i have used the centre game a few times and i found it harder to handle than the italian game
Low Level Openings
Sort:
It is amazing to me how much some people are able to discern about me from just a few words and my chess ranking. They know that I only memorize different opening lines instead of understanding them. They know that I only study Openings and neglect tactics and end game. They know I spend hundreds of hours memorizing openings, but don’t understand opening concepts. They also know what opening moves my opponents will make.
I am sure that their intentions are good and that they are only trying to help, but in the end they have no understanding of what chess is like at my level, nor about how and what I study.
Speaking of understanding, when I am able to remember the first 7 moves of an opening it is because I understand the motive behind each move.
Concerning early deviations from book moves in the Center Game. Down here in the swamp, There are 4 common 2nd moves for black. One will lose in 20 moves or so. One will almost always lose, One losses most of the time, and the other one is the book move. On blacks 4th move there are also a number of options, but if you are near my level and do not play the main line my odds of beating you are very good. If my opponent does not play the main line for the first 4 moves I almost always win. Why? It is not because I have spent hundreds of hours memorizing opening lines, but because I understand why the move they made is bad.
As some people have pointed out the Center Game is not necessarily easy, I believe it was Five of Swords that first call it tricky. I agree with this, it is easy for black or white to make the wrong move. It took me a while to understand why it is important for black to play the 4th move, once I understood why that move was important I was able to make the right 5th move. At my level the right 5th move is almost independent of which of the non main lines 4th moves black makes.
Just as the Center Game is not easy, it is also not complex. There are just a few book variations, and the vast majority of those have the same first 4 moves. I believe it is this lack of complexity that causes the Center Game not to be played at the highest levels.
At my level I believe it is a great opening. It is not overly difficult to understand. Since my opponents are frequently not familiar with it they often make a mistake or blunder early in the game. You can check my games and see that I have been very successful with this opening.
As for those of you who are concerned that I might be too one dimensional and my not being prepared to meet anything other than 1…e5, please relax. I just go with opening concepts: I play 2.d4, control the center, gain space and win . But here again I have only seen anything other than 1…e5 a few times and then it was mostly 1…d5.
As for tactics, most of my study time is spent on tactics. Since my first few posts I have spent almost no time studying the opening moves of the center game. That is one of the great things about this opening at my level once you understand the main line you do not have to keep studying this opening, instead you can spend your limited study time on tactics etc.
Learning and remembering the book moves are important.
Most book moves are played for a concrete reason.
It is your job to figure out what the reason is as a chess player.
Furthermore, I believe book moves act as bench marks in a person's game.
Lets say you know the first 5 book moves.
You know what your suppose to play and what your opponent is suppose to play in the 5 first moves.
Now lets say your opponent at move 4 plays a move which you have never seen before.
Now this is an example were knowing the book moves can help you.
You know the main book move at move 4 is move X.
However, your opponent played the 4th move Y.
By knowing what the book moves is and comparing it to what your opponent played.
You give yourself a chance to figure out what to do!
or
You give yourself a chance for warning bells to go off in your ears!
By knowing the book moves and knowing your opponent deviated from the book move.
You give yourself the chance to use up your time in a critical position.
Obviously the position has turned critical!
Something has happened in which you have never seen before or never studied.
Your opponent played a move which devaites from the book move.
At this moment in your chess game you should use up your time.
Take a pause! Try to figure out if your opponent made a mistake!
Obviously when a deviation happens 1 of 2 things are happening.
1- Your opponent is playing a side line variation which you have not looked at yet.
or
2- Your opponent has played a bad move.
One skill which strong players have is the ability to know when they need to stop moving and use up time to think!
In this example using up your time to come up with a plan is critical!
The fate of the game may rest on this single move your opponent played!
They might of played a bad move in which you might be able to refute it and determine the whole game!
Sometimes in chess you will figure out the right move and win the game.
Other times in chess you will not figure out the right move and lose the game.
However, the thing to take away from the game is:
REVIEWING THE GAME
After the game is over go back to move 4 were the deviation happened and see what you should have done!
Reviewing this critical spot can help you in future games!
This is how you improve as a chess player!
So yeah keep doing a good job.
There is nothing wrong with memorizing moves.
Millions of chess players before you have memorized moves!
Millions of chess players after you will memorize moves!
To be a successful chess player you will ultimately have to memorize some moves.
I memorize moves!
I am not ashamed to say it.
An on a given chess day.
I can put a hurt on anyone who enters into a position I memorized very well!
