This isn't an opening so much as a system. Furthermore, it's such a general system that it can't really be given a name. There are some systems, especially hypermodern ones, which can get a lot of use; the KIA for example, or the London system, but generally these only work against certain opposing moves. Furthermore, in order to be successful, you need to react to your opponent's moves. Otherwise, you will be very lucky to survive the opening with an even equal position.
Name of Opening?
Sort:
Jun 6, 2009
0
#23
Oh, I know this opening! It's called the "Bishop's Opening with 3. d3, 4. Bf4 variation."
sstteevveenn wrote:
corum wrote:
sAviOrOSL wrote:
this has no name because it dont exist... too many hanging pieces and a recipe for diaster! this opening sucked and if u like it, well ur a total noob
I think you're saying the same thing as me but in a slightly different way :)
haha nice. Btw, the sicilian given is a good example of why it is important to include your opponents moves and react to them in the opening. It's also a good example of 'knights before bishops'. While bringing the bishop out first can be perfectly ok (it is fine after 1...e5), after 1...c5 there is a big difference in that the black e-pawn isnt committed yet. Against this move it is actually incorrect to bring the bishop out first because rather than 2...d6 black will likely play 2...e6 possibly preparing ...d5 gaining time on the bishop and attacking the centre, or potentially leaving the bishop biting on granite on e6. It is not yet clear where this bishop wants to go, so best to do something else and decide what to do with the bishop later, e.g 2.Nf3.
Also, regarding words to describe that opening style, it is classical as it is playing for the centre occupying it and developing pieces towards it, and it is fairly quiet usually with .d3. Regarding the bishops, there is no word for this, but there is a general opening principle of 'knights before bishops' as it is usually correct to develop knights first. It is certainly very unlikely you should have both bishops developed like that with neither knight developed.
Seconded.
At your level it's in my opinion better playing with general principles as you're doing, rather than learning lines as the vast majority your games will be decided as Nigel Short put it in "rather more unsophisticated means" i.e. a likely series of tactical oversights. However as Steven said the principles you're using at the moment are just slightly inferior to what they could be.
P.s. Why do so many people have to use personal insults instead of criticising constructively?!
???