Guys, as a ~600 rated, I see that one of the things that keeps me from winning some games is that I try to just follow the basic opening principles, but already at my rating I find a lot of people counter-playing me and getting material advantage even around move 7-8... Usually I win by being consistent during the game, taking the advantage when my opponent blunders something... But most of the time I start kinda "with and handicap"... What's the best thing to do for me now?
Why are some openings considered "for beginners"?
Sort:
Jan 22, 2023
0
#43
It's because some openings involve a lot of theory (like the Sicilian for instance), making it harder for beginners to learn. Openings with less theory (like the London) are considered better and easier for beginners because they can almost always play the same exact moves in the opening.
exceptionalfork wrote:
It's because some openings involve a lot of theory (like the Sicilian for instance), making it harder for beginners to learn. Openings with less theory (like the London) are considered better and easier for beginners because they can almost always play the same exact moves in the opening.
Completely disagree. Your entire perception of chess learning is totally deluded.
Playing the exact same moves every opening is not good for chess improvement. I've seen this view that you should just play the London as it's easy and safe but this is not correct at all. You will only play one structure and only become good at that one structure but you will not learn to adapt and play well regardless of the structure. Also playing London all the time is very boring.
I have already mentioned this but you can play Sicilian at a lower level without knowing much theory. Theory is only relevant when you are playing against people who know theory. The definition of a theoretical opening is one that is very well analysed and known. So that isn't relevant to people who haven't analysed it and don't know it so well.
Jan 22, 2023
0
#45
SamuelAjedrez95 wrote:
exceptionalfork wrote:
It's because some openings involve a lot of theory (like the Sicilian for instance), making it harder for beginners to learn. Openings with less theory (like the London) are considered better and easier for beginners because they can almost always play the same exact moves in the opening.
Completely disagree. Your entire perception of chess learning is totally deluded.
Playing the exact same moves every opening is not good for chess improvement. I've seen this view that you should just play the London as it's easy and safe but this is not correct at all. You will only play one structure and only become good at that one structure but you will not learn to adapt and play well regardless of the structure. Also playing London all the time is very boring.
I have already mentioned this but you can play Sicilian at a lower level without knowing much theory. Theory is only relevant when you are playing against people who know theory. The definition of a theoretical opening is one that is very well analysed and known. So that isn't relevant to people who haven't analysed it and don't know it so well.
"Your entire perception of chess learning is totally deluded." I'm 2000. You're 700. It doesn't seem to me like you have room to talk.
"Playing the exact same moves every opening is not good for chess improvement." As a beginner you should stick with one opening for white and two for black (one against d4 and one against e4), or just follow opening principles. The London follows opening principles very well. It's not good to just play everything as a beginner.
"I've seen this view that you should just play the London as it's easy and safe but this is not correct at all." I never said the London was the only good white opening for beginners. It was just an example. The Italian, as you stated earlier, is also a good beginner opening in my opinion. However, I played the London and only the London until I was 1800 rapid, so it can't be bad.
"Also playing London all the time is very boring." Nope. I wasn't bored playing the London or against the London, so I just have no clue what you're talking about.
"I have already mentioned this but you can play Sicilian at a lower level without knowing much theory. Theory is only relevant when you are playing against people who know theory." It's likely that he will play people every once in a while who've studied theory, and it's very possible that black will lose if he doesn't know the theory as well.
exceptionalfork wrote:
I'm 2000. You're 700. It doesn't seem to me like you have room to talk.
As a beginner you should stick with one opening for white and two for black (one against d4 and one against e4), or just follow opening principles. The London follows opening principles very well. It's not good to just play everything as a beginner.
I never said the London was the only good white opening for beginners. It was just an example. The Italian, as you stated earlier, is also a good beginner opening in my opinion. However, I played the London and only the London until I was 1800 rapid, so it can't be bad.
Nope. I wasn't bored playing the London or against the London, so I just have no clue what you're talking about.
It's likely that he will play people every once in a while who've studied theory, and it's very possible that black will lose if he doesn't know the theory as well.
I'm 774 on chess.com specifically. On lichess I'm 1427. OTB I've played evenly with people over 2000. Don't get ahead of yourself. Don't try to bring rating into this, especially when rating and skill doesn't have anything to do with the understanding of learning. There are plenty of IMs and GMs who would also say that you're opinion is completely wrong and distorted.
The London follows some opening principles in the sense of development but it's not good in terms of controlling the centre or challenging the opponent as you are simply playing one rigid pawn structure on repeat. The London is very "safe" and solid but it's not aggressive or dynamic. Playing like this is very bad for chess development as you are only learning to play that one structure. It's better to play a variety of openings because it's way more fun to explore the different openings that chess has to offer before deciding which ones work for you. You will also develop skill in different positions instead of memorising a set of moves on repeat.
