I've acquired a similar feeling to many positions of white after playing e4. If an opponent knows how to defend the fried liver then its a defensive game for white mostly.
gouico piano is meant to be an opening that takes a long time to evolve, but its difficult moving pieces around when they are so cramped. Positions are often repetitive and uneventful for a long time.
My choices:
I don't like studying the sicilian so I just play 2. c3 to avoid it completely. I know almost no theory on this but the variety of games that comes from it is interesting.
I don't mind playing against the caro-kann because the game equalizes pretty fast and there is alot of chances for white to push tempo
Against e4 e5 nf3 nc6 I'm starting to play the scotch gambit (3. d4 exd4 4.Bc4). Leads to games where white really puts black on the defensive and can do what he wants for a long time- which is usually more appealing to me.
Find an opening that suits my playing style well.
I've acquired a similar feeling to many positions of white after playing e4. If an opponent knows how to defend the fried liver then its a defensive game for white mostly.
gouico piano is meant to be an opening that takes a long time to evolve, but its difficult moving pieces around when they are so cramped. Positions are often repetitive and uneventful for a long time.
My choices:
I don't like studying the sicilian so I just play 2. c3 to avoid it completely. I know almost no theory on this but the variety of games that comes from it is interesting.
I don't mind playing against the caro-kann because the game equalizes pretty fast and there is alot of chances for white to push tempo
Against e4 e5 nf3 nc6 I'm starting to play the scotch gambit (3. d4 exd4 4.Bc4). Leads to games where white really puts black on the defensive and can do what he wants for a long time- which is usually more appealing to me.
Thank you for your input. I agree with you on your comments about the giuco piano and I might try the scotch gambit
Are there any other suggestion?
Let's see, you are 1700 online, so like 1300 blitz... I'd say worry more about endgames and setting up tactics
Not another perosn like this. I do focus on endgames. I'd like to be playing an opening that will put me into a middle game i like though. There's no point knowing negame theory if i lose the game before i get there
Nope.
Anyone else know whether or not it's a good idea to play similar tctics in most openings?
What does this mean? If you have forks and pins available that win material then of course play that, it doesn't matter the opening.
If you mean strategy like where you attack and how you attack and such then no, it will of course depend on the position. You can't simply try to do the same thing in any position.
I mean I develop my pieces mostly to the same squares in most openings. Of course, I don't play certain moves if they show an obvious disadvantage but on the whole i like to play similar sorts of opening moves.
ABSOLUTELY NOT! If you are just plopping pieces on certain sqaures, for no other reason than you having the same piece structure every time, then you have no clue what you are doing.
Perfect case in point. Let's take the Bishop's Opening. I see this a lot in our local area by low rated players:
1. e4 e5 2.Bc4 (Fine - Not the greatest system, but should work below the GM Level)
1.e4 c5 2.Bc4 (This move is not good at all. It's completely pointless. Against 1...e5, pawns don't go backwards, so Black can't block with e6. Here, playing ...e6 in the near future makes Bc4 a wasted move. Develop your Knight first.
1.e4 e6 2.Bc4 (I faced this once against a very low rated player. 2...d5 and you've just lost a tempo, with or without an exchange first on d5.
1.e4 c6 2.Bc4 (Again, 2...d5, now what? You just lost a tempo)
1.e4 Nf6 2.Bc4 (This line with 2.Bc4, 3.Bxf7, 4.Qh5+, 5.Qd5+, and 6.Qxe4 is known to be slightly better for Black
1.e4 g6 2.Bc4 (Black can play a Hippo setup, which should ONLY be played if White has played Bc4 or a4. h6, g6, e6, d6, b6, a6, with N's on e7 and d7 and both Bishops Fianchettoed and Black's got full equality.
1.e4 d6 2.Bc4 (See 1.e4 g6 2.Bc4, same problem)
1.e4 d5 2.Bc4 (Uhm, provided you have learned how the pieces move and the value of each piece, you're an idiot if you play this move!)
HurricaneMichael1 had a point. 1200 rated players know exactly how to get better at chess. clearly all high rated players forget that memorizing a ton of moves when you lack strategic understanding will result in meteoric chess improvement. After all, GMs usually have studied openings.
HurricaneMichael1 had a point. 1200 rated players know exactly how to get better at chess. clearly all high rated players forget that memorizing a ton of moves when you lack strategic understanding will result in meteoric chess improvement. After all, GMs usually have studied openings.
I forgot it so much, that I think this is just completely false past the level where you trap your opponent whith cheap tricks.
Isn't it true that the only things that discriminate a class player from a GM are
1. openings knowledge
and
2. a FIDE certificate?
So- they try to fill the gaps- one at a time... 
Isn't it true that the only things that discriminate a class player from a GM are
1. openings knowledge
and
2. a FIDE certificate?
So- they try to fill the gaps- one at a time...
Ummm....
pfren, that's just what HurricaneMichael1 has been saying all these days! I knew he must be right. Strong players are just afraid class players will study openings and magically convert their equal position.
ThrillerFan wrote:
RSzgvYzxpizmp wrote:
waffllemaster wrote:
RSzgvYzxpizmp wrote:
proppolis wrote:
Nope.
