You don't need to know variations to come up with a counter. If you're a good chess player you can come up with plans OTB no matter the structure.
e4 is bad (third obnoxious theory)
Sort:
Yes, that's what I mean too. You need to, first, be quite good, and, secondly, not care about statistics but about what you can do ingame.
BirdBrain wrote:
Forget theory and play solid, playable positions. Theory changes EVERY day. Play something that offers decent chances for a win and that you should definitely be able to secure a draw with.
Sounds reasonable. Would you mind going into specifics for those of us farily new to opening study (but beyond know some basic opening principles)?
No. I am 11. Age doesn't matter. Brain does.
Chicken_Monster wrote:
BirdBrain wrote:
Forget theory and play solid, playable positions. Theory changes EVERY day. Play something that offers decent chances for a win and that you should definitely be able to secure a draw with.
Sounds reasonable. Would you mind going into specifics for those of us farily new to opening study (but beyond know some basic opening principles)?
Well, the idea is that if you don't want to spend hours and hours studying cutting edge theory, you can also play variations that don't strive for an opening advantage, yet still offer decent prospects for White.
One example would be the Bishop's Opening with d3.
White is not really playing ambitiously, but he does have a developed piece aimed at f7, he is preparing 0-0, he has a strong pawn on e4...this is a solid and good opening that works.
Another example (which is very similar) is the Italian Game (not the Evans Gambit lines, unless you want a more tactical game).
This type of position could also connect to the one in the Bishop's Opening.
There are others that offer reasonable prospects without a ton of study, such as the Colle, the London, the King's Indian Attack...good development and prepare for the middlegame battle.
lolurspammed wrote:
You don't need to know variations to come up with a counter. If you're a good chess player you can come up with plans OTB no matter the structure.
Actually the better the quality of players the more they rely on theory. 1. h4 would tend to score just as well in most 1400 rating blitz games.
Nov 28, 2014
0
#30
You're right! I played 1.h4 and lost just like I usually do! Thanks Uhohspaghettio1! I see eveything in a whole new light now!
http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=983334752
1. e4 e5 2. Bc3 a6 3. Qh5 b5 4. Qxf7#. e4 totally refuted.
@BirdBrain: Thanks for those diagrams and basic lines. What about ....
(1) Similar ideas but starting with, for example, 1.d4 etc.; and
(2) Black's perspective on all of this. I believe you were just giving examples from White's perspective
Nov 28, 2014
0
#34
CrazyJae, white loses the game by forfeit due to making the illegal move 2.Bc3!? Sorry.
Chicken_Monster wrote:
@BirdBrain: Thanks for those diagrams and basic lines. What about ....
(1) Similar ideas but starting with, for example, 1.d4 etc.; and
(2) Black's perspective on all of this. I believe you were just giving examples from White's perspective
I did mention the London and the Colle, which are both 1. d4 openings. And as for Black's perspective...none of these choices prevent Black from offering up an attack, but White has a good, solid position in each opening.
1. c4! refutes 1...c5?!
Nov 28, 2014
0
#37
OMG Moon Moon, you can't just ask people if their favourite opening loses by force.
Nov 29, 2014
0
#38
Why not, it would save a lot of heartache to just get the ugly truth out of the way first.
Bishop d9#
DrSpudnik wrote:
9.Nh7 refudiates 22...cxe4 e.p.
LOL! You win the thread!
Yaaaaay! I'm a wiener!