No, this would be the last place to practice. I prefer live chess, I like to move the pieces, glide them on a wooden board, observe my opponent--there's no replacement of that.
Repertoire Help: Response to 1.e4
Sort:
ylblai2 wrote:
troy7915 wrote:
He said many a time that weak opposition has enabled someone like Karpov, to name one, to win from a bad position.
So is it Kasparov or you telling us this?
"... about these assessments: weak GMs tend to get it wrong..."
troy7915 wrote:
And apart from what he said or didn't say, you can see for yourself the difference in logic between someone like Fischer and weaker players. It's palpable.
And is it a nonGM who is claiming that this "palpable" stuff tells us this?
"... about these assessments: weak GMs tend to get it wrong..."
troy7915 wrote:
As I said before, learn from the strongest players, they have the strongest logic there is, or they wouldn't be strong at all.
Is there a reason to trust a nonGM about the consequences of learning from someone who isn't "the strongest"? How about someone who tell us, "status doesn't mean anything"?
You are going back. I already clarified something by giving enough clues, but I already said the average player doesn't have enough logic to pick up the hints. So he goes back, again and again. In fact, this is how a low-level player thinks during the game: he's frightened of some ghosts and repeats a deficient process of thinking over and over, until the clock makes them make a move, any move ( usually one that come to mind in the last moment, about which they haven't thought about before, but they're too happy to make a move without repeating the whole mess of thinking about possible replies to it). And if they're lucky, they'll survive another move. If not, they'll try to save the game, and if they're lucky ( the opponent entertains a similar thought process), they''ll survive, maybe even win the game! It has nothing to do with logic, strategy, or even tactics: such a player has a disorderly process of thinking, and as such, they come here and ask questions about answers to 1e4. When they do get some answers, they get frustrated and comment back, instead of listening.
I was only trying to help: I really don't care how you respond to 1e4, I only offered some options and ways of looking at the whole thing. Since your goal is just to just raise your Elo a couple of hundred points, the inquiry about avoiding complicated openings is the least of your worries. Thinking disorderly is much more important at this stage. I guess the strength of the player does matter, after all. I was hoping it's just a person's brain that matters, and it probably does, in general, but perhaps not in chess.
In chess, the logic is something very specific, unlike life--Kasparov's brain functions very disorderly in life, but highly logically in chess. In fact, he himself tried to apply chess in life, but was honest enough to admit it doesn't work, despite his trying. Too bad he didn't ask me, he could have save some time! Speaking of which, he did say that about weak opposition, not me.
So, good luck with your attaining goal!
let me guess, the kotov syndrome
SaintGermain32105 wrote:
let me guess, the kotov syndrome
Call it what you want, it's really not anticipating the reply to one's opponent reply--at the very minimum--which gets low-level players in trouble.
troy7915 wrote:
SaintGermain32105 wrote:
let me guess, the kotov syndrome
Call it what you want, it's really not anticipating the reply to one's reply--at the very minimum--which gets low-level players in trouble.
'Think Like A Grandmaster' A. Kotov
I've understood the reference, but it's really a problem with not calculating the reply to one's opponent reply.
kingofshedinjas wrote:
troy7915 escribió:
kingofshedinjas wrote:
Endgames are far more important than openings.
One might not make it to the endgame...
If one follows opening principles, it won't have any problems getting to the middlegame. There might be some exceptions (opening traps, etc...) but they're the exception, not the rule. If one tries to develop his pieces, castles and occupies the center with pawns, he won't have any problem in the opening in 95% of the games.
If instead of devoting so much time to openings a person studies endgames, for sure he'll start having a better performance.
Obviously I'm not talking at master level.
I don't understand what happened to my reply to this post...
troy7915 wrote:
kingofshedinjas wrote:
troy7915 escribió:
kingofshedinjas wrote:
Endgames are far more important than openings.
One might not make it to the endgame...
If one follows opening principles, it won't have any problems getting to the middlegame. There might be some exceptions (opening traps, etc...) but they're the exception, not the rule. If one tries to develop his pieces, castles and occupies the center with pawns, he won't have any problem in the opening in 95% of the games.
If instead of devoting so much time to openings a person studies endgames, for sure he'll start having a better performance.
Obviously I'm not talking at master level.
I don't understand what happened to my reply to this post...
