2...c5 isn't a bad move here, but my default in situations like this would not be to transpose into another opening! Do you know anything about the Sicilian? Why didn't you just play 2...d5? The position is already equal (or very close). To answer your OP, I would say probably. I'm very surprised you didn't play d5.
Too much theory?
Sort:
May 4, 2016
0
#3
ChessOath wrote:
2...c5 isn't a bad move here, but my default in situations like this would not be to transpose into another opening! Do you know anything about the Sicilian? Why didn't you just play 2...d5? The position is already equal (or very close). To answer your OP, I would say probably. I'm very surprised you didn't play d5.
Honestly I barely know anything about the sicilian and it wasn't even my intention to transpose into it. I just figured playing d5 would lead into something like:
Also whats up with all this equality talk? Is black not pretty much equal from the start? Surely this second move by white (being c4) must have its drawback or else why is it so uncommon?
Your diagram is accurate. That could well happen. Wanting to avoid an IQP position could be a genuine reason for not playing d5, but that's about it. Not wanting to lose a tempo on the Queen doesn't make any sense. Just play 5...Nf6 instead. That said, Qxd5 is fine. Anyway, I say if you don't know it well (IQP) then that's more reason to play it.
JSB53 wrote:
Also whats up with all this equality talk? Is black not pretty much equal from the start? Surely this second move by white (being c4) must have its drawback or else why is it so uncommon?
No, Black is not pretty much equal from the start. If that were true then why is it that you play the French defence to counter attack White's centre instead of just taking your equal share of it? In openings where Black does try to take his equal share straight away (e.g Spanish) he is forced to develop his pieces to defend against threats whereas White develops his pieces to make threats. Does any of this sound equal? In the Sicilian Black compromises development for his share of the centre etc. How many White openings are making these compromises?
May 4, 2016
0
#6
jengaias wrote:
Already on 2nd move you wonder what to do in a fairly simple situation.
Isn't that already a clue that you rely too much in theory?
To be fair its not like I was completey clueless but I guess I do rely a bit too much as previously mentioned. My current plan to work on this issue is maybe start playing a lot of openings, especially ones I barely know the theory behind. Do you think that is a valid training method?
In chess so much depends on opening theory, so the champions before the last century did not know as much as I do and other players do about opening theory. So if you just brought them back from the dead they wouldn’t do well. They’d get bad openings. You cannot compare the playing strength, you can only talk about natural ability. Memorisation is enormously powerful. Some kid of fourteen today, or even younger, could get an opening advantage against Capablanca, and especially against the players of the previous century, like Morphy and Steinitz. Maybe they would still be able to outplay the young kid of today. Or maybe not, because nowadays when you get the opening advantage not only do you get the opening advantage, you know how to play, they have so many examples of what to do from this position... and that is why I don’t like chess any more... It is all just memorization and prearrangement... - R.J.F.
May 4, 2016
0
#9
SaintGermain32105 wrote:
In chess so much depends on opening theory, so the champions before the last century did not know as much as I do and other players do about opening theory. So if you just brought them back from the dead they wouldn’t do well. They’d get bad openings. You cannot compare the playing strength, you can only talk about natural ability. Memorisation is enormously powerful. Some kid of fourteen today, or even younger, could get an opening advantage against Capablanca, and especially against the players of the previous century, like Morphy and Steinitz. Maybe they would still be able to outplay the young kid of today. Or maybe not, because nowadays when you get the opening advantage not only do you get the opening advantage, you know how to play, they have so many examples of what to do from this position... and that is why I don’t like chess any more... It is all just memorization and prearrangement... - R.J.F.
I remember watching that interview on youtube some time ago.. although I'm not sure what your point is?
