No, I am an aggressive player, so i play aggressive openings, with more winning chances, but with more risks. In solid openings, there isn't too much sharp play and for me is very boring.
Repertoire Problems: Grunfeld Defence vs King's Indian
Sort:
Mar 12, 2013
0
#23
So basically you want to take risks and lose more games. If you think chess is boring you should quit.
You don't understand, I like chess, but I like sharp positions where I am good at, but i don't like too much positional chess, i am not so bad at it, but i like to make combinations, to sacrifice pieces or pawns when i have compensation. I like to unbalance the position.
Mar 12, 2013
0
#25
If you avoid playing dry positions you won't properly learn how to outplay your opponents and you'll always be deficient.
I am trying to outplay my opponents in unbalanced position, where i am good at. Also I play solid openings/positions good enough too beat players with the same rating as mine, but i like more sharp openings/positions, because, for me, they are more intersting. Every player plays (or wants to play) positions/openings that they like.
I recommend this very very very sharp line against d4 then...
1. d4 e5 2. dxe5 Nf6!? and if white is daring enough to accept the double sacrifice with 3. exf6, you will have a very sharp/unbalanced position to play. I wish you best of luck
Mar 12, 2013
0
#28
UIUCBoss wrote:
I recommend this very very very sharp line against d4 then...
1. d4 e5 2. dxe5 Nf6!? and if white is daring enough to accept the double sacrifice with 3. exf6, you will have a very sharp/unbalanced position to play. I wish you best of luck
Dude that's actually book in bughouse.
Unfortunate for Black that in this double-sacrifice which UIUCBoss is suggesting, Black has no compensation.
Mar 12, 2013
0
#30
proppolis wrote:
Unfortunate for Black that in this double-sacrifice which UIUCBoss is suggesting, Black has no compensation.
He does. Doubled f pawns cover both the e6 square and e5 square.
I'm nobody to speak but i don't see what's so wrong about him wanting to play "unbalanced positions". He's not talking about positions where you sacrifice a knight on the 3rd move but he may be referring to for example, a sicilian defense where the pawn structure is asymmetrical(there are also some boring lines in the sicilian of course) rather than a french defense exchange or a slav exchange, where the pawn structure is symmetrical. There's nothing wrong with liking unbalanced positions. Redchessman said that he had to play "dry positions to properly learn to outplay opponents" but we don't know if he's playing the game to achieve any title or not or if he just wants to have fun. Forcing him to play those dry positions that he doesn't enjoy may indeed make him feel bored but he doesn't have to quit chess just because he wants to play unbalanced positions(without sacrificing knights)...
Either way i think these threads are kind of useless.
Smyslov Fan, I have played the Nimzo-Indian and Queen's Indian complex but it was too solid for my tastes, i played the queen's gambit declined and slav and again was too solid for my tastes, i played the benoni and for me it was playable, but i still prefered the KID and Grunfeld,but couldn't decide what suits my style better.
Wait you are complaining about being too solid? Are you trying to lose more games bro.