I don't know what you're responding to.
Or maybe you did that on purpose, and you're just ignoring my comments.
You know what you wrote.
No I don't, because I wrote many things and you didn't specify.
You basically said I was delusional.
If you keep saying this I'm just going to stop responding.
I said that believing that the London was a good opening for beginners and good for chess improvement was a deluded idea. I never said that you were delusional. The way you're being totally out of order and blowing this out of proportion is delusional though.
You will not listen anyway.
I haven't said anything wrong here.
You're too trapped in an echo chamber to see how weird you're being, getting mad af over an opening.
Yessir
I'm sorry samuel but when you're talking of opening theory I think rating does matter.
What about we stop taking personal shots and start to see reason.
I'm sorry samuel but when you're talking of opening theory I think rating does matter.
What about we stop taking personal shots and start to see reason.
This is completely wrong because you can understand opening theory without climbing up the rating ladder. Opening theory is knowing a set of moves and why they are played. You can understand this at any level. Being higher rated has to do with several other things: tactical awareness, positional awareness, how many games you've played, etc.
This is reason.
I'm sorry hushpersonok but you just don't understand this concept.
By the way, what openings would you recommend a noob like me learn? I usually play a center game as white and try to be aggressive. But I can’t do the same thing with black and often feel a bit too passive.
Interesting, this started out well meaning and ended up with 4 pages of squabbling. This is the second sight I have gone to for information and saw more feather fluffing. I am fairly new to understanding chess. Sure, I learned how the pieces moved, played a few games over the years, but now, at 60 years of age I am trying to learn the game. Lots of different openings, each with different strategies. I get both ideas. Learn one, get better at middle game and how to end it. I also see the advantage of at least learning some of the others, from both sides, you never know how your opponent will play. Thanks for the advice.
I basically gave an explanation of why the London is a much more passive opening for white compared to other choices based on theoretical considerations (c4-Nc3 vs c3-Nd2). Some people got upset by that and tried to use insults and degradation to strongarm their opinion through instead of discussing these points.
It's easier to demonstrate this:
So this is actually a pretty common line in the London. White plays Qb3, Qc2 and Qc1. It's just very passive. White has surrendered massive amounts of space on the queenside with tempo. If white takes the black queen, this is actually considered very good for black. The doubled pawns and open a-file are actually useful in a queenside squeeze which is very unpleasant for white.
Compare this to the KID and the QGD:
White has a domineering space advantage and much more active play. This line of the KID is specifically meant to take the sting out of black's kingside attack as black will have to give up the light square bishop for the knight on e6, landing a thorn pawn in black's position.
White's structure here has far greater potential with c4, Nc3, Bg5 applying pressure onto d5. Black adopts the pawn pyramid as a defensive structure in response to white's pressure.
In the London, white adopts this structure by their own will and black will be the one who is now playing white's role in openings such as the QGD or Semi-Slav. This is why the London is passive. White is playing a structure which is intended to be a defence.
Awesome, thank you for your shared knowledge.
So this is actually a pretty common line in the London. White plays Qb3, Qc2 and Qc1. It's just very passive. White has surrendered massive amounts of space on the queenside with tempo. If white takes the black queen, this is actually considered very good for black. The doubled pawns and open a-file are actually useful in a queenside squeeze which is very unpleasant for white.
All that can be avoided if white. Doesn't play the possibly incorrect early Nf3.
Exactly.
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!
Of course they are not accurate on this site in that goes for everyone. But to come on here and act as though you are the say all on chess openings with nothing to back it other than what masters said while at the same time claiming that ratings don't matter is dumb. They could compare OTB ratings and I have a strong suspicion that they vary drastically. To talk to someone who is clearly better than you(meaning exceptionalfork) like they need to take lessons from you is just silly. He's not being respectful at all which is why I commented. Having a respectful conversation with someone would be discussing why you like or dislike a particular opening. Not claiming that you know more than the other....besides the fact that the 2 players in question are laughable in difference. I would feel very strange telling someone I was better than them at openings with a 1300 rating difference, online or not. This is a matter of common sense
I hear you, I merely commented on the ratings not being accurate part, I didn't read alot of the posts, well I skimmed through some of the comments, I did sense a bit of tension on one side or the other. I agree though it's all about respect, and not being condescending towards someone if you're better then them, or even thinking you're better if you're clearly worse then them and they are a stronger player, many don't understand this though. I mean some people like drama just because it's "entertaining" to them....it's the world we live in.
