Can you post a position or a game?
How to play the QGA?
Sort:
3.e4 is fully playable, but the d4 pawn is more vulnerable. A pawn center is a great thing, but in this case black can bop at it, so I like 3.e3 better personally despite the Bc1 being hemmed in. 3.Nf3 though is my personal favorite.
The QGA has an open d-file and d5 is potentially a pivot square for black's pieces. Black also prepares either ...c5 or ...e5 since the d4 pawn is the clear object of attack.
I guess that explains it. I'm not an aggressive player :P
Fiveofswords wrote:
well the big difference between teh QGA and the QGD is that the QGA is simply a faster paced game with more open lines. YOu need to be more focused on calculation of variations, and opportunities can come and go very quickly. If you fail to put pressure on the black position or are unwilling to attack, you will not only make the game easy for black...but theres a real danger that black could simply steal the initiative and put you on the defensive.
Jul 26, 2014
0
#5
The first hump to get over is the "I'm not an agressive player".
To be any good at chess, you can't be a "positional" player, a "tactical" player, a "passive" player, or an "agressive" player.
You need to be ALL of them. Otherwise, you are NOTHING!
There are positional games that come from the Najdorf, Grunfeld, or King's Indian and there are tactical games that come from the Slav, Orthodox QGD, or Caro-Kann.
There are games where you must play agressively despite playing an opening that has a reputation of being passive, and there are times where patience is required despite playing an Alekhine or Dragon.
Pigeon-holing yourself and labeling yourself as a "positional" or "tactical" player is just as bad as saying you prefer Bishops over Knights or vice versa.
Either you are well rounded, or you are nobody!
Hmmm... Thanks. I need that.
Now... About the QGA....
ThrillerFan wrote:
The first hump to get over is the "I'm not an agressive player".
To be any good at chess, you can't be a "positional" player, a "tactical" player, a "passive" player, or an "agressive" player.
You need to be ALL of them. Otherwise, you are NOTHING!
There are positional games that come from the Najdorf, Grunfeld, or King's Indian and there are tactical games that come from the Slav, Orthodox QGD, or Caro-Kann.
There are games where you must play agressively despite playing an opening that has a reputation of being passive, and there are times where patience is required despite playing an Alekhine or Dragon.
Pigeon-holing yourself and labeling yourself as a "positional" or "tactical" player is just as bad as saying you prefer Bishops over Knights or vice versa.
Either you are well rounded, or you are nobody!
Fiveofswords wrote:
TheGreatOogieBoogie wrote:
3.e4 is fully playable, but the d4 pawn is more vulnerable. A pawn center is a great thing, but in this case black can bop at it, so I like 3.e3 better personally despite the Bc1 being hemmed in. 3.Nf3 though is my personal favorite.
The QGA has an open d-file and d5 is potentially a pivot square for black's pieces. Black also prepares either ...c5 or ...e5 since the d4 pawn is the clear object of attack.
i actually think 3 e4 is the scariest move. But its not a weak pawn its just a full pawn gambit. White has good play for the pawn, and pretty good attacking prospects. Black has to be pretty accurate to survive. If he does, the game can become drawish. 3.e3 just makes 3...e5 playable and you will likely transpose to a petroff position. 3. Nf3 is the best thing to play if you plan to play e3 early. That can keep a sort of positional tension for a good number of moves. White still has some advantage but i think if black knows what hes doing the position isnt terribly difficult for him.
I experimented with 3.e4 before and it was hard to handle and required too many resources to hold onto d4. Then the stool gets kicked out from under you, e5 is eventually forced allowing pieces on d5, etc. An e3 pawn though would have solved the problems. It's kind of like playing against a French where d4 gets relentless pressure on it.
Maybe it's I'm not familiar with 3.e4 theory and 3.Nf3 lines are more intuitive.
Preferences are perfectly normal. You just need to be ready to go outside of them when you need to. Magnus Carlsen for example likes to say he doesn't have preferences but he obviously does.
Anyway I think it would be a lot more helpful if you could post a position or something you're having problems with.
I have nogoodonline chess examplesThanks, but implying two games right now with QGA. Please look at them and analyse them and temm me what you have thought during the game.
Don't worry I move quite fast.
TitanCG wrote:
Preferences are perfectly normal. You just need to be ready to go outside of them when you need to. Magnus Carlsen for example likes to say he doesn't have preferences but he obviously does.
Anyway I think it would be a lot more helpful if you could post a position or something you're having problems with.
You can make one up if you want.
My best advice, since black essentially loses a tempo (and the center) is to play the "Two Knights" variation. Since black can transpose into Slav systems, playing
this variation actually puts you in an position to deal with both possibilities.
Jul 27, 2014
0
#13
ThrillerFan wrote:
The first hump to get over is the "I'm not an agressive player".
To be any good at chess, you can't be a "positional" player, a "tactical" player, a "passive" player, or an "agressive" player.
You need to be ALL of them. Otherwise, you are NOTHING!
There are positional games that come from the Najdorf, Grunfeld, or King's Indian and there are tactical games that come from the Slav, Orthodox QGD, or Caro-Kann.
There are games where you must play agressively despite playing an opening that has a reputation of being passive, and there are times where patience is required despite playing an Alekhine or Dragon.
Pigeon-holing yourself and labeling yourself as a "positional" or "tactical" player is just as bad as saying you prefer Bishops over Knights or vice versa.
Either you are well rounded, or you are nobody!
I like bishops... :-p
While i agree you have to be able to play anything there is nothing wrong with a little preference. I know for example that in more strategic battles I play 100 points above my elo while in more tactical battles i play 100 points under my elo. I am just better in more quiet positions. That is okay else i would not have anything to improve ;)
I think all 3 options (Nf3, e3 and e4) are perfectly viable. Every setup has their advantages and disadvantages.
1) e4 is probably the most tactical and offers most changes to play for a win but also gives black most counter changes. It is a risk vs rewards thing
2) Nf3 allows the system with bg4 (that i personally think is very strong) and gives black the change to develop pieces to active squares. However it prevents the counterstroke 3. .. e5 that gives white an isolated d pawn.
3) e3 denies black the change to play the bg4 system but allows e5 giving white an isolated queenspawn.
Personally i play 3. e3. I rather play with an isolated queenspawn (a very nice strategic resources if used right) then allow the Bg4 system.
3.e3 Nf6 4.Bxc4 a6 leads to the same thing though. Most people will probably play something else on move 3 but they don't have to.
Yes e3 and Nf3 often lead to the same lines with the exception of the Bg4 line in the Nf3 system en the e5 lines in the e3 systems. It is a matter of preference
moonnie wrote:
Yes e3 and Nf3 often lead to the same lines with the exception of the Bg4 line in the Nf3 system en the e5 lines in the e3 systems. It is a matter of preference
I mean after ...a6 (instead of ...e6) Black can still play ...Bg4. I don't think you can avoid it.
Well Bxf7 is a wee bit annoying then :)
Wow I've played that so many times...
My intuition guides me through the QGD quite well even though I lack the theoretical knowledge in that opening. However, it fails in the QGA (as white).
Can anyone help me with this opening please?