If you don't get bored playng the same moves on repeat then you must have very dry tastes. But each to their own.
You can play people who've studied the theory of any opening better than you. You can play people who are just more skilled than you. Sometimes you win. Sometimes you lose. It's got nothing to do with the opening.
Playing the Sicilian or Open Sicilian is great even at a lower level because it's a fun, dynamic opening with a lot of variety. "Ohh but there's so much theory". Who are you playing against? The 1000 rated player with their infinite knowledge of Najdorf theory? Yeah right, not likely. Learning about the opening and understanding it is important but you can learn as you go and consequently get better at the game.
11Brewer wrote:
Is this because some openings are considered too complex for new players, or are they just too easily countered at higher levels of play?
It is bizarre that the OP slams some quote in the title that he presumably read (or heard) somewhere and he expects others to come up with an explanation. It is even more bizarre that people are happy to do that.
The most likely thing is that the original source contained the explanation that the author had in mind. Just read on for a few more sentences.
:tup
the Italian opening is a great one for beginners because it can get you quick easy wins. and if they block it It's an easy opening to change the direction of your attack
Jan 23, 2023
0
#51
SamuelAjedrez95 wrote:
exceptionalfork wrote:
I'm 2000. You're 700. It doesn't seem to me like you have room to talk.
As a beginner you should stick with one opening for white and two for black (one against d4 and one against e4), or just follow opening principles. The London follows opening principles very well. It's not good to just play everything as a beginner.
I never said the London was the only good white opening for beginners. It was just an example. The Italian, as you stated earlier, is also a good beginner opening in my opinion. However, I played the London and only the London until I was 1800 rapid, so it can't be bad.
Nope. I wasn't bored playing the London or against the London, so I just have no clue what you're talking about.
It's likely that he will play people every once in a while who've studied theory, and it's very possible that black will lose if he doesn't know the theory as well.
I'm 774 on chess.com specifically. On lichess I'm 1427. OTB I've played evenly with people over 2000. Don't get ahead of yourself. Don't try to bring rating into this, especially when rating and skill doesn't have anything to do with the understanding of learning. There are plenty of IMs and GMs who would also say that you're opinion is completely wrong and distorted.
The London follows some opening principles in the sense of development but it's not good in terms of controlling the centre or challenging the opponent as you are simply playing one rigid pawn structure on repeat. The London is very "safe" and solid but it's not aggressive or dynamic. Playing like this is very bad for chess development as you are only learning to play that one structure. It's better to play a variety of openings because it's way more fun to explore the different openings that chess has to offer before deciding which ones work for you. You will also develop skill in different positions instead of memorising a set of moves on repeat.
If you don't get bored playng the same moves on repeat then you must have very dry tastes. But each to their own.
You can play people who've studied the theory of any opening better than you. You can play people who are just more skilled than you. Sometimes you win. Sometimes you lose. It's got nothing to do with the opening.
Playing the Sicilian or Open Sicilian is great even at a lower level because it's a fun, dynamic opening with a lot of variety. "Ohh but there's so much theory". Who are you playing against? The 1000 rated player with their infinite knowledge of Najdorf theory? Yeah right, not likely. Learning about the opening and understanding it is important but you can learn as you go and consequently get better at the game.
"On Lichess I'm 1427." Lichess is easier. After under 40 games I hit 2100.
"OTB I've played evenly with people over 2000." Cool.
"Don't try to bring rating into this, especially when rating and skill doesn't have anything to do with the understanding of learning." Yes it does. If you have a higher rating than someone else it's more than likely that that person knows how to learn better than the other, when it comes to chess.
"There are plenty of IMs and GMs who would also say that you're opinion is completely wrong and distorted." Fine. Don't believe me. Look it up. Maybe you'll believe masters.
"The London follows some opening principles in the sense of development but it's not good in terms of controlling the centre" How does the London not control the center?
"or challenging the opponent as you are simply playing one rigid pawn structure on repeat." White (if he plays it right) is usually able to start a kingside attack, with ideas of pushing e4 at some point and even bishop sacrifices on h7 or h6.
"The London is very "safe" but it's not aggressive or dynamic." I answered this with the above answer.
"Playing like this is very bad for chess development as you are only learning to play that one structure. It's better to play a variety of openings because it's way more fun to explore the different openings that chess has to offer before deciding which ones work for you." Then why did you suggest the Italian?
"If you don't get bored playing the same moves on repeat then you must have very dry tastes." Again, why did you suggest only one opening to the OP if you feel this way? Also, my friend (he's an NM with a 2300-2400 rapid rating) doesn't play the Italian because it's boring and yet he plays the London.
