"Wing it" for How Long?

In my topic, Need Help with KIA Move Order, AnthonyCG wrote:

"I think it would be better to play 1.e4 and wing it. Play the four knights against 1...e5 and the other defences can be played against by just developing. Against the French, KIA is probably ok anyway. I think you should work more on playing in the center and watching Morphy games. Everyone gives him the center for some reason."

I thought about this all day. And like someone fresh from rehab, I was already starting to lapse back into the idea of systems to insure both good piece placement and rapid development.

So, how long can I wing it before hitting a wall, where I will be forced to crack open a book on opening theory? At what playing strength will I see guys blowing me off the board because they know opening theory, and I don't?

When someone says, just study opening principles in the beginning, not opening theory, well, how many opening principles are there?

I read this in a book:

Three Rules of the Opening

1. Control the center (preferably by occupying it with pawns);

2. Develop - bring your pieces from their starting positions onto squares from which they exercise influence on the action (start with the kingside pieces because of the next rule);

3. Castle (usually short, since it can be accomplished most quickly and safely).

here try this for s start....

http://www.chesscentral.com/Chess_Strategy_a/201.htm

 2400.

Theoretically, I'd say you could play up to about 1800 OTB, maybe higher, or 2000-2200ish online if your tactics were phenomenal. Realistically, maybe 1600 OTB or 1800-2000 online. Note I'm not equating OTB to online ratings, just estimating for both cases individually. It's said you can hit 1600 OTB if you just don't blunder. You don't need to know anything else; no opening theory, no positional knowledge, no endgame knowledge. Just don't blunder. While I agree it's possible, a bit of knowledge in those other areas will make your life of not blundering easier.

You will need opening theory when your opponents are at the level that:

1) They don't blunder material

2) They know opening theory themselves well enough to exploit your non-opening theory.

This will happen at ~2000 on chess.com standard ratings. You have a HUGE way to go. Please take people's advice and realise that your weaknesses do not come from opening theory, but from basic chess misunderstandings. Your opponents are as lost as you are.

Well said! 

I'm very excited about finally focusing 99% of my study and practice time on everything but opening theory.

The 1% comes from the opening theory I will pick up along the way by going through books like one of my favorites, Logical Chess - Move By Move - Every Move Explained  by Irving Chernev.

I own two other books that do the same thing, but are more advanced, with far more annotation and theory.  I'm not quite ready for them. I bought them to soon.

They are, Understanding Chess - Move By Move by John Nunn and Chess:the art of logical thinking - from the first move to the last by Neil McDonald.

Both books are well written and perfect for the intermediate chess player, which I am not. I'm still a beginner, and that's o.k. for now.

" Get all your guys out and give them a job to do." 

I like that. The game you posted was amazing. A guy like that, no matter how booked up I am, would clobber me because of:

1. Better tactics

2. Better checkmate skills

3. Better understanding of opening principles

4. More games under his belt, experience matters

5. And many other things that a beginner doesn't yet know about chess

Here's an example from just 5 minutes ago, early morning.  I got in a quick 10 minute game, thinking only of getting my guys out and giving them a job. I hung my rook towards the end, but my opponent missed it. Also, when I delivered checkmate, I didn't know why until afterwards, when I saw my sneaky bishop helping out at b3. My board vision, seeing all 64 squares all of the time, is pretty bad.

My opponent defends with the Petroff Defense, 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6, but I'm not sure if he knows the line, especially after 3.Nxe5 Nxe4?! 4.Qe2 Qe7 5.Nf3 Ng5?? 6.Nxg5. I don't think he realized that his queen was pinned to his king, so he hung his knight out to dry. It took me, I think, to long to convert this disaster of his into a win. I made a few mistakes somewhere.

Can anyone find my first mistake? This is my new bright idea on how to improve at chess. Simply review each game, find the first mistake that I make, and don't repeat it again.

I don't know about first mistake, but you left a rook hanging for 3 moves instead of mating.

Sorry - didn't read the whole post, and you already talked about that.

Here's the answer to post #8. My mistake, according to the chess.com computer analysis, came on move # 7 with Ne4. Ouch! My idea was to place my knight on a center square for two reasons: 1. the knight is occupying a center square, 2. it blocks the trade of queens temporarily.