Jengaias,
Playing 4. Qa4 instead of 4. Qe3 is an interesting idea, however, I like the Center Game more than I like the Scandinavian. Also I looked at the Win vs Loss for both. Qa4 losses about 12 percent more often and Qa4 wins about 25 percent less often than Qe3 in master games.
Concerning the Italian.
I’m not sure what you mean by the Italian but I will assume you mean 3. Bc4, Bc5.
In the past I have looked at a number of lines from the Italian Complex, 4.c3, 4.0-0, and 4.b4 as I recall. This was when I only played on line chess, there were two main problems: 1 people would use data bases so deep that it was late middle game before we were out of the book so to speak. I felt like I was missing the fun part of the game. 2. It seems like I would end up playing something other than the Italian more than I played the Italian. In master games it seem that if you play 2. Nf3 with the desire to play 3. Bc4 Bc5 you only get there 37% of the time.
So my question is do you play the Italian in live chess, and if so what percent of the time are you able to play the Italian and not the two knights etc. Also do you have any idea how long live chess players at my level stay in the book for the Italian?
Gingaias,
I think that there is value to your advice. That is to use a standard position that you can reach most of the time that is more consistent with opening theory, than the one reached in the Center Game, and thus learning to walk before trying to run. I believe that the standard position you recommended can be reached whether my opponent plays 3… Bc5 or 3…Nf6.
However, I do have some concerns with the d3 Italian. Namely:
-
It seems to me that the example game are very positional in nature. There isn’t any exchanges until after 15 to 20 moves. I just don’t have the positional understanding to run like that. Comparatively the Center Game is a walk in the park. It is very tactical in nature. For me tactical knowledge proceeds positional knowledge.
-
I think that it would be very unlikely that my opponent would stay in the book for more than 4 or 6 moves, so in the end I would not end up playing as in the example games.
-
You yourself do not play the opening. You play the Bishop’s Opening (when you play 1e4 that is). It is possible that you are trying to reach the position you recommend, but you end up taking advantage of some tactical mistake made by your opponent. Most of your e4 games become tactical well before the 10th move. In short your games have more in common with the Center Game than they do with the example games you gave.
-
The primary reason for reaching a common position in most games is having a better understanding of that position. At my level the understanding required to win games is tactical. For me the desired standard position needs to be tactical in nature. It needs to be tricky or complicated tactically. There should be opportunities for my opponent to make mistakes due to their lack of tactical understanding of the positon or of tactics in general.
-
The key to reaching the position you recommend after either 3… Bc5 or 3…Nf6 is playing d3, however games resulting from d3 are not naturally tactical. It seems that in the Italian going tactical requires d4, however playing d4 seems to prevent you from reaching a common position whether your opponent plays 3…Bc5 or 3…Nf6.
I am not sure what knowledge I’m am missing out on by playing the Center Game. Seeing tactics is seeing tactics, and calculating is calculating. Calculating and tactics for the most part do not depend on the opening. It also seems to me that knowing that one should attack a backward pawn, control an open file, or check a castled king on the back row is also independent of what opening you play. I guess there are some positional imbalances like double pawns or an isolated d pawn that do not commonly occur in the Center Game, but then I’m not sure the occur in the Italian.
I do want to thank you taking the time to offer advice, but after careful consideration I do not believe that the d3 Italian is a better choice for me than the Center Game. Perhaps playing the Italian could take me further than playing the Center Game, However playing the Italian requires considerable more opening knowledge
I also gave some though to playing the d3 Bishop as you do, but I believe it has the same weakness as the Center Game, at some point people will not make the early tactical mistakes and will have tactical abilities equal or greater than mine. I believe that the Center Game is more tactically challenging than the Bishop, but the Bishop has more in common with the Italian, and thus the knowledge gain by playing the Bishop may be more valuable in 300 points.
WOW WOW WOW WOW Berlin1839
If you are playing the Center Game because you think it offers more tactical positions than the Italian Game.
Than you simply have not even scratched the surface of the Italian Game!!!
The Italian Game offers both tactical & positional continuations.
The move d3 is one way of playing which offers a positional feel at times.
However, No one is forcing you to play d3 in the Italian!!!!
Allow me the chance to introduce you to some tactical lines.
The tactical lines in the Italian Game will put tactical lines in the Center Game to utter shame!!!!!
Feast your eyes on the EVAN'S GAMBIT!!!
The EVAN'S GAMBIT is a continuation which exist in the Italian Game after 3...Bc5!
It can be extremely dangerious for black if they are not careful.
The move 4.b4 hits the dark bishop right away!
Which even sacrifices a pure pawn for some attacking initiative!
This line has been played even at the highest of chess levels.
Next we take a journey into a line which I have played!