"Sometimes you win. Sometimes you lose. It has nothing to do with the opening." It can. You can be losing out of the opening, and your opponent never gives you any opportunities to come back, you lost because you played the opening badly.
"Playing the Sicilian or Open Sicilian is great even at a lower level because it's a fun, dynamic opening with a lot of variety." Sure, it can be fun and dynamic, but the Open Sicilian doesn't have to be played. If your opponent plays the Rossolimo or the Canal is it still really exciting?
"'Ohh but there's so much theory'." Correct.
"Who are you playing against? The 1000 rated player with their infinite knowledge of Najdorf theory? Yeah right, not likely." Maybe not likely, but sometimes you will encounter some that know opening theory.
exceptionalfork wrote:
"On Lichess I'm 1427." Lichess is easier. After under 40 games I hit 2100.
"OTB I've played evenly with people over 2000." Cool.
"Don't try to bring rating into this, especially when rating and skill doesn't have anything to do with the understanding of learning." Yes it does. If you have a higher rating than someone else it's more than likely that that person knows how to learn better than the other, when it comes to chess.
"There are plenty of IMs and GMs who would also say that you're opinion is completely wrong and distorted." Fine. Don't believe me. Look it up. Maybe you'll believe masters.
"The London follows some opening principles in the sense of development but it's not good in terms of controlling the centre" How does the London not control the center?
"or challenging the opponent as you are simply playing one rigid pawn structure on repeat." White (if he plays it right) is usually able to start a kingside attack, with ideas of pushing e4 at some point and even bishop sacrifices on h7 or h6.
"The London is very "safe" but it's not aggressive or dynamic." I answered this with the above answer.
"Playing like this is very bad for chess development as you are only learning to play that one structure. It's better to play a variety of openings because it's way more fun to explore the different openings that chess has to offer before deciding which ones work for you." Then why did you suggest the Italian?
"If you don't get bored playing the same moves on repeat then you must have very dry tastes." Again, why did you suggest only one opening to the OP if you feel this way? Also, my friend (he's an NM with a 2300-2400 rapid rating) doesn't play the Italian because it's boring and yet he plays the London.
"Sometimes you win. Sometimes you lose. It has nothing to do with the opening." It can. You can be losing out of the opening, and your opponent never gives you any opportunities to come back, you lost because you played the opening badly.
"Playing the Sicilian or Open Sicilian is great even at a lower level because it's a fun, dynamic opening with a lot of variety." Sure, it can be fun and dynamic, but the Open Sicilian doesn't have to be played. If your opponent plays the Rossolimo or the Canal is it still really exciting?
"'Ohh but there's so much theory'." Correct.
"Who are you playing against? The 1000 rated player with their infinite knowledge of Najdorf theory? Yeah right, not likely." Maybe not likely, but sometimes you will encounter some that know opening theory.
Yeah ok, if you want to huff copium and act like you're better than someone because of a number on a website then knock yourself out. It's not my responsibility to deal with your superiority complex.
The reality is you obviously don't know what you're talking about. Think betore you speak. London is a dry, boring opening which is bad for beginner development. You need to face the reality. Of course you can play tactics and attack but the structure doesn't offer white anywhere near as much as the Queen's Gambit or other openings like the Open Sicilian. "You can sack on h7" "you can play e4". These are basic tactics and strategies in openings that offer way more than the London, Queen's gambit included. Just from a theoretical perspective c4, Nc3 is far more active than c3, Nd2 which is very passive and unambitious.
I did not suggest playing only the Italian. I suggested that it was a basic opening which is good for learning a lot of strategies and tactics of chess. Also Italian is way more interesting as it has way more variations which offer different styles of games than the London where you always play the "pawn pyramid".
exceptionalfork wrote:
Maybe not likely, but sometimes you will encounter some that know opening theory.
This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read. "You might encounter someone who knows theory so don't play it because you'll lose." You may as well say "Don't play chess because you might encounter someone who's better than you and you'll lose". Like so what man? Sometimes you never know what the opponent knows or doesn't know or how good they are. That's a part of chess. This mentality is just total avoidance of confrontation.
You can play the London and then encounter someone who knows how to play against it and lose.
It's like you think every player has to use training wheels and have everything cushion padded for them so they won't lose. That's just not possible because they will lose like that and they won't improve like that either.
If you can't listen to a mere "700 rated player" then listen to an International Master who's DEFINITELY HIGHER RATED THAN YOU.
What's wrong with the London?
According to you, rating negates all opinions so you better change your tune starting now.
Keep it going
Jan 23, 2023
0
#56
SamuelAjedrez95 wrote:
Yeah ok, if you want to huff copium and act like you're better than someone because of a number on a website then knock yourself out. It's not my responsibility to deal with your superiority complex.