Anyone else know whether or not it's a good idea to play similar tctics in most openings?
What does this mean? If you have forks and pins available that win material then of course play that, it doesn't matter the opening.
If you mean strategy like where you attack and how you attack and such then no, it will of course depend on the position. You can't simply try to do the same thing in any position.
I mean I develop my pieces mostly to the same squares in most openings. Of course, I don't play certain moves if they show an obvious disadvantage but on the whole i like to play similar sorts of opening moves.
ABSOLUTELY NOT! If you are just plopping pieces on certain sqaures, for no other reason than you having the same piece structure every time, then you have no clue what you are doing.
Perfect case in point. Let's take the Bishop's Opening. I see this a lot in our local area by low rated players:
1. e4 e5 2.Bc4 (Fine - Not the greatest system, but should work below the GM Level)
1.e4 c5 2.Bc4 (This move is not good at all. It's completely pointless. Against 1...e5, pawns don't go backwards, so Black can't block with e6. Here, playing ...e6 in the near future makes Bc4 a wasted move. Develop your Knight first.
1.e4 e6 2.Bc4 (I faced this once against a very low rated player. 2...d5 and you've just lost a tempo, with or without an exchange first on d5.
1.e4 c6 2.Bc4 (Again, 2...d5, now what? You just lost a tempo)
1.e4 Nf6 2.Bc4 (This line with 2.Bc4, 3.Bxf7, 4.Qh5+, 5.Qd5+, and 6.Qxe4 is known to be slightly better for Black
1.e4 g6 2.Bc4 (Black can play a Hippo setup, which should ONLY be played if White has played Bc4 or a4. h6, g6, e6, d6, b6, a6, with N's on e7 and d7 and both Bishops Fianchettoed and Black's got full equality.
1.e4 d6 2.Bc4 (See 1.e4 g6 2.Bc4, same problem)
1.e4 d5 2.Bc4 (Uhm, provided you have learned how the pieces move and the value of each piece, you're an idiot if you play this move!)
Well you really just want to say I suck don't you? I'm not stupid, I don't give up tempos and bishops straight away. What I meant is that in MOST (not all) openings I like to have my knights and bishops on the same squares/diagonals. Obviously, I don't play Bc4 against the Caro-kann. I play similar sorts of developing moves, not the same opening
RSzgvYzxpizmp:
He wasn't saying you're an idiot, just giving an over-the-top example of why you shouldn't develop your pieces to the same squares regardless of what your opponent is doing.
Basically it's a bad idea. You should have a plan for dealing with each opening and within that plan, you will know where the pieces go. For instance, I might leave my Bishop on c1 for a while against the French and eventually trade it off on f4 or move it to g5-h4-g3, while against the Sicilian it might find its way to g5 right away. Against the Caro-Kann it usually goes to d2. And against the Philidor I generally put it on e3 or f4 to support a plan of castling queenside.
My f1-Bishop is flexible as well. It goes to c4 in double-king-pawn openings most of the time, but occasionally to b5. It usually finds itself on d3 in a lot of Sicilian lines and against the French, unless it goes to b5. And it goes to e2 in many other openings.
My Knights are usually posted on c3 and f3 but sometimes my c3-Knight ends up on g3 (Caro-Kann) in which case I like to put my other knight on f4. My f3-Knight often makes its way to d4 in double-KP and SIcilian openings.
So you really shouldn't have a universal plan of development, but should rather develop your pieces according to the demands of the position. Find a plan and use that to judge where your pieces should go, not the other way around.
pfren, that's just what HurricaneMichael1 has been saying all these days! I knew he must be right. Strong players are just afraid class players will study openings and magically convert their equal position.
I sense giant amounts of sarcasm in this.
I don't have any issue with you, but you tend to lash out at anyone who advises against studying theory. I think (just my opinion, do what you want of course, but this is serious advice that will take you a long way) you are missing the point people are trying to make.
We aren't saying that studying openings is a waste of time, end of story. It's just that so many class players go about studying openings in a way that is a waste of time.
A good way to study openings is in the context of complete games. I initially worked on my openings by playing a game, going back through the database and glancing through 10-20 master games in that line and seeing what the plans and ideas are for both sides. This and other methods are very useful.
95+% of the opening books on the market are either trash, or written assuming an unsafe amount of prior positional understanding for the class player. For example, Lars Schandorff's books are great for Experts and Masters, but terrible for 1200-1400 players.
Suggesting that certain openings are a waste of your time (Najdorf poisoned pawn, French Winawer poisoned pawn, etc) is because the positions are nonsensical, apply only to that opening, violate helpful principles, etc. Openings that follow general principles or at least violate them in a way that is understandable and contributes to general chess understanding can definitely help your progress. I would advise against openings like the Benko Gambit for this reason.
