These guys approve:
TEN CHESS OPENING RULES
Sort:
Sunshiny wrote:
They shouldn't be called rules. They're more of a guideline that one should follow, but can deviate from at any time.
Chess already has the distinction:
There are rules of chess which govern principles of play (such as control the center). These rules can be broken.
There are also Laws of chess which can't be broken without fear of retribution from the arbiter.
We don't need to play semantic games; the definitions have already been made.
One writer (I forget!) set the goal for the opening as: advance both center pawns, develop all minor pieces, and castle, withing ten moves. He explained that you seldom can accomplish this, but be conscious of the objective.
Many of my problems stemmed from not getting my center pawns advanced.
Here is my list:
1. Take the initiative!
The only rule you will ever need to know!
Shawshank-Redeemer wrote:
Yeah, parham is a perfect example of needing to break one of those opening rules, moving out the queen.
You say the King's Gambit is busted, but quote the Parham as a reason to need to break opening rules? 
SmyslovFan wrote:
Sunshiny wrote:
They shouldn't be called rules. They're more of a guideline that one should follow, but can deviate from at any time.
Chess already has the distinction:
There are rules of chess which govern principles of play (such as control the center). These rules can be broken.
There are also Laws of chess which can't be broken without fear of retribution from the arbiter.
We don't need to play semantic games; the definitions have already been made.
It isn't really a semantics game. My response was to the person that noticed the rules were constantly broken.
Shivsky wrote:
These guys approve:
It hadn't occured to me that i was paraphrasing a line from PotC. I knew it sounded familiar!
Shivsky wrote:
These guys approve:
lol, excellent pic.
Estragon, thanks for the link to Exeter Chess Club. I have just made a casual look, and think it will help in my development. Thanks for sharing...
DON'T bring out your QUEEN too early. -- agreed. When I break it, I usually lose the queen. When my opponent breaks it, I try pretty hard to relieve him of his queen.
CASTLE as soon as possible, preferably on the KING SIDE. -- I've been experimenting with a different strategy here. I played this rule for a while, but now I'm more often trying to keep both castle options in tact a few moves past the time my opponent castles. Then I take some time setting up my attack on his castle without giving away which side I will castle. It allows me to go the the side on which my opponent is concentrating less force.
I'm not sure it's a sound strategy, but seems to work more often that not.
KNIGHTS before BISHOPS. I do better in the endgame with bishops than knights. Therefore, I try to follow this rule pretty strictly.
They shouldn't be called rules. They're more of a guideline that one should follow, but can deviate from at any time.