SaintGermain32105 wrote:
In chess so much depends on opening theory, so the champions before the last century did not know as much as I do and other players do about opening theory. So if you just brought them back from the dead they wouldn’t do well. They’d get bad openings. You cannot compare the playing strength, you can only talk about natural ability. Memorisation is enormously powerful. Some kid of fourteen today, or even younger, could get an opening advantage against Capablanca, and especially against the players of the previous century, like Morphy and Steinitz. Maybe they would still be able to outplay the young kid of today. Or maybe not, because nowadays when you get the opening advantage not only do you get the opening advantage, you know how to play, they have so many examples of what to do from this position... and that is why I don’t like chess any more... It is all just memorization and prearrangement... - R.J.F.
Quoting fischer as an authority on this issue is lame. We have discovered lots of new theoretical novelties since Fischer so saying opening are dead is just stupid parrotting.
Play 960 if you don't like it.. case closed.
JSB53 wrote:
I think I might rely on too much theory, I tend to get thrown off when something like this happens.
Wanting some confirmation on whether I rely too much theory or not. If so its obviously a bad thing so what should I do? I played c5 on my next move although I'm not sure if that was 100% correct since I suppose my mind was still making the transition from the type of game I thought I was going to play to some other type.
If you have to ask what to do on move 2, then yes..youre relying wayyyy to much on theory. Keep it simple and follow opening principles.
May 4, 2016
0
#13
jengaias wrote:
JSB53 wrote:
jengaias wrote:
Already on 2nd move you wonder what to do in a fairly simple situation.
Isn't that already a clue that you rely too much in theory?
To be fair its not like I was completey clueless but I guess I do rely a bit too much as previously mentioned. My current plan to work on this issue is maybe start playing a lot of openings, especially ones I barely know the theory behind. Do you think that is a valid training method?
It is a very good method since it will show you the weaknesses in your thinking(if any) and it will allow you to improve it.
It was suggested to me by a very good trainer when I had the same problem(I was around 1500 FIDE back then).
Additionally I focused on endgames and annotated master games which also helped me develop a correct studying process.
I had to admit that initially I had some bad annoying defeats and as all do, I tend to accuse the opening for them but eventually I realised , it wasn't the opening bad , I was bad.
I think the worst drawback in opening study is that they "hide" one's true weaknesses and they give him the false impression that he is improving.
Real improvement in chess is the improvement of understanding and thinking process and openings help very little with that.
So just to double check if I understand correctly. By playing openings I'm not familiar with it will help me adapt more/be more independent from theory since I don't know all the "perfect" moves to play in that opening pregame since I'm not familiar with it, which will reveal the flaws in my thinking process since I will have to play on my own, which I can then analyse and improve on? Correct me if I misunderstood or if I missing anything else. Also the post about getting away with suboptimal moves was very instructive.
SaintGermain32105 wrote:
In chess so much depends on opening theory, so the champions before the last century did not know as much as I do and other players do about opening theory. So if you just brought them back from the dead they wouldn’t do well. They’d get bad openings. You cannot compare the playing strength, you can only talk about natural ability. Memorisation is enormously powerful. Some kid of fourteen today, or even younger, could get an opening advantage against Capablanca, and especially against the players of the previous century, like Morphy and Steinitz. Maybe they would still be able to outplay the young kid of today. Or maybe not, because nowadays when you get the opening advantage not only do you get the opening advantage, you know how to play, they have so many examples of what to do from this position... and that is why I don’t like chess any more... It is all just memorization and prearrangement... - R.J.F.
Reported...
But it's not a problem either, open up chessbase and do some theory practice while playing blitz. There's nothing they can do about it.
jengaias wrote:
JSB53 wrote:
jengaias wrote:
JSB53 wrote:
jengaias wrote:
Already on 2nd move you wonder what to do in a fairly simple situation.
Isn't that already a clue that you rely too much in theory?
To be fair its not like I was completey clueless but I guess I do rely a bit too much as previously mentioned. My current plan to work on this issue is maybe start playing a lot of openings, especially ones I barely know the theory behind. Do you think that is a valid training method?
