Help Alison With Her Terrible Moves

Play the Petroff against 1) e4.  It quickly puts your opponent into "your system" and will save you lots of headaches in the opening.

The theory is quite large, and many positions rather sharp, but that's what you open yourself up to whenever you respond with 1)...e5

At least the Petroff reduces the theory you need to know by a very large factor.

Besides, "openings" are a largely a waste of time below USCF 1900.

Study the other phases of the game instead.  You will see a much bigger payoff for your game results, and for the speed at which you can comfortably play.

Hi Alison,

Thanks for posting your games. They are very interesting.

One angle you might want to consider is the study of tempo. That is usually a key in winning advantageous positions.

Notice how many times in the Petrosian game you posted, he takes or threatens forcing the opponent to react defensively giving Petrosian a tempo move to increase his advantage.

In your tough Sicilian "trick" loss, White's tempos gained after 9. Bxe6 seemed to end up painfully strong.

Some good resources on Tempo or Time might be Evan's "New Ideas in Chess" chapter 5 (which is my go-to book) though I've seen some good stuff from Silman and, if I remember correctly, the original (which I always thought influenced Fischer, a master of tempo) Nimzowitch "My System" deals with it pretty well.

A lot of great stuff here, so I'll answer in order:

"How about trying a Sicilian that isn't the *actual* sharpest?" - Good point; I started with the 2...e6 systems because I came to the Sicilian through the English where e3-d4 turned out to be the holy grail of pawn breaks, and I didn't want to give up on playing ...d5 in one move. The reason I moved over to the ...d6 systems is that - down a tempo - the e5 square is a glowing target for white to use as a cramping tool, and that bothered me. After some losses, I looked at the ...d6 systems and tried my hand at summoning the dragon...............well, the superstar dragon bishop proves easy to pry out of his box, and the b5 square is a huge leak in our boat, so I tried the Najdorf and just sort of married it because it seemed like a nice enough guy and it bought me a ring. But I know the ...e6 systems reasonably, and, really, the SIcilian is so unbelievably transpositional that one system leads to another (Danny Kopec's book basically ignores the idea of piece development patterns and breaks the Sicilian down according to pawn structures - phenomenal book for anyone who plays 1...c5 - but admittedly above my level). All that to say - I'll give it a go!

"5...Nc6 looked good to me" - A very salient point and, if I'm being honest, it was the first candidate move on my list. The reason I didn't play it actually came from this thread (so I AM listening - but not always successfully =P ). CP6033 looked at the move in my earlier game and wondered aloud if an early Nc6 doesn't jump the gun a little in terms of white's options. You want your horse on c6 in a lot of anti-Sicilians because you'd like to promote him to an octopus by jumping to d4, but, if the game transforms suddenly into an open Sicilian, you definitely want to make the slower transfer from d7 to c5, e5, or f6 in order to maintain the half open c file and the a-b pawn duo (because white can swap knights and force you to take back with the b pawn). The short answer is that I wanted to make a move that I was certain would benefit the plan regardless of white's play, and Nc6 felt committal. 

"10...Qb5 was just better!": Absolutely true, and, in fact, I had my queen on b5 with the mouse button held down....at the last moment, I scooted over a square and dropped it - why? It was just horribly faulty thinking on my part; I thought that white's sacrifice was facially stupid at that stage - that I could defend easily and end up with an extra piece (I didn't see a relialble continuation after Nxg7+). With that in mind, I didn't want to block my b pawn, thinking that I would shuffle the king to a hidey hole in the center and punish the hell out of white by marching down the queenside. This kind of hot-blooded thinking is the antithesis of good chess analysis....you, stockfish, and my hand are all absolutley right about Qb5.

"Fried liver sucks, and you have to actually allow it" - proof positive that my knowledge of lines in the Italian game is pretty abysmal. I studied some a few months ago, but it's hard to remember prep that you haven't used. Regardless, the exposed f7 pawn is an eyesore for me and blood in the water for newbie hackers; it's very tiresome to be forced to babysit that stupid pawn just to repeatedly refute the idea that chess is a game to be won in 10 moves or less. With the move ...e6, I stop all of that nonsense in its tracks and force my opponent to put some effort into the mating attack rather than just shooting at f7 until it falls or