I don't mind if someone took it down, the only reason I noticed it is because I think I've made two errors and just came back to correct them: instead of 6...Ne7 I might've written 4...Ne7. The brain took for granted some moves which were performed hundreds of times: 4...c5 5a3 Bxc3 6bxc3 and only now 6...Ne7, so the whole count is affected, and instead of the last move for White being 17th, it should really be 20th. The rest of that rather complicated analysis should be accurate and I trust the brain there.
Of course, that's not to say that 4...Ne7 cannot occur, on the contrary, and it may transfer back to the main lines ( or not), but I wasn't concerned at that point with transpositions.
The second error I can perceive through remembering what was said is about incorrectly saying that Black's response in reply to Qh4, ...e4 ( as opposed to ...h6) was in order to avoid mate on h7, I think I said; when in reality it was just a penetration into his defenses via h7, not mate--serious enough, to be sure, but not mate, and certainly not mate in one.
So there: I have made corrections to a post that was taken down--it matters not, corrections must be made!
troy7915 wrote (about 5 days ago):
troy7915 wrote:
...
Even if it's not only memorized but understood, MCO is poor in lines and the depth of those lines--that's one. And two, it's full of mistakes and guilty of not offering the best lines available.
I was browsing the MCO14 the other day, which is supposed to be more accurate than the 15th edition, and when I looked at KID, Samisch, what do I see? In the Classical treatment of the Samisch, with 6...e5 7d5 c6 8Qd2 cxd5 9cxd5 Nbd7 10Nge2 a6 ( transpositions with 7Nge2 c6 8Qd2Nbd7 9d5cxd5 10cxd5 a6 aside) 11g4 h5 12h3--the book gives 12...Nh7 when after 13Rg1! White will get an edge, based on a '96 Tornament in Amsterdam. But in the same year, and possibly the same tournament, since the place is also Amsterdam, there was an 'improvement': 12...b5!, when after 13Bg5 Qa5, instead of the 1991 ( hence the previous quotation marks) move, the immediate 14Ng3 Nh7!, this time 14Nd1 was played, and after an initial 14...Qxd2 15Rdxd2 when White got a slightly better ending, Black played 14...b4 15Ng3 Nh7 16gxh5 Nxg5 17Qxg5 Bf6 18Qh6 Bg7 19 Qg5 ( 19Qd2 Nc5 was played and it's unclear) 19...Bf6 with repetition.
All this took place in '96 and the book was published in '99...Why 12...Nh7 was given instead of the equalizing 12...b5! is beyond me.
Clarification: I haven't checked the accuracy of what I said, but I'm sure it's correct: it's part of my repertoire.
troy7915 wrote:
...
I don't mind if someone took it down, the only reason I noticed it is because I think I've made two errors and just came back to correct them: instead of 6...Ne7 I might've written 4...Ne7. The brain took for granted some moves which were performed hundreds of times: 4...c5 5a3 Bxc3 6bxc3 and only now 6...Ne7, so the whole count is affected, and instead of the last move for White being 17th, it should really be 20th. The rest of that rather complicated analysis should be accurate and I trust the brain there.
Of course, that's not to say that 4...Ne7 cannot occur, on the contrary, and it may transfer back to the main lines ( or not), but I wasn't concerned at that point with transpositions.
The second error I can perceive through remembering what was said is about incorrectly saying that Black's response in reply to Qh4, ...e4 ( as opposed to ...h6) was in order to avoid mate on h7, I think I said; when in reality it was just a penetration into his defenses via h7, not mate--serious enough, to be sure, but not mate, and certainly not mate in one.
So there: I have made corrections to a post that was taken down--it matters not, corrections must be made!
The post from about five days ago does not seem to me to match your current comments, but, for what it is worth, something seemed to go wrong with the original appearance of what you quoted in post #170.
ylblai2 wrote:
troy7915 wrote (about 5 days ago):
troy7915 wrote:
...
Even if it's not only memorized but understood, MCO is poor in lines and the depth of those lines--that's one. And two, it's full of mistakes and guilty of not offering the best lines available.
