tineslabbinck wrote:
I improved a lot when I started playing d4. The funniest thing is always when Black tries to defend the gambit pawn:
good tineslabbinck..... A nice example for any tyro...........
Is there any reason to open with 1.d4?
Sort:
i just played 1 d4 as white without knowing much theory and can tell that their is always just a little positional advantage for white. however, at my level, that is useless to me and i prefer the more tactical e4
[COMMENT DELETED]
I appreciate all of the comments and feedback, but all the people who are questioning my statement about my rating should do one of the three following things:
1. just relax a little bit about it, it doesn't matter that much
or if you care that much:
2. challenge me to an unrated game
or
3. look at my ratings history graph here, which goes up over 400 points after three tournaments and then cuts off when I stopped playing tournaments to study for a larger breakout, and tell me that my rating is completely accurate.
There's no reason to play 1. d4. Fischer was a 1. e4 guy for most of his career. He switched to 1. d4 in the World Championship match to surprise Spassky. If 1. e4 was good enough for Fischer to play against all comers, it is good enough for anyone.
But some guys are 1. d4 guys. It is a matter of temperament. There is also no reason not to play 1. d4. However, chess is a lot simpler if you choose an opening move and stick to it. Right there it cuts the number of variations you have to learn in half.
FirebrandX wrote:
averagepatzer wrote:
I appreciate all of the comments and feedback, but all the people who are questioning my statement about my rating should do one of the three following things:
1. just relax a little bit about it, it doesn't matter that much
or if you care that much:
2. challenge me to an unrated game
or
3. look at my ratings history graph here, which goes up over 400 points after three tournaments and then cuts off when I stopped playing tournaments to study for a larger breakout, and tell me that my rating is completely accurate.
1. Applies to you as well.
2. Yeah, a CC match is a totally different ballgame than OTB USCF. Should you find yourself in the Dallas area, I'd have no problems trading pieces with you over the board.
3. I've already looked at it. Your last regular rated tournament (which wasn't that long ago) has you losing to one 1600 and beating another. That's not enough of a game base to claim a class title you haven't even earned yet, much less a "strong" version of it. An example would be back during a tournament where I beat TWO masters in a row where my performance was over 2300. I'd have no more right back then to claim I was a master as you do now of your class claim. I've no doubt you'll earn it, but the point Fromper was making is you have to actually establish your rating before claiming it.
Point accepted. The thing is though, I don't think that it's really necessary for people to call me out for using my coach's approximation of my current strength as opposed to my USCF, which I don't really feel is too accurate. You are correct though that I should have worded my post differently; I should not have stated myself as that type of player, but rather stated that I think I'm playing around that level.
My point wasn't to call you a liar for claiming a rating you don't have. It was more to point out that your way of thinking is closer to your actual rating than the one you're hoping to have soon. Some of your statements in this thread sound like something a class C or D player would say, rather than seeing things from a class B or higher point of view.
For instance, I don't want to go back and look through the whole thread for exact quotes, but you said something about games being decided entirely by tactics at low-intermediate levels. True enough below 1600, but starting around 1700-1800 level, it's the positional play (starting with knowing your opening setup) that sets up the tactics. You aren't going to just stumble into them nearly as much as you did at those lower levels.
This is the type of thing you only learn from experience of actually playing lots of games, not just studying books and working with a coach. This is why I don't like the whole idea of a "breakout tournament" strategy. Maybe if you're playing lots of slow, real time games along the way (I'm talking at least 2 games per week at G/60 or slower on sites like FICS or ICC), then you'll still get the experience necessary to really improve, but without that, you're just limiting your improvement by not playing.
When I first joined USCF, I could only play in a tournament every few months, because there were no local clubs that were convenient for me to play regularly, and I didn't really improve much despite lots of reading and the occasional internet games. Nowadays, I play USCF rated games at G/75 or slower almost every Saturday, and my rating has improved 200+ points per year for the last two years, which is pretty good for an adult over 30 who doesn't have as much study time as I'd like. Improvement takes a mix of playing and studying, and if you just focus on one or the other, you're limiting yourself.
--Fromper
On chess.com I have scored 85.5% with 1 e4 and 75.1% with 1 d4 so....
1. e4 IS best by test in my experience here. Oddly enough though, I score better with 1 d4 in otb chess..... go figure
Do you use opening books in your correspondence games here to help you navigate the sharper lines in e4 openings? That might account for part of the difference.
And I can't believe you guys are debating the merits of the French. The fact that it's used by dozens, if not hundreds, of grandmasters proves that it's good enough for anyone on chess.com, even if nobody in the current FIDE top 10 happens to play it. Or to put it another way - If it's good enough for Alekhine, it's good enough for me.
--Fromper
Yes, I use books and databases here on chess.com for all my openings, especially against strong players. I sometimes dont if playing an unrated game or against a weak player.
Alekhine wasnt the only WC who liked/played the french with success. Botvinnik and Petrosian did also. Some people just dont know what they are talking about.
I remember a wild french between Fischer and Tal that ended in a draw ... but I think Tal didnt play the french regularly.
Alekhine was the first who came to mind, just because I remember his famous game where he beat Capablanca (who was thought to be unbeatable at the time) from the black side of the "drawish" exchange variation. Anyone who plays the French should study Alekhine to learn how to deal with the Exchange, if nothing else.
--Fromper