It is a very good method since it will show you the weaknesses in your thinking(if any) and it will allow you to improve it.
It was suggested to me by a very good trainer when I had the same problem(I was around 1500 FIDE back then).
Additionally I focused on endgames and annotated master games which also helped me develop a correct studying process.
I had to admit that initially I had some bad annoying defeats and as all do, I tend to accuse the opening for them but eventually I realised , it wasn't the opening bad , I was bad.
I think the worst drawback in opening study is that they "hide" one's true weaknesses and they give him the false impression that he is improving.
Real improvement in chess is the improvement of understanding and thinking process and openings help very little with that.
So just to double check if I understand correctly. By playing openings I'm not familiar with it will help me adapt more/be more independent from theory since I don't know all the "perfect" moves to play in that opening pregame since I'm not familiar with it, which will reveal the flaws in my thinking process since I will have to play on my own, which I can then analyse and improve on? Correct me if I misunderstood or if I missing anything else. Also the post about getting away with suboptimal moves was very instructive.
You will play something you don't know and you will get a bad position eventually.
You will have to analyse and start looking why you got a bad position.
The common mistake is that you don't know the key ideas and how to place your pieces.
The purpose of this is to learn how to place your pieces by understanding the practical problems that occur from the bad placement.Once you understand that it will be very easy to remember what you must do.
Eventually you will be able to play theory without knowing any.More importantly you will have no problem playing against non-theoretical moves and you will even develop your own ideas.
How good will your ideas be?Not good at first , much better later but the point is that the whole procedure will greatly improve your thinking process and your understanding.
In the meantime study the games of a great players that played the opening and try to understand what they did.That will make you understand much more than studying any opening book or database.
You're not relevant, in my humble opinion.
JSB53 wrote:
jengaias wrote:
JSB53 wrote:
jengaias wrote:
Already on 2nd move you wonder what to do in a fairly simple situation.
Isn't that already a clue that you rely too much in theory?
To be fair its not like I was completey clueless but I guess I do rely a bit too much as previously mentioned. My current plan to work on this issue is maybe start playing a lot of openings, especially ones I barely know the theory behind. Do you think that is a valid training method?
It is a very good method since it will show you the weaknesses in your thinking(if any) and it will allow you to improve it.
It was suggested to me by a very good trainer when I had the same problem(I was around 1500 FIDE back then).
Additionally I focused on endgames and annotated master games which also helped me develop a correct studying process.
I had to admit that initially I had some bad annoying defeats and as all do, I tend to accuse the opening for them but eventually I realised , it wasn't the opening bad , I was bad.
I think the worst drawback in opening study is that they "hide" one's true weaknesses and they give him the false impression that he is improving.
Real improvement in chess is the improvement of understanding and thinking process and openings help very little with that.
So just to double check if I understand correctly. By playing openings I'm not familiar with it will help me adapt more/be more independent from theory since I don't know all the "perfect" moves to play in that opening pregame since I'm not familiar with it, which will reveal the flaws in my thinking process since I will have to play on my own, which I can then analyse and improve on? Correct me if I misunderstood or if I missing anything else. Also the post about getting away with suboptimal moves was very instructive.
You need to find openings youre comfortable playing. Once you find openings youre comfortable playing, you want to do the following:
1. Understand "why" the moves are made.
2. Understand the pawn structures associated with the openings.
3. Just memorizing lines of theory is a waste of time, and resources. Unless you want to sound cool and brag how you know some openings 20 moves deep.
Keep it simple. Learn and understand the "why" behind each move, and learn, and understand the pawn structures. Once you understand the pawn structure, youll understand why the moves are made, and what purpose they serve.
I think I might rely on too much theory, I tend to get thrown off when something like this happens.
Wanting some confirmation on whether I rely too much theory or not. If so its obviously a bad thing so what should I do? I played c5 on my next move although I'm not sure if that was 100% correct since I suppose my mind was still making the transition from the type of game I thought I was going to play to some other type.