I was browsing the MCO14 the other day, which is supposed to be more accurate than the 15th edition, and when I looked at KID, Samisch, what do I see? In the Classical treatment of the Samisch, with 6...e5 7d5 c6 8Qd2 cxd5 9cxd5 Nbd7 10Nge2 a6 ( transpositions with 7Nge2 c6 8Qd2Nbd7 9d5cxd5 10cxd5 a6 aside) 11g4 h5 12h3--the book gives 12...Nh7 when after 13Rg1! White will get an edge, based on a '96 Tornament in Amsterdam. But in the same year, and possibly the same tournament, since the place is also Amsterdam, there was an 'improvement': 12...b5!, when after 13Bg5 Qa5, instead of the 1991 ( hence the previous quotation marks) move, the immediate 14Ng3 Nh7!, this time 14Nd1 was played, and after an initial 14...Qxd2 15Rdxd2 when White got a slightly better ending, Black played 14...b4 15Ng3 Nh7 16gxh5 Nxg5 17Qxg5 Bf6 18Qh6 Bg7 19 Qg5 ( 19Qd2 Nc5 was played and it's unclear) 19...Bf6 with repetition.
All this took place in '96 and the book was published in '99...Why 12...Nh7 was given instead of the equalizing 12...b5! is beyond me.
Clarification: I haven't checked the accuracy of what I said, but I'm sure it's correct: it's part of my repertoire.
troy7915 wrote:
...
I don't mind if someone took it down, the only reason I noticed it is because I think I've made two errors and just came back to correct them: instead of 6...Ne7 I might've written 4...Ne7. The brain took for granted some moves which were performed hundreds of times: 4...c5 5a3 Bxc3 6bxc3 and only now 6...Ne7, so the whole count is affected, and instead of the last move for White being 17th, it should really be 20th. The rest of that rather complicated analysis should be accurate and I trust the brain there.
Of course, that's not to say that 4...Ne7 cannot occur, on the contrary, and it may transfer back to the main lines ( or not), but I wasn't concerned at that point with transpositions.
The second error I can perceive through remembering what was said is about incorrectly saying that Black's response in reply to Qh4, ...e4 ( as opposed to ...h6) was in order to avoid mate on h7, I think I said; when in reality it was just a penetration into his defenses via h7, not mate--serious enough, to be sure, but not mate, and certainly not mate in one.
So there: I have made corrections to a post that was taken down--it matters not, corrections must be made!
The post from about five days ago does not seem to me to match your current comments, but, for what it is worth, something seemed to go wrong with the original appearance of what you quoted in post #170.
ylblai2 wrote:
troy7915 wrote (about 5 days ago):
troy7915 wrote:
...
Even if it's not only memorized but understood, MCO is poor in lines and the depth of those lines--that's one. And two, it's full of mistakes and guilty of not offering the best lines available.
I was browsing the MCO14 the other day, which is supposed to be more accurate than the 15th edition, and when I looked at KID, Samisch, what do I see? In the Classical treatment of the Samisch, with 6...e5 7d5 c6 8Qd2 cxd5 9cxd5 Nbd7 10Nge2 a6 ( transpositions with 7Nge2 c6 8Qd2Nbd7 9d5cxd5 10cxd5 a6 aside) 11g4 h5 12h3--the book gives 12...Nh7 when after 13Rg1! White will get an edge, based on a '96 Tornament in Amsterdam. But in the same year, and possibly the same tournament, since the place is also Amsterdam, there was an 'improvement': 12...b5!, when after 13Bg5 Qa5, instead of the 1991 ( hence the previous quotation marks) move, the immediate 14Ng3 Nh7!, this time 14Nd1 was played, and after an initial 14...Qxd2 15Rdxd2 when White got a slightly better ending, Black played 14...b4 15Ng3 Nh7 16gxh5 Nxg5 17Qxg5 Bf6 18Qh6 Bg7 19 Qg5 ( 19Qd2 Nc5 was played and it's unclear) 19...Bf6 with repetition.
All this took place in '96 and the book was published in '99...Why 12...Nh7 was given instead of the equalizing 12...b5! is beyond me.
Clarification: I haven't checked the accuracy of what I said, but I'm sure it's correct: it's part of my repertoire.
troy7915 wrote:
...
I don't mind if someone took it down, the only reason I noticed it is because I think I've made two errors and just came back to correct them: instead of 6...Ne7 I might've written 4...Ne7. The brain took for granted some moves which were performed hundreds of times: 4...c5 5a3 Bxc3 6bxc3 and only now 6...Ne7, so the whole count is affected, and instead of the last move for White being 17th, it should really be 20th. The rest of that rather complicated analysis should be accurate and I trust the brain there.