The reality is you obviously don't know what you're talking about. Think betore you speak. London is a dry, boring opening which is bad for beginner development. You need to face the reality. Of course you can play tactics and attack but the structure doesn't offer white anywhere near as much as the Queen's Gambit or other openings like the Open Sicilian. "You can sack on h7" "you can play e4". These are basic tactics and strategies in openings that offer way more than the London, Queen's gambit included. Just from a theoretical perspective c4, Nc3 is far more active than c3, Nd2 which is very passive and unambitious.
I did not suggest playing only the Italian. I suggested that it was a basic opening which is good for learning a lot of strategies and tactics of chess. Also Italian is way more interesting as it has way more variations which offer different styles of games than the London where you always play the "pawn pyramid".
"Yeah ok, if you want to huff copium and act like you're better than someone because of a number on a website then knock yourself out." If I'm hurting your ego by saying I might be a little bit more knowledgeable in openings, ignore what I said.
"Think betore you speak." Done.
"London is a dry, boring opening which is bad for beginner development." Completely disagree, as I've already stated. Constantly repeating the same thing over and over won't make me agree with you.
"You need to face the reality." Done.
"'You can sack h7' 'You can play e4'. These are basic tactics and strategies in openings that offer way more than the London, Queen's gambit included." I never said the Queen's Gambit didn't have the same idea. I also never said the London is the most ambitious opening. It still has attacking ideas, however, and it is safer than many openings.
"Just from a theoretical perspective c4, Nc3 is far more active than c3, Nd2 which is very unambitious." It's not unambitious. You plan to start an attack on the kingside.
Jan 23, 2023
0
#57
SamuelAjedrez95 wrote:
If you can't listen to a mere "700 rated player" then listen to an International Master who's DEFINITELY HIGHER RATED THAN YOU.
What's wrong with the London?
According to you, rating negates all opinions so you better change your tune starting now.
Change his tune? You keep talking as though rating doesn't matter but all of your examples are from high rated players. So does it matter or not? It's great that you're a good learner. Maybe that will translate to your rating at some point. Your rating is an indicator of your skill. It would be like taking a math test that you get a 70 on and claiming you are just as good as the person who got a 95 because you're a great learner. The reality is there are plenty of masters who like the London and plenty who do not. You are just regurgitating what somebody else said. You should change your tune.
Jan 23, 2023
0
#58
SamuelAjedrez95 wrote:
exceptionalfork wrote:
Maybe not likely, but sometimes you will encounter some that know opening theory.
This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read. "You might encounter someone who knows theory so don't play it because you'll lose." You may as well say "Don't play chess because you might encounter someone who's better than you and you'll lose". Like so what man? Sometimes you never know what the opponent knows or doesn't know or how good they are. That's a part of chess. This mentality is just total avoidance of confrontation.
You can play the London and then encounter someone who knows how to play against it and lose.
It's like you think every player has to use training wheels and have everything cushion padded for them so they won't lose. That's just not possible because they will lose like that and they won't improve like that either.
What I mean is if black doesn't also know theory in the Open Sicilian it highly increases the likelihood of losing, due to being squeezed out of the opening. I have experience with this, since I used to play the Sicilian and just get squeezed because I didn't know correct theory.
Jan 23, 2023
0
#59
SamuelAjedrez95 wrote:
If you can't listen to a mere "700 rated player" then listen to an International Master who's DEFINITELY HIGHER RATED THAN YOU.
What's wrong with the London?
According to you, rating negates all opinions so you better change your tune starting now.
Look, I know you're in love with this guy, but trust me, it doesn't always mean he's right. Magnus plays the London sometimes. If Magnus played the London against Coach Andras, who would win? I think you know the answer.
Jan 23, 2023
0
#60
Hotdogbob wrote:
SamuelAjedrez95 wrote:
If you can't listen to a mere "700 rated player" then listen to an International Master who's DEFINITELY HIGHER RATED THAN YOU.
What's wrong with the London?
According to you, rating negates all opinions so you better change your tune starting now.
Change his tune? You keep talking as though rating doesn't matter but all of your examples are from high rated players. So does it matter or not? It's great that you're a good learner. Maybe that will translate to your rating at some point. Your rating is an indicator of your skill. It would be like taking a math test that you get a 70 on and claiming you are just as good as the person who got a 95 because you're a great learner. The reality is there are plenty of masters who like the London and plenty who do not. You are just regurgitating what somebody else said. You should change your tune.
You're right but the ratings aren't accurate on this site, I know this for a fact, and it's kind of wrong to judge someone based on their rating, respectfully!
wasn't capablanca an intuitive chess master not a master on opening theory?
I think he was and so was Morphy.....