I always tell people if you can't come at me respectfully with your disagreement, then there isn't anything for us to talk about. In short, there is a right and wrong way to debate.
All that can be avoided if white doesn't play the possibly incorrect early Nf3.
Yes, though, the London was probably first developed as a black defence to kings Indian setups by white.
Well a lot of people play like this so they are not finding the opening so easy to play as they aren't understanding it. So it's clearly not a good opening for beginners then. I would revert to an earlier point "You might encounter someone who knows theory and then you'll lose". So surely that applies in this case. This was also only one example of many common lines where white is often equal to slightly worse.
Exactly, it's playing a defence with the white pieces which is passive. Compare this to the Bayonet Attack line I showed.
Exactly.
Did you not listen to my arguments? Did you not find my arguments convincing?
I clearly demonstrated this with lines, theoretical explanations and facts. Instead of listening to the facts you get emotional at me and try to degrade me because you're upset that I criticised your favourite opening.
Since you can't consider the facts of the theory I would say that you do not know opening theory as well as I do. It doesn't matter what rating I am on chess.com. I have researched opening theory and I do know what I'm talking about. You have no idea. You just get insecure and use the rating instead of considering what I've said. You suggest that someone lower rated than you on chess.com is just dumber than you and there's no way they could understand opening theory to your expert level.
This is why the way you're acting is so totally out of order. You will not talk chess. You will only talk sentiments, emotions and anger at me.
Exactly.
Did you not listen to my arguments? Did you not find my arguments convincing?
I clearly demonstrated this with lines, theoretical explanations and facts. Instead of listening to the facts you get emotional at me and try to degrade me because you're upset that I criticised your favourite opening.
Since you can't consider the facts of the theory I would say that you do not know opening theory as well as I do. It doesn't matter what rating I am on chess.com. I have researched opening theory and I do know what I'm talking about. You have no idea. You just get insecure and use the rating instead of considering what I've said. You suggest that someone lower rated than you on chess.com is just dumber than you and there's no way they could understand opening theory to your expert level.
This is why the way you're acting is so totally out of order. You will not talk chess. You will only talk sentiments, emotions and anger at me.
"Did you not listen to my arguments?" I did. "Did you not find my arguments convincing?" I did not.
"Instead of listening to the facts" I did.
"you get emotional at me" I was never emotional this whole time. I mean, I laughed at your comments, but other than that I never got emotional.
"and try to degrade me" You mean with the truth? Oh so degrading.
"Because you're upset that I criticised your favorite opening." Not my favorite, but it's decent.
"Since you can't consider the facts of theory" Coming from the person who says the London is terrible when he knows one line.
"I would say that you do not know opening theory as well as I do." When it comes to the London, I clearly do.
"It doesn't matter what my rating is on chess.com." Yes it does.
"I have researched opening theory" Do you think I haven't?
"And I do know what I'm talking about." Not when it comes to the London.
"You have no idea." I have more of an idea than you.
"You just get insecure" Nope.
"and use the rating" Of course I did. That's something you take into account when it comes to knowledge in chess.
"instead of considering what I said." I did, and I don't believe it.
"You suggest that someone lower rated than you on chess.com is just dumber than you" When it comes to chess it probably means I know more. I never said you were dumber than me.
"and there's no way they could understand opening theory to your expert level." It's not likely that you know as much opening theory as me when it comes to the London.
I'm planning on this being my last response to you, as I'm just wasting time on such a stubborn person who will talk about openings like he knows stuff without spending efficient time studying openings.
It's because they are new to chess
It seems you're really stuck on people arguing about rating, but most of my argument to you wasn't based on rating. All you need to do is pay attention to what I'm writing.
My argument was purely about the opening and not about you. You're the one who got bitter about it and lashed out at me.
You basically said I was delusional.
If you keep saying this I'm just going to stop responding.