Of course, that's not to say that 4...Ne7 cannot occur, on the contrary, and it may transfer back to the main lines ( or not), but I wasn't concerned at that point with transpositions.
The second error I can perceive through remembering what was said is about incorrectly saying that Black's response in reply to Qh4, ...e4 ( as opposed to ...h6) was in order to avoid mate on h7, I think I said; when in reality it was just a penetration into his defenses via h7, not mate--serious enough, to be sure, but not mate, and certainly not mate in one.
So there: I have made corrections to a post that was taken down--it matters not, corrections must be made!
The post from about five days ago does not seem to me to match your current comments, but, for what it is worth, something seemed to go wrong with the original appearance of what you quoted in post #170.
Oh boy, it happened again!!! I wrote for like 2 hours and nothing was recorded!! I guess the space is really limited.
At least it was good mental exercise...
Mrs.Troy is the salt of the earth, always ready to give a helping hand.
Ok, so there we go again, for the third time...I guess, I should post a little a bit, then another bit, instead of one gigantic( over two hours of writing!) bit.
Thank you, ylblai for the trouble, but 170 is correct--I wrote this about 8 hours ago...You can check it yourself the 12...Nh7 13Rg1 line, leading to an edge for White. The 12...b5! line is not there, perhaps not even in the MCO15.
No, this was about the French Winawer/Nimzowitsch, the modern version where Black castles ( into the attack), proving that general principles, as advertised by that poster, are not enough. Sometimes one castles too early, offering a target for the opponent, sometimes the general rules are contradicted( like 3...Bc3( 'knights before bishops').
It's all very specific and details must be understood.
So it was about the French, with 6...Ne6 7Qg4 O-O.
I'll stop here, for now.
[COMMENT DELETED]
Ok, so now White used to play 8Nf3 and Black used to reply 8...f5. Then Black improved on that with 8...Nbc6, but then White also played the sharper 8Bd3, when 8...Nbc6 was dicey after 9Qh5. Black suffered some brutal defeats here, with 9...h6? and 9...g6, when the target was Ph7( h6 in the first case), when White sacrificed his bishops ( dark-squared and light-squared, respectively), or with 9...Nf5, when he opened his g-file and penetrated via g7.
I'll stop here now. i really don't know the size allowed in this place.
troy7915 wrote:
"... 170 is correct ..."
I have not checked again, but, if I remember correctly (and interpreted correctly), post 170 reproduced post 159. I think all the posts from somewhere around 156 to 160 ended up looking very strange. Maybe it was just a glitch of some sort in my system.
JOD1989 wrote:
Hi guys,
I've recently got back into chess (after about 12 years out and my otb rating at the moment is about 1800) and the only issue I have with my opening repertoire is a repsonse to 1.e4. I have been playing the Sicilian Najdorf with decent results but the amount of theory is a bit daunting (including all the anti-Sicilians).I don't know whether to persisit with the Sicilian or move over to something with less theory (i'm aware that opening theory isn't the most important thing at my level so I'm concerned I'm waisting time with the Sicilian). I've never really spent much time studying the French or Caro-Kahn but I would imagine they are less demanding that the Sicilian. I have also been looking at the Scandinavian at the moment.
Any thoughts/opinions are welcome!
Its like this. As a 1800 player I would think that you are of the standard of playing openings such as the Nadof or other sicillian variations.
However if you do not want to memorise theory, I would not advise you to take up the sicillian.
For less theory I would not advise e5 either. white has many options he can take up and blacks sidelines are not effective.
My suggestion would be playing d6 and play safe with the pirc. Gradually develop your peices and build up a counter attack. However I have not seen your playing style so i am not sure if this will suit u
ylblai2 wrote:
troy7915 wrote:
"... 170 is correct ..."
I have not checked again, but, if I remember correctly (and interpreted correctly), post 170 reproduced post 159. I think all the posts from somewhere around 156 to 160 ended up looking very strange. Maybe it was just a glitch of some sort in my system.
Well, apparently there is no 156...! From 155 it jumps to 157, which looks very weird, as well as 158,159 and 160. 170 was an intentional quote, so that the note could be related towards what it was intended for. After 160, begining with 161( new page) it came back to normal, but still, there is no 156--perhaps that's the glitch.
Either way, it makes sense that there is some limit as to the space allowed, so that 2 hours of writing would be way too long for this place.
Didn't come here to brag,
No, of course not. You came here to play chess... didn't you?
