pitfall before you fell into it. And, it seems the discussion has proved useful.

Good conversation. I've found it quite interesting too!