Samsch wrote:
BattleManager wrote:
Gotta love the fact that the arguments used in the forums when someone is having a discussion are always praised or dismissed because of the ratings.
Uhhh...no, that sucks.
*Gotta hate.
What Openings do you Hate to Play Against?
Sort:
orangeishblue wrote:
Hands Down it would be the White side of the King's Indian Defense or the White side of a Stonewall
Does that mean you are playing against these openings as black?
I hate basic queen pawn games and playing against the stonewall. They're so boring!
I always enjoy it when my opponents just roll over and make it nice and easy.
I don't care too much for the Scandinavian myself. I won't say that it is trash, but to me it looks like it concedes the center to white while black neglects development for awhile and the exposed queen even helps white develop.
French, caro kann, scandinavian
its why i play 1.d4 :D, and nothing gives me trouble.
Shawshank-Redeemer wrote:
Davidjordan wrote:
Shawshank-Redeemer wrote:
My otb rating is still higher than the one you say you are, but i doubt your an 1800 judging off your rating on here.
Dude both you guys ratings are in the 1800s so whats the point of mentioning this your both still low Class A's where you trying to make a point
Im trying to make point that Im 1800 USCF, 1900 here and hes probably around 1450 blitz here, so Im saying hes not an 1800.
point failed just go through my hgame history and youll see i abandon chess.om for a little over a year and when i came back i played people mostly in the 2000 here and some unrated games as for you well you havent said anything thus far that proves your not a 1500 chess wise so i guess thats what youll just amount to
My own opening! 1.c4 Lol
Is almost all I ever play as white. You think I would be an expert with the black pieces, wouldn't you?
jempty_method wrote:
Tjornan wrote:
I really don't understand the concern about the scandinavian. It is a perfectly viable opening and if played right dismantles typical 1. e4 ideas.
How exactly does it "dismantle typical 1. e4 ideas"? All it does is acheive a Caro Kann pawn formation against 1. e4, while wasting lots of time moving the queen around. I used to play the Center Counter and now love playing against it. A year or so ago I even came up with the idea of 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qa5 4. a3!? If Black's going to waste time with his queen, as White it is my perogative to waste time on a pawn move that further targets the Black queen. And before all this non-sense about your rating and my rating and some other guy's rating comes up, my coach from ICC, an IM with a GM norm or two, thinks my plan as White allows chances for a definite advantage.
someone at my club actually plays this i first saw him play it in a tournamenty 2 years ago. he said he invented it and named it but i never found out if it already has a name or not
jempty_method wrote:
chessmaster102 wrote:
jempty_method wrote:
Tjornan wrote:
I really don't understand the concern about the scandinavian. It is a perfectly viable opening and if played right dismantles typical 1. e4 ideas.
How exactly does it "dismantle typical 1. e4 ideas"? All it does is acheive a Caro Kann pawn formation against 1. e4, while wasting lots of time moving the queen around. I used to play the Center Counter and now love playing against it. A year or so ago I even came up with the idea of 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qa5 4. a3!? If Black's going to waste time with his queen, as White it is my perogative to waste time on a pawn move that further targets the Black queen. And before all this non-sense about your rating and my rating and some other guy's rating comes up, my coach from ICC, an IM with a GM norm or two, thinks my plan as White allows chances for a definite advantage.
someone at my club actually plays this i first saw him play it in a tournamenty 2 years ago. he said he invented it and named it but i never found out if it already has a name or not
He didn't invent it nor did I. Although there are only three games here in chess.com's Game explorer, the earliest dating back to 1995, there are 88 games in chesslive.de's database, dating back to 1991. I know engines are not necessarily so great at evaluating opening positions, but mine considers White close to +/- after 4. a3 -- when White can play such a flank pawn move so early and have it cause Black problems, there is something fundamentally wrong with Black's play up to that position IMO.
both wrong lol i did invent one thing but it was no where near 2 years ago. I still rember your face experession in that tournament. http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/my-novelty-in-one-of-the-scandinavian-mainlines
I absolutely hate playing against anything that is not e4. Simply because i have no clue of what to play.
Something weird like the rook's pawn up. its almost a phycological move.
I love playing against irrelevant first moves-the worst are highly theoretical openings where someone with more time on their hands can outstudy me and win before the game is played.
lol, I dont because when someone doeas some weird move like that I feel like they have a super secret plan or tatical set.
Vanessa_Martinez wrote:
lol, I dont because when someone doeas some weird move like that I feel like they have a super secret plan or tatical set.
To true i feel the same way when it comes to stuff like the Mexian Defense or Nimzovitch Defense. but im usually fine against the later
redxave wrote:
I do not like seeing Caro-Kann and French because i suck at closed positions. For d4 i always go King's Indian to throw off the Queen's Gambit players.
ROFLMAO! I'm a Queen's Gambit player, and the King's Indian I find easier to beat than the Queen's Gambit Declined!
My best results come against the King's Indian, Benko Gambit, and Nimzo-Indian.
varelse1 wrote:
My own opening! 1.c4 Lol
Is almost all I ever play as white. You think I would be an expert with the black pieces, wouldn't you?
c4 is called the english
as black four knights and scotch, as white sicilian
Gotta love the fact that the arguments used in the forums when someone is having a discussion are always praised or dismissed because of the ratings.