It is one of my own personal favorites!
It is called the BIRDS ATTACK
In this line white choices to play the main move 4.c3 first.
Than after 4...Nf6 only than do they play 5.b4!
Which is supported by the c3 pawn.
Again this move attacks the bishop.
In this situation the b4 pawn is not a gambit.
Which even shows how you can be aggressive with out giving up material!
Furthermore, against the move 3...Bc5
You even have other mainline options which do not even put a pawn on d3!!!
All of which happen at move 5 in the below position:
Notice how you do not have to play 5.d3.
The move 5.d4 is perfectly acceptable.
Furthermore lines which stem from 5.d4 include and are not limited to:
- Moeller Attack
- Moeller-Bayonet Attack
- Greco Gambit
- Greco Variation
Which again only touches the surface!
Lastly, you might ask the question:
Is there any tactical lines against the move 3...Nf6 which is another very popular move?
Answer: YES!!!!
Feast your eyes on one of the most played attacking continuations in chess!
It is known in the chess world as:
The Fried Liver Attack
The move 6.Nxf7 sacrifices the knight on f7!
The black king can take it!
White will be down a whole piece!
However, his position is said to be better for white even with the knight being sacrificed and it is extremely dangerious for black!
Furthermore, You don't even have to sacrifice a knight on f7 if you don't want to.
The move 6.d4 is considered to be even stronger and more crushing!
It is called the Lolli Attack!
In fact, chess players have acknowledged through hundreds of years of study that black should not even allow these positions to happen.
Whites attack can be so problematic that it is said to be in blacks best interest to avoid the positions entirely!
Which is why the move 5...Na5 came to the surface as the saving/best move for black.
Which trys to avoid those to deadly attacking lines.
However, even in the avoidance saving lines the position is still complex and tactical!
The battle of the game will rage on with an epic battle!
These lines have been played at the highest of levels.
In fact, the continuations with 5...Na5 have even been played at the highest of levels which is said to be the avoidance lines.
There you have it!
The Center Game is a tactical & positional whimp in the face of the Italian Game!
Pound for Pound the Italian Game owns the Center Game
Italian Game > Center Game
I played the Italian Game when I started playing chess.
Which is why I have such a huge passion for it!
I played the Fried Liver Attack and the Birds Attack.
Than I fell in love with the positional d3 lines.
The only line which I didn't play a lot was the Evans Gambit.
I guess the main reason was because I wasn't a huge tactical junkie!
I think most players who are tactical junkies like the Evans Gambit.
I was never a huge fan.
However, if you are wanting that tactical struggle than by all means play the Evans Gambit if you want.
It has been there for centuries!
X PLAYER et al
I very much enjoyed your posts on the Italian Game. So following your advice I picked out a few lines to memorize for about 10 moves or so. Then I followed Thriller Fan’s advice and made sure I understood the early moves. I even found two similar positions that result from playing d4 vs Nf6 or Bc5. Thus armed I played a number of games with the intent of playing the Italian. I ended up mostly playing black or against the Sicilian or the French when I did have white. As white I also played against a number of unorthodox openings involving a number of pawn moves. I might of got to play 3Bc4 once.
What I learned:
1. Playing 2 d4 limits my opponent’s responses and thus the resulting games. Most 2 d4 games are very much alike.
2. Playing 2 Nf3 allows for many more different responses. All the games I played were tactical but very few resembled each other. I felt like I was playing in their sandbox most of the time. I guess the Center Game is more forcing then the Italian Game
3. Both I and my opponent found the games easier to play and thus the games were longer, move moves.
4. I still believe I have better tactical skills, and now believe that I calculate faster than most players my level. Because of the above, I would become stressed out in the late middle game or early end game and make bad moves.
5. I also believe that part of the reason I lost a number of games that I should of won late, is because my opponents have more experience in those phases of the game.
6. Today I started doing other things than looking at the board while my opponent thought and was therefore less stressed and preformed better late in the game. I’m not sure how well this will work over the board
Going forward
I believe I can play tactically with the Italian (if I can ever play the Italian regularly) I also believe that not playing the CG will allow me to get further into the game and develop my late middle game and end game.
@Berlin1839
I read your post on post 36 and I wanted to say a few things.
1) - Your Welcome!
2) - The Italian Game is a very nice line which can be played against 1...e5.
The only down side of course is black is not forced to play 1...e5!
3) - Since, black is not forced to play 1...e5 vs 1.e4 you will need to learn other lines to deal with black's other mainline responses.
The main 4 lines you will see vs 1.e4 include:
1...e6
1...c6
1...c5
1...e5
At the current moment I suppose you could scratch off 1...e5 off your list since you got a line for that leaving you with the below 3.
