need white opening for a begginer - Chess Forums - Page 2

Ben_Dubuque

May 16, 2011

0

#21

i know sad right

JohnIowa

May 16, 2011

0

#22

ReasonableDoubt wrote:

I don't know what was funnier about that post.. Saying that the London isn't just for lazy people who are bad tactically, or saying expectacular/rhythem.

To put it simply, London is a way of hiding behind your pieces and saying you're afraid to play chess. Anyone who says an opening that is literally called "The Old Man's Variation" is just as tactical as an e4 opening is out of their mind. People who adhere to systems instead of developing a repertoire know nothing about chess and intend to keep it that way. If you're lazy and don't want to have to know anything, London is the way to go.

That single comment, coupled with your rating, is enough to guarantee 100% that you're an engine cheat.

You know nothing about the game, and are pushing 2400? I'm done with this site.

KyleMayhugh

May 16, 2011

0

#23

Italian Game. It gives you a lot of good gambits and pseudo-gambits like the Evans and the Lolli. It forces you to learn how to play sharp, attacking, dynamic chess.

Ben_Dubuque

May 16, 2011

0

#24

Oh Btw don't play this one if you don't want to enter a super tactical battle

the initial comment is the position that is the one i mean

Ben_Dubuque

May 16, 2011

0

#25

i may be a total patzer but do i care no cause this is just a game and we all have better things to do with our time than stalk people by talking about an intelectual game so why am i a stalker because i posted two seconds late , i was not cosigning but reply ing to RoseQueen so there

Lopsidation

May 16, 2011

0

#26

Ignore complicated things like memorizing opening lines. In openings,

-Develop ALL your pieces (even rooks!)

-Try to get your pawns to control the center

-Castle early, castle often

-Don't move a piece twice until you move every piece once, unless there is a tactic. (I learned this one from Dan Heisman, who by the way writes the awesome Novice Nook series for beginners!)

Once you can naturally develop ALL your pieces in every game, and once you learn a lot about positional play, then maybe memorize some openings.

---By the way---

I read somewhere that beginners should play 1. e4 and gambit lines, even if they're unsound. Why? Because 1) A pawn doesn't matter too much at the beginner level anyway, and 2) Practicing tactics and attacking is the funnest thing ever.

Ben_Dubuque

May 16, 2011

0

#27

amen to that i love a nice juicy pawn with a side of light squared bishop

Ben_Dubuque

May 16, 2011

0

#28

Here the link to a game that i played as black and followed opening and middle game principles and had a nice attack, white did not follow any of these

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-analysis/my-favorite-game-i-played

there it is so go ahead and post

hankm

May 16, 2011

0

#29

Ok, I would have to caution any beginner reading these posts about playing gambit lines. Gambit lines can be a lot of fun, and some are perfectly sound, but you must be very careful with them, or you will start to develop horrible thinking habits like "That line loses material for no real concrete gain, but it looks so exciting that I have to play it anyway", "I have all my pieces out, and I'm not sure what to do, so I guess I'll just make a frenzied attack on my opponents king", or "Who cares if it's unsound? I win lots with it!".

Also, why is it that whenever "systems" come up in a chess conversation it seems to result in frenzied arguments? So many people are devoted to a specific system, and so many people are devoted to proving that systems in general are complete rubbish. Even among GMs, these kinds of debates go on: some people say something is great, others think it is absolute nonsense. So I guess the best thing to do is to take each bit of advice, consider it carefully, but don't start believing it is gospel truth, no matter who says it. There is almost always going to be someone who has good reason for disagreeing. So always keep in mind that in most situations in chess, there is no right or wrong answer. The matter is something you have to work out for yourself. Find what works for you, stick with it, and be very reluctant to give it up.

Ben_Dubuque

May 16, 2011

0

#30

ok if youre going to point someone out for lowering thier integrity by shamelessly attacking someone how bout ruining the family friendly ness of this site with your quote on page two about me and reasonabledoubt being stalkers which we're not but go ahead and attack his integrity just like patzers like me attack our opponents king weekly

wbbaxterbones

May 16, 2011

0

#31

Please use punctuation(Jetfighter)! I am trying to follow the argument, but it is difficult without pauses.

