Personally, I would explicitly deny myself being obsessed with openings.
different repertoire for live vs. online
Sort:
Dec 12, 2012
0
#3
pfren wrote:
Personally, I would explicitly deny myself being obsessed with openings.
i'm not sure what you mean pfren. don't you get satisfaction from playing certain openings and reaching certain positions that you prefer?
(btw, you are my favourite poster by far. keep up the great work!)
Dec 12, 2012
0
#4
trigs wrote:
pfren wrote:
Personally, I would explicitly deny myself being obsessed with openings.
i'm not sure what you mean pfren. don't you get satisfaction from playing certain openings and reaching certain positions that you prefer?
(btw, you are my favourite poster by far. keep up the great work!)
trigs, this is one of the few rare times that pfren is right. Frequently he puts in idiotic, sneer, sarcastic comments that are inappropriate, but he's right with this one.
You should not be obsessed with the opening. You may have certain openings you prefer. I have mine. I'll play a Nimzo-Indian, QGD, or Slav long before I'd play a Grunfeld or Benko Gambit as Black.
However, some people really do get obsessed about it. Some people play an opening because the opening name sounds cute. Some people play openings to mimic former GMs. Some people just study openings and nothing else.
All of these are huge mistakes that amatuers make. Don't get obsessed about the opening. Simply play what works for you, and worry about the middlegame. I don't play 1.d4 as White because it sounds cool, or because some specific GM played it, or any of that junk. I play it because it's simply what works for me, and move on with life to the middlegame!
don't you get satisfaction from playing certain openings and reaching certain positions that you prefer?
No. I only get satisfaction when I play well.
Frequently he puts in idiotic, sneer, sarcastic comments that are inappropriate
I only try making people like you understand a few basic things- apparently unsuccessfully.
Dec 12, 2012
0
#7
pfren wrote:
don't you get satisfaction from playing certain openings and reaching certain positions that you prefer?
No. I only get satisfaction when I play well.
but doesn't playing well include reaching desired positions that you feel comfortable and therefore enjoy playing? that's all i'm saying. why would i play an opening that reaches a position that i don't enjoy playing? especially considering that the reason i don't enjoy playing it is probably directly related to my ability to play well in that position.
i think you kind of missed my point in the OP. either that or i still don't understand what you're trying to point out to me.
Dec 12, 2012
0
#8
trigs wrote:
pfren wrote:
don't you get satisfaction from playing certain openings and reaching certain positions that you prefer?
No. I only get satisfaction when I play well.
but doesn't playing well include reaching desired positions that you feel comfortable and therefore enjoy playing? that's all i'm saying. why would i play an opening that reaches a position that i don't enjoy playing? especially considering that the reason i don't enjoy playing it is probably directly related to my ability to play well in that position.
i think you kind of missed my point in the OP. either that or i still don't understand what you're trying to point out to me.
Reaching a position you "enjoy" playing and reaching a position you understand and can succeed with aren't always the same.
The Orthodox QGD isn't exactly the most flashy chess in the world, but you know what? It's one of a select handful of openings that I truly understand how to play and execute well from BOTH SIDES!
The Latvian Gambit may lead to more enjoyable, flashy fireworks, and might be what I would play in a 3-minute or 5-minute game, but I'm going to play what works for me in tournament competition. The Grunfeld may be flashy, but 1...d5 defenses (i.e. Orthodox, Slav, Tarrasch, etc) and the Nimzo- and Queen's Indian Defenses are what work for me, so those are what I play, not the Grunfeld just because it might look like more fun. It's not fun when you try to play an opening that you just don't get how to execute, especially when you tend to blow it off the board every time when playing White, which I tend to do against the Grunfeld with the Russian Variation.
There are 2 other things to keep in mind:
1) No matter what your repertoire is, there will always be at least 1 opening you must be able to play from BOTH SIDES! Therefore, you must fully understand the opening, not just the ideas from one side of it. If you don't believe me, take the Grob. Let's say you play the Grob as White. Well, every game as Black, your opponent could play 1.g4. What would you play against 1.g4? 1...e5 maybe? Well, go back to your White game, your opponent answers 1.g4 with 1...e5. What do you play now? 2.Bg2 let's say? Ok, go back to your Black game. After 1.g4 e5, White played 2.Bg2? I think you get the point here. My overlaps are in the Queen's Gambit Declined and Nimzo-Indian with 4.e3, where I play those openings as both Black AND White!
2) No matter what "exciting" opening you try to play, there will be dull lines your opponent can play. If you play positional defenses, there will be tactical games that occur. For example, let's say you play the Sicilian Dragon, an opening known for being full of tactics. Let's say White plays the c3-Sicilian or the Closed Sicilian (my preference when I played 1.e4 as White). Positional lines. You gotta know them! Let's say you play the Slav Defense as Black, a very positional defense. White has the Geller Gambit, 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.e4 (instead of 5.a4). White gambits a pawn for fireworks and an attack. You have to be able to handle those!
So chess isn't just about liking certain openings. It's understanding the entire aspect of the game!