1...e6
1...c6
Against 1...e6 & 1...c6 the move 2.d4 is usually considered to be the main move.
1...c5
Against 1...c5 you could try out the Grand Prix Attack if you want.
I wrote an article on it.
I will post you the line maybe you will line it.
You never know!
https://www.chess.com/blog/X_PLAYER_J_X/understanding-the-grand-prix-attack
Shocking! Utterly Shocking!
I will admit X Player I was about to post a note thanking you for your suggestion vs 1c4, ( I had no idea what the Grand Prix Attack was), and saying that I have an opening I like to play against 1c4. But then I thought I might as well take a look at your suggestion, after all your advice on the Italian was very beneficial.
You can image my shock when I learned I have been reaching something very near the Bc4 ideal position of the Grand Prix Attack, almost from when I first joined Chess.com. I played 2. Bc4, which is according to you a sin. I can see the logic of playing 2. Nc3. In my defiance, the attack I used was some what different. I would castle long, launch the king side pawns, and send the heavy pieces thundering down the h file, well that was my plan. In that scenario, having a LSB that has been kicked around and left for dead on the b1-h7 diagonal isn’t such a bad thing
Reading the article you linked was very beneficial as it greatly increased my understanding of the position I play, and gave me new ideas on different attacks from it.
I also invested some more time and read some of the other articles you have posted on your Blog, Which I thought were also very enjoyable and in lighting.
I was wondering how do I access your blog?
You can access them with the below link:
https://www.chess.com/blog/X_PLAYER_J_X
On the left side of the above link.
You will see a nice table of context.
It will show you the different things I have created:
From Chess Openings, To Chess Legends, To Beginner Idea's etc.
You can click on any of them and it will open up the articles.
One major benefit I think in reading my blogs is you will not get bored lol.
From my corny jokes to my terrible spelling errors lol.
You def will have something to laugh at or be amused at lol.
I want to thank those of you who have posted example games.
X Player,
On your blog you talk about reviewing and commenting on your games. What software do you use?
How do you move a game from here to there?
Berlin1839 wrote:
I want to thank those of you who have posted example games.
X Player,
On your blog you talk about reviewing and commenting on your games. What software do you use?
How do you move a game from here to there?
Well if you plan on becoming a serious chess player than you might want to consider getting chess software which helps you keep your games in a database.
There are several different kinds which exist.
They all have different price ranges.
I suppose it depends on how commited you are.
I ended up getting Chess Base.
Which I thought was pretty nice.
I often play chess on different chess sites and I wanted to get something which allowed me to put my games in a database externally.
I know some chess sites such as chess.com delete your games after a certain amount of time.
I think if you get memebership they start to keep them.
However, I can't say for sure.
I know a lot of people try different things.
I had a friend who use to print his games out and put them in a folder as a way of saving his games lol.
What ever method you do is entirely up to you.
As long as you review your games.
I think that is the important thing.
I was a bit shocked by the price of Chess Base, so I looked around a little and didn’t find another software that did everything I wanted. I then decided to try just writing a review of my game. My thought was that I would remember more of what I learned if I wrote my review. I had been going over my games using the chess.com computer.
While doing the first review, I found that writing it made me want to understand score changes of 1 or more, when just mentally going over it I would only try to understand larger score changes, blunders, missed mates in 2 or 3 etc. Where as now I was looking at missed positional opportunities like taking control of an open column and completing development before starting an attack etc.
After doing a few trials I decided that having the ability to save my reviews along with the moves was worth the price so I went ahead an ordered Chess Base. I also got the book explaining how to use it, and Amazon threw in an E Book of Paul Morphy’s chess games.
I’m not sure of the value of the E Book, but we will see.
I’m not sure that I am serious enough about chess to justify the purchase, but I do believe that it will help me improve my game, for which I am willing to spend the money.
@Berlin1839
Yeah the good thing is you can save your notes and reviews in databases which is pretty kool.
Once you got them saved they are pretty much saved for good lol.
I will admit.
I love it.
They have a lot of features on there which is pretty kool.
I myself haven't even used them all.
However, I really think storing your games on it with review + notes is well worth it!
It is very hard to do such things online.
Well at least for my experince.
I haven't found any site which allows a person to really do that.
There are books that seek to help one with sensible opening study:
Openings for Amateurs by Pete Tamburro (2014).
http://kenilworthian.blogspot.com/2014/05/review-of-pete-tamburros-openings-for.html
Discovering Chess Openings by GM Johm Emms (2006).
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627114655/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen91.pdf