If you have never seen chess.com computer analysis, for me, it's simply too much information. I use it only to find mistakes, not pour over the long lines of computer perfect continuations that I don't have the skill to play.

I never studied any theory and used to be stuck at 1400. Then I read Chernev's book and jumped to 1700 almost overnight, and I only read the first half of the book too (king pawn games). It taught me the difference between tactics and strategy - a wonderful book - Chernev is a born teacher. But now I find myself stuck at 1700. So you should get to 1700 on Chernev's book too. After that, who knows? - I'm still figuring it out!

I wouldn't  beat myself up over the inaccuracy in that particular evaluation myself. Sure, it does evaluate to a better move, and it is probably the best, but Houdini puts 7. Nf3 at +4.00 and 7. Ne4 at +3.35. While that is a little over half a pawn difference at lower levels I don't think it would make that much of a difference. Especially since you are still up a whole piece at that point.

I think the whole reason it isn't as strong is you basically waste a move because of 7. ... f5 and you have to move it again anyway.

+1

+1

I've heard this many, many times. You can hit 1600 OTB by not blundering.

1. Leaving a piece en prise = blunder.

2. Missing a one move tactic = blunder.

What about the loss of material due to a combination? Is that considered a blunder at 1600 OTB, or above?

A combination is a tactic so yes, I would say so.

Depending on how deep the combination was and all. Like say a simple 2 move removal of the guard combo is a blunder for sure...

It seems like you still haven't identified your mistake. Sure, you know which move it was, but unless the same exact game is replayed, how does this help you? Sure, you don't want to pour over the whole long computer line, but looking at one more move can give you a clue as to why Ne4 is "inaccurate".

Some people have pointed out that there's no real difference between Ne4 and Nf3 -- either way you're up a piece. Ok, imagine you stick black's knight back on g8, do you play Ne4 or Nf3. If you know which and why, then you're getting somewhere.

"insure" means like "insurance" where you get some special benefit if something goes wrong.

"ensure" is the word you should be using, which basically means to "make sure".

Maybe I still don't see my mistake. Thanks for taking the time to post and get me to think deeper.

In the diagram below, is this the position you had in mind?

I don't see the imaginary knight at g8 affecting the decision much, as it can only develop to h6 on the next move, which doesn't look like a good square. Maybe I am missing something.

White mainly needs to play Nf3 to avoid a loss in tempo. After Ne4?, Black has ...d5, attacking White's knight with a tempo. After 1.Ne4? d5 2.Nc3, Black can develop another piece, say 2...Be6, defending d5.

White falls behind in development by playing Ne4.

Did someone blunder by using the word "insure" ?  No worries. I would be happy to buy insurance that pays me money whenever I blunder. Why, I would be a millionaire.

Facing the Petroff Defense more than once in Live Chess, I went looking for moves that would avoid early queen outings after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 Nxe4 4.Qe2 Qe7, especially because of what follows if I play by the book, which is 5.Qxe4. After 5.Qxe4, the continuation is extremely complex, 5...d6 6.d4 dxe5 7.dxe5 Nc6 8.Bb5 Bd7 9.Nc3 Qb4 - Yuck!

This line in the Petroff makes more sense to a beginner - 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.d4, placing another pawn in the center, 3...Nxe4 4.Bd3, developing another piece and ready to castle short. If Black plays 3...d6, I have 4.Nc3. Logical.

Yes, and this is the lesson to be learned. When looking for squares for your pieces it's good to think "e4 is a nice central square", but it's just as important to know whether the piece can stay on that square -- if it can be pushed off by a pawn, maybe it doesn't matter how good that square is, you ain't sticking around.

This is especially true if the pawn move driving your piece off that square is a good move for the opponent. In this case, it occupies the center and prepares a developing move, black wants to play d5 anyway, Ne4 lets him do it with tempo. Sometimes you'll still put a piece on a square where it can be driven away by a pawn -- if the pawn move weakens the opponent's position in some way.

My only point about putting the black knight back on g8 is that it avoids the commentary "white is winning whether he plays Nf3 or Ne4, he's up a piece either way, so it doesn't matter".