@62
"It is not good against opponents who know the correct defences"
++ That sums it up.
It is good to overrun weaker players that you should beat anyway.
It is bad against stronger players against whom you need most help.
I tend to disagree with the last statement. Say I am playing against a 1000, I want a simple game where he makes blunders and I pick him off. Whilst if I'm playing a 1900, I want to make the game as complicated as possible, so gambits are good to get myself a aggresive attack, because the 1900 will pick me off in a closed, positional games. Generally I think play safe against bad players and just wait for them to blinder, and attack and sacrifice against better players than you.
The one and only right approach is to play against the pieces- not the opponent.
That is one of the worst pieces of advice ever. Preperation is one of the biggest things in chess. This example is not to do with my first comment, however it proves your theory wrong. Say I have a tournament, and I find out my oponent. Say I generally play the RuyLopez, however in preperation I find out he plays a terrible line against the Italian (for example). Now, you are saying even though I am all but guaranteed a winningposition if I play the Italian, I should still play the RuyLopez. That makes zero sense.
So, you assume that your opponent is dumb enough to repeat the same "terrible line" ad infinitum, and for that reason you decide playing an opening which you have little to no experience with. Yes, it makes total sense, but rather not in this universe.
The one and only thing you know before the game against a class level opponent, is that sooner or later your opponent (and you, too) will blunder badly, and so you SHOULD be playing your familiar opening/structure to reduce your chances of blundering. Every other approach is plain silly.
Opening preparation starts to make sense at the >1900 FIDE level (which is way above yours), and judging from your stance, you will be there the day pigs fly.
What? I was about 1400 when playing my last tourney, and opening prep made me win a game. I used to play E5 for a long time, so I know loads of lines their, but I had recently started playing the Sicillian (and still do). However, my opponent played the Kings Gambit vs E5, so I played E5 and won the game (I learned a refutation line) all because of OPENING PREPERATION, plus I WAS 1400. Just defeated both ur arguments with one stone
...
...
@62
"It is not good against opponents who know the correct defences"
++ That sums it up.
It is good to overrun weaker players that you should beat anyway.
It is bad against stronger players against whom you need most help.
I tend to disagree with the last statement. Say I am playing against a 1000, I want a simple game where he makes blunders and I pick him off. Whilst if I'm playing a 1900, I want to make the game as complicated as possible, so gambits are good to get myself a aggresive attack, because the 1900 will pick me off in a closed, positional games. Generally I think play safe against bad players and just wait for them to blinder, and attack and sacrifice against better players than you.
The one and only right approach is to play against the pieces- not the opponent.
That is one of the worst pieces of advice ever. Preperation is one of the biggest things in chess. This example is not to do with my first comment, however it proves your theory wrong. Say I have a tournament, and I find out my oponent. Say I generally play the RuyLopez, however in preperation I find out he plays a terrible line against the Italian (for example). Now, you are saying even though I am all but guaranteed a winningposition if I play the Italian, I should still play the RuyLopez. That makes zero sense.