You did not win because of a bad opening. You won because your opponent left material undefended, and because of greed.
First win with Van't Kruijs!
Sort:
Good point!
You missed an easy, stereotyped tactic early on.
White wins a pawn for absolutely nothing.
jnicholes wrote:
My First win with the Van't Kruijs opening. I decided to experiment with it after seeing a computer use it. As you can see, I took a Gambit and sacrificed a Rook to put the opponent, (Whose name I put as Anonymous for privacy reasons,) into checkmate.
Jared
The Vant Kruijs Opening (1. e3) is just a weaker form of the Colle System, Queen's Gambit or Nimzo-Larsen Attack, by transposition (the game you posted is a Colle Attack by transposition). I played 1. e3 once or twice, many years ago, and someone showed me why playing d4 or Nf3 first was much better than opening with 1. e3. 1. e3 doesn't control the d5 or e5 square, so it's inferior to 1. e4, d4, c4 and Nf3. It might be ok for a blitz game, to gain a few shock-value seconds on the clock, but it's basically inferior. In the game that you posted, you gave black the e5 square when you didn't have to. You won, not because of the opening, but because he's a 700 player. 1. d4 or 1. Nf3 would have prevented or delayed e5 and given you more control of the center (which should be the main goal of any chess opening). Even if you're trying for a Reverse French, 1. d4 is still better. Why let black have e5 if you can prevent it?
My First win with the Van't Kruijs opening. I decided to experiment with it after seeing a computer use it. As you can see, I took a Gambit and sacrificed a Rook to put the opponent, (Whose name I put as Anonymous for privacy reasons,) into checkmate.
Jared