@Elona We should always be trying to improve and better ourselves. You should aim to master aspect of the game, not just your opponents, because in the long run that is how you'll constantly beat your opponents and improve over all. Winning doesn't mean your improving necessarily, it just means that during those games you played better than your opponents, and possibly are just stronger than your opponents.
Safest Chess Opening?
Sort:
Elona wrote:
Michael-G wrote:
Elona wrote:
Whatever the opponent is less comfortable with would be the strongest opening.
A common mistake a lot do.
If you want an easy win(or more) , yes , it's a good advise.But that easy win doesn't make you better.What your opponent doesn't understand or doesn't know or doesn't like , doesn't make you better.What you understand makes you better.
If the goal is to improve, always play what you understand or what you try to understand and ultimately you will be rewarded because what you will learn will stay with you, for ever.
But if you are winning, why the need for improvement?
Good question indeed.
Because taking advantage of other people weaknesses can't take you too far.After a point you will play with players that can handle adequately any kind of positions , even the ones they hate, the easy wins will stop ,and you will have nothing in your hands(in your mind more precisely) to help you fight them.Those who try to find the easy solution , will face a wall , sooner or later.Some don't mind , some others do.
Michael-G wrote:
Elona wrote:
Michael-G wrote:
Elona wrote:
Whatever the opponent is less comfortable with would be the strongest opening.
A common mistake a lot do.
If you want an easy win(or more) , yes , it's a good advise.But that easy win doesn't make you better.What your opponent doesn't understand or doesn't know or doesn't like , doesn't make you better.What you understand makes you better.
If the goal is to improve, always play what you understand or what you try to understand and ultimately you will be rewarded because what you will learn will stay with you, for ever.
But if you are winning, why the need for improvement?
Good question indeed.
Because taking advantage of other people weaknesses can't take you too far.After a point you will play with players that can handle adequately any kind of positions , even the ones they hate, the easy wins will stop ,and you will have nothing in your hands(in your mind more precisely) to help you fight them.Those who try to find the easy solution , will face a wall , sooner or later.Some don't mind , some others do.
Oh I get you now.
So, say me and you go into the big leagues of chess. You dont think the best starting point is to try take advantage of the opponents weakest opening? No game at that level would be an easy win, you are quite right. However, does it not make sense to make things a little easier by using a weakness in an opponent?
If we were living in the wilderness and had to hunt to survive. We would exploit the habits and weakness of the animal. Wait near a pool of water where it will need to drink? Sure, we could eat by hunting in another place but why do so when it is more effective to hunt at the pool?
Ok, so the analogy is poor.
Elona ,
the analogy is good but the problem more complicated.It is like you are having 2 choices.One is to adapt and be as strong (or as fast )as the animal you want to catch and the other is to wait near the pool of water and surprise it.I will agree, in both ways you will survive , but in chess the "animal" keeps getting stronger and stronger and the "unpleasant surprise near the pool" becomes unpleasant for the hunter after a point.
SimaSun wrote:
The London System has nothing to do with passiveness. It's merely a solid set up.
After having completed the set up one can begin active operations in the centre.
Also, I will not advice any beginner to play sharp openings, as they often will lose and further more make a lot of very dubious moves.
Later on they will have a hard time unlearning incorrect sacrifices which are usually played in sharp games and so on. But really I just think a beginner should play whatever he likes and not focus on opening knowledge right away.
Please don't play the king-gambit though. It's theoretically unsound, though hard to prove for anyone lower than 2600 rating.
I didn't really mean to say the London is passive but that a beginner may learn to play passively because of it. The KG, though, is a very tactical opening and it can help to learn how to play with active pieces.
That being said, I also get your point about the unsound sacrifices but I think this won't be too much of a problem.But yea, don't focus much on openings.
Just learn all of the tactical motifs like pin, fork, skewer, double attack, removal of guard(could be on a piece or even a square...), discovered attack, zwischenzug,etc...
Feb 24, 2012
0
#27
My advice would be to eschew "safe" systems and play open games where the tactics are generally more understandable and recognizable. I have found in closed games, there are tactics in play that are very subtle and hard, not only to see, but to understand, even for intermediate players. And chess progress should concentrate on understanding if nothing else.
I was also wondering when you guys think i should start playing vs other players. Right now I'm having troubles with Easy (~800) computers..I beat them once in awhile, but i'm making such silly mistakes right now. Is it worth my time to play others or should i keep going vs computers till I can atleast beat the medium(~1200) 1/2 the time
Start playing with others , you need experience(games) the sooner you get it, the better.
Michael-G wrote:
Start playing with others , you need experience(games) the sooner you get it, the better.
do you think the players play quite a bit different than the computers?
of course they play different and you have to learn to play against the irrational or the unreasonable game of humans.Seeing and understanding the mistakes of the human mind(yours and others) will help you improve.For now you just need games , lots of them against any possible and willing opponent around your rating or even better.Don't be afraid to lose, everyone passed from the stage of "everlasting defeat" before wins come.
Andaura, playing against other players is better than playing against chess programs. Humans make different type of mistakes than chess programs, for one. Definitely jump in and start playing against other players! :)
It depends on White or Black:
White plays for 1. e4. Don't switch to others!
Black plays for 1... e5/c5 (Though I recommend not playing the Sicilian so early) 1... d5 or Nf6 against 1. d4, and 1... e5 against 1. c4, last, 1. d5 versus 1. Nf3
Feb 26, 2012
0
#34
I would say if you're playing with black try the french e6. You know the opponent will play the french thus you can learn that opening.
As white, if you play a defense with colors reversed, the position naturally tends to have strong defensive properties. However, I'd agree with others who are saying that the most important thing in the beginning is to get a sense for tactics, and how tactics follow from positional superiority (most notably early control of the center of the board). So, I'd stay with one classical-type opening for a while, probably starting with e4 as white (which seems to open up tactical possibilities more quickly). As black, I'd recommend symetrical pawn openings (responding to e4 with e5, and d4 with d5). My un-expert 2 cents.
A common mistake a lot do.
If you want an easy win(or more) , yes , it's a good advise.But that easy win doesn't make you better.What your opponent doesn't understand or doesn't know or doesn't like , doesn't make you better.What you understand makes you better.
If the goal is to improve, always play what you understand or what you try to understand and ultimately you will be rewarded because what you will learn will stay with you, for ever.
But if you are winning, why the need for improvement?