I also think giving White a huge development advantage as Black is a bad idea. So I suggest 1....e5 mostly against 1.e4 and 1...d5 against 1.d4. In my experience, class players can only use a few types of advantages effectively. The two bishops in an open position can definitely make a difference, while a slight interior pawn weakness is much less likely to be an issue. Long-term structural weaknesses generally affect the result in the endgame, which is an important phase to study if you want to progress, but in general class players don't know how to effectively play against such structures. Knowing the difference between good and bad pieces in the openings you play, what trades tend to be favorable, etc. is very useful knowledge that will last you forever. Memorizing a 25-move forced draw in the 6.Bg5 Najdorf will do you jack squat.
RSzgvYzxpizmp:
He wasn't saying you're an idiot, just giving an over-the-top example of why you shouldn't develop your pieces to the same squares regardless of what your opponent is doing.
Basically it's a bad idea. You should have a plan for dealing with each opening and within that plan, you will know where the pieces go. For instance, I might leave my Bishop on c1 for a while against the French and eventually trade it off on f4 or move it to g5-h4-g3, while against the Sicilian it might find its way to g5 right away. Against the Caro-Kann it usually goes to d2. And against the Philidor I generally put it on e3 or f4 to support a plan of castling queenside.
My f1-Bishop is flexible as well. It goes to c4 in double-king-pawn openings most of the time, but occasionally to b5. It usually finds itself on d3 in a lot of Sicilian lines and against the French, unless it goes to b5. And it goes to e2 in many other openings.
My Knights are usually posted on c3 and f3 but sometimes my c3-Knight ends up on g3 (Caro-Kann) in which case I like to put my other knight on f4. My f3-Knight often makes its way to d4 in double-KP and SIcilian openings.
So you really shouldn't have a universal plan of development, but should rather develop your pieces according to the demands of the position. Find a plan and use that to judge where your pieces should go, not the other way around.
I don't mean I just develop pieces to the same squares all the time. I just mean that I like to have a bishop on b3 or c4, attacking f7 in MOST openings. Obviously, I don't fret too much about putting the bishop there if e6 or d5 is played. I have a general sort of plan, but I always alter certain aspects of this intended position depending on what my opponent does.
Now I still might not have explained myself particularly well, but if you do understand where I am coming from, is that a good or bad idea? To know which sorts of squares I like to have certain pieces on?
I don't mean I just develop pieces to the same squares all the time. I just mean that I like to have a bishop on b3 or c4, attacking f7 in MOST openings. Obviously, I don't fret too much about putting the bishop there if e6 or d5 is played. I have a general sort of plan, but I always alter certain aspects of this intended position depending on what my opponent does.
Now I still might not have explained myself particularly well, but if you do understand where I am coming from, is that a good or bad idea? To know which sorts of squares I like to have certain pieces on?
In my opinion... No.
Because if you like that square rather than this one for such a piece, you could be inclined to play it there with disadvantadge. I guess you won't hang a piece or give a free tempo, but you could still underestimate some positional factors because you want to put the piece on 'its' square.
I know I'm not the best at openings which is why I am asking for your help on this particular topic. It is also why I created this forum.
I'm getting sick of people who want to ridicule me for trying to learn how to play the opening properly. I have a higher middle game and endgame ability than 95% of people I play OTB, but I lack behind in openings.
I think I might find some games where I have played similar opening moves for Expertise87 (and any other players who are more experienced than me, which I think could be all of you) to see what exactly I mean and so that any good or bad moves can be recognized.
Nobody is trying to ridicule you. Everybody has better things to do.
My last advice, and I do not care if you adopt it or not: Drop your obsession with openings, and try improving the other shortcomings of your play (tactical shots, positional understanding, endgame technique). You may think they are fine, but I can assure you they are not! Mine aren't, either, and I play chess for some fourty-odd years, being rated above 2300 FIDE for almost 30 years.
Wanna adopt this advice? Fine. Not? Also fine.
Just don't come back and groan that your openings choice wasn't that good, if you fail to improve your rating... The problem wouldn't be your openings, but rather your play.
Nobody is trying to ridicule you. Everybody has better things to do.
My last advice, and I do not care if you adopt it or not: Drop your obsession with openings, and try improving the other shortcomings of your play (tactical shots, positional understanding, endgame technique). You may think they are fine, but I can assure you they are not! Mine aren't, either, and I play chess for some fourty-odd years, being rated above 2300 FIDE for almost 30 years.
Wanna adopt this advice? Fine. Not? Also fine.
Just don't come back and groan that your openings choice wasn't that good, if you fail to improve your rating... The problem wouldn't be your openings, but rather your play.
I don't have an obsession with openings! I want to find one I can play, but I don't want to spend oo long on it. That's why I asked people online instead of trying to figure it out by myself. I focus on tactics and 'other shortcomings of my play' but I want to be able to at least play a half decent opening so I can get to the middlegame safely.
Nope.
Anyone else know whether or not it's a good idea to play similar tctics in most openings?
What does this mean? If you have forks and pins available that win material then of course play that, it doesn't matter the opening.
If you mean strategy like where you attack and how you attack and such then no, it will of course depend on the position. You can't simply try to do the same thing in any position.
I mean I develop my pieces mostly to the same squares in most openings. Of course, I don't play certain moves if they show an obvious disadvantage but on the whole i like to play similar sorts of opening moves.