LavaRook

May 16, 2011

0

#32

Well the fact is that beginners should play more tactical openings and not systems like the London/Colle/KIA and a lot of ppl on this site would agree...

Like why stunt your growth when you are just beginning?

You don't have to play gambits, you can play the Italian or something...

boymaster

May 16, 2011

0

#33

LavaRook wrote:

Well the fact is that beginners should play more tactical openings and not systems like the London/Colle/KIA and a lot of ppl on this site would agree...

Like why stunt your growth when you are just beginning?

You don't have to play gambits, you can play the Italian or something...

FYI, London System is used as a starter opening for beginners here.

Ben_Dubuque

May 16, 2011

0

#34

sorry just be glad im spelling all this correctly cause i cant spell. :P

Ferric

May 17, 2011

0

#35

ajedrecito wrote:

Wow, a lot of needless posts have appeared in this thread. I'll try to add some substantiability to my post while responding to some of the things that have become heated here.

I have a friend, rated around 2000, who has been playing the London System for a while now. At this point he is looking for something else, but he is sharp tactically. I feel like his White opening did not help him with that, and looking at his games as White, his wins clearly come much later.

It's really not the opening, but the player that makes a game 'tactical' or develop more slowly. Sure, there are some openings that go straight into an endgame where a knowledge of the principles is much more important than a command of tactics (Berlin defense to the Ruy Lopez, for example) but generally, people who play the London system and have ratings in the 1900 and below range on here (or 1700 and below USCF) are pretty bad at tactics in my personal experience (well, all players at that level are pretty bad at tactics but especially so).

So RoseQueen1985, your post about the Colle and KIA exploding into kingside attacks had a lot of truth to it. However, if you ONLY play the Colle setup, you are crippled in dealing with the King's Indian Defense, as it is well-known to be strong against the Colle. So if you only play a Colle setup after 1.d4 d5, apart from 2.e3 Bf5 and 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 Bf5 you are probably doing okay. After the above-mentioned moves, best is to play c4 and transpose into a type of slow Slav after Black plays c6, or independent territory after Black plays e6.

Therefore, playing the Colle against everything will not get you a good position if your opponent is equally matched with you and knows some of the anti-Colle systems (King's Indian Defense, and lines with d5 and Bf5).

The King's Indian Attack is a different monster. It is playable of course, and a fine opening against several defenses, although the best way to reach it is by a 1.e4 move-order, or being careful about when you play it. If you open with 1.Nf3 2.g3 and 3.Bg2 and watch what your opponent does, being ready to transpose to a favorable English opening or Queen's Gambit (Catalan-style) line, you are probably well-set to play the KIA against setups that are not as dangerous.

If you do not know other openings (as I feel I have elucidated sufficiently above) when you play these systems, you miss the opportunity for better advantages and better games by transposing to more favorable openings. For example, if you know both the Colle and the Torre, you can open 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3, and on 2...g6 play 3.Bg5 which has quite a good reputation instead of the passive 3.e3.

ReasonableDoubt is clearly not an engine cheat as you may notice that his highest rating (2370) is in BULLET chess. Unless he somehow hacked the interface which I have reason to doubt.

Now, I still stand by 1.e4 and develop your pieces and castle being all of the memorized theory you need. I should expand on it: You should also get a database of the games of strong players, and every game you play compare to the database, see what strong players play in that position, go a bit deeper, and try to find the reasons behind the moves.

And also I would like to point out the irony that those who tell everyone to play a system tend to be rated several hundred points below those who say not to. BoyMaster is an exception but he is another one with a high bullet rating and a low rating in every other category so not really an exception.