Dec 12, 2012
0
#9
wow. completely regret asking this question and starting a thread. no one has even answered it and everyone is just making assumptions about my 'obsession' over openings and how i specifically feel about openings compared to middlegames and whatever other nonsense.
just forget it. it was a simple question. now i remember why i stopped posting in this forum.
I think there's a difference between "having a knowledge of openings", and "being obsessed with them". Personally, I think pfren is being a bit harsh, and overlooking the point of your post.
I don't play online chess much. But if I did, I'd also probably use it as a tool to perfect the openings I like to play. The best way to learn an opening is by playing it, and I, personally, can't do that very well when you have a time limit of just minutes over your head (even 30 minutes seems to slip away). If I had ages to think about what the right move was, over and over and over again, then it'd get stuck in my mind. As it is though, I'm not too bothered with perfecting my openings right now - for the most part I just want to get out of the opening with my pieces in the game and the same number of pawns as my opponent - but that still takes knowledge of the opening.
As for the words of IM pfren, I don't see how he's extrapolated from your OP that you're "obsessed with openings", which, unfortunately, is what he's implying (and if he isn't implying it, why on Earth did he make such a post that contributes almost nothing to the conversation, if not just to rather obtusely make himself seem more informed?).
I think what some titled players - who teach us amateur players how to get better at the game - forget, is that even an amateur needs to get through the opening by himself, and come out with a decent position in the middlegame. The opening is still an important part of the game at all levels, and telling us to ignore opening theory completely is not going to help us develop a strategic understanding of anything.
Dec 12, 2012
0
#11
thanks CatoSicarius for the post (at least some people don't need to make crazy assumptions about an innocent question).
i completely agree that online chess gives you a lot of time to practice your openings without an intense time limit. hopefully i'll get even better with this change although i mostly just play for fun and i'm not really concerned with ratings. however, i do have more fun when i don't lose ;)
Well.. I am not much good at chess. But yes, my openings in live and online chess are a bit different. I dont know many by name, and i dont know them fully. But in an online game I spend much more time analyzing, thinking and exploring. Those openings are probably much safer.
In Live I sometimes just do what seems good although I am not sure if it will be good. So yes there is a difference to me.
It's a bit much when you ask a simple question and just get the old tired responses about not being obsessed with openings.
Who said he was? Perhaps he's spending an hour in every 10 on openings because he enjoys learning about them, what's wrong with that? Or he wants to reach similar middlegame positions and structures so he has an idea of the normal plans.
In other words, answer the question that's asked, or find another thread.
This mythical person that only studies openings and memorises lines only rather than the reasons for moves only really exists as a tired cliche.
The desire to explore sharper openings is what attracted me to CC type chess. I was somewhat bored with my OTB repertoire which was pretty narrow and simple. I didn't want to take the time to lean more complicated openings. CC offered me a chance to study and explore these openings but not to have to worry about memorizing anything. There is a definite fascination with getting to play some of the current lines that the top GMs play. If nothing else, it helps you understand better what is going on when you observe high level games between GMs.
To demonstrate that I am not obsessed with the opening, and in fact couldn't give two hoots about it, I shall play 1.h4 for the next hundred games.
Wait, is that overthinking the opening?
Opening knowledge and preparation has a very important role to play in grandmaster chess, and correspondence chess (I mean the modern correspondence chess, where everyone is allowed to use an engine).
But for achieving a very decent rating (say 2100 FIDE or something like that) the opening is of very little value.
Want a confession? Ok, here it goes. In my youth I have achieved a FIDE master title and a respectable 2250+ rating, working mainly on openings (I had a very good knowledge of openings I played, as well as openings I did not play). But at some point, I realised that I did not improve at all- despite my good opening knowledge, and excellent tactical skill. I had seriously worked on it, and decided that my rating was pure luck: my positional understanding was nothing to boast about, and my endgame technique was, well, dismal.
I have earned my IM status by working very hard on my positional play. True, this did not eran me more than 150 rating points, but it was enough to get the IM title.
I have also worked hard on my very poor endgame technique. There, my rating gains were rather insigificant, because of me (I usually am exchausted when a game reaches the endgame, and most of the times I play crap). BUT, the in-depth study of the endgame (thank you, mr. Dvoretsky!) has greatly helped me improving my overall understanding of the Royal Game.
One is free to develop his playing strength whatever way he fucking pleases. My obligation, as a trainer, is advicing my students, to never, ever make the same mistakes I did- and one of them, probably the crucial one, is devoting a lot of time in openings.
Understood?
just curious if anyone has a different repertoire for live games vs. online/correspondence games?
when i play live games i just fool around mostly and play openings that open the centre quickly so i can attack as soon as possible. i'll play openings like king's gambit, goring gambit, scandinavian, etc.
online games, i used to be more conservative since opening books are allowed. therefore, i'd playing openings such as the italian game (praying for evan's gambit lol), the sicilian, the slav, etc. (although i did switch to the benoni/benko gambit).
i've decided that i prefer the more attacking/open style of play however as it's just more fun and keeps me interested in playing. so i've decided that online or live - it doesn't matter. i'm playing the openings i enjoy most from now on.
i'm happy to say that i'm in the middle of an online game (3 days per move) where i played the king's gambit and got into a similar position in the three pawns sacrifice line (one of my favorites). definitely fun so far!!