Gambits are just a place to start I would think. There will always be someone better than the next guy. I felt there was some truth to the matter that people pick openings on what type of person they are to a point. Maybe not allways, or with out thinking about it. Just an opinion. Thats what makes chess. Look at peoples thought on the question that started 3 pages of comments.

madhacker

May 17, 2011

0

#36

I don't agree with all this stuff about "tactics are all you need to worry about for now and don't worry about strategic or positional ideas". This misunderstands the relationship between tactics and strategy. They are not seperate from each other but go hand in hand. Strategy is what you are trying to achieve, and tactics are the means employed to achieve it. One is pretty useless without the other. (This could probably be applied to many things other than chess).

I'd say play any reasonable openings that take your fancy. But do try out different things and see what you like best rather than just getting stuck on one or two systems. And try to understand the ideas behind the openings. A good way to do that is to play through games between stronger players in the openings. The chess openings category in Wikipedia is a good a source as any for introducing yourself to different openings.

And anyone who thinks the London System is boring/cowardly should take a look at the games of GM Vlatko Kovacevik, who destroys people in the opening using the London.

KyleMayhugh

May 17, 2011

0

#37

There's a difference between:

Which opening will help a beginner win more games?

and

Which opening will expose the beginner to a wider variety of interesting chess ideas that will help them learn and enjoy the game?

A system opening is fine for the first question in almost all cases. But for a majority of players (though not all), it's not good for the second question.

patd2

May 17, 2011

0

#38

try the london system,i use it even now for a m ore or less guaranteed middlegame

wbbaxterbones

May 17, 2011

0

#39

RoseQueen1985 wrote:

^ no you can't play the London because according to some users here, if you do you are a weak patzer afraid of tactics and a decent middle game.

I have heard no one say that except you Rose, RD is saying that these systems do not teach begginers as well as building a repertoire, because they see more positions that way.

FrugalLiving

May 17, 2011

0

#40

I play the London. It pretty much guarantees that you can get into a playable middlegame. And it's plenty tactical for a beginner.

In fact, for beginners, there's probably no difference in the amount of tactics that will present themselves...no matter whether you play the London, or the King's Gambit. Below 2600, what determines the presence or absence of tactics is imperfect play.

The Ruy Lopez is pretty well known for having lots of lines where no pieces or pawns are captured in the first couple dozen moves. In practice, when I was playing it in the 1500's way back when, it was every bit as tactical and chaotic as the Najdorf Sicilian.

I gave it (and e4) up because I wasn't ever going to reach the levels where positional play matters all that deeply. (Which it just doesn't below GM.) I got...and get...far better results playing openings I know backwards and forwards. And that creates far more tactical opportunities than any other plan I've encountered.

People who want to believe that chess is all about pushing the boundaries of opening theory...or some relentless pursuit for a kind of perfection that nobody short of Kasparov and his ilk are ever going to approach...or getting to play your favorite lines that you've got all the books about...

These are the people who call the London "The Boring Opening." Of course it's boring if you want to play a Leningrad Dutch or a Noteboom. But as white, is it your job to entertain the other player, or to give yourself the best chance to win? Chess is rarely ever boring when you're in the driver's seat.

It's called an "Old Man's Opening" not because it's flawed. But because you can very reliably steer it into a whole complex of very similar lines, where tiny errors in move order don't punish you too badly. So it's great for the aging master who simply doesn't have the time, energy, or memory to dedicate to knowing 40 moves of theory for a dozen different opening complexes any more. This also happens to make it just about perfect for pretty much any amateur player in the world.

What decides games below 2400 is a lack of mistakes. Thus, the objectively strongest openings at that level are the ones that make mistakes the least likely...or that punish them the least.

In this sense, for almost every chess player alive, the London is objectively a stronger opening than the QG, the Ruy, the Open Sicilian, or any other sharp and difficult opening you'll ever see a GM offer up.

Anyone telling you to focus on 1.e4 until you're a certain strength is hurting your game, and slowing down greatly the amount of time it'll take you to achieve that strength. It's an inferior opening for ameteurs. It just is. Playing e4 will slow your progress. Playing a system will make 99% of chess players the best they can ever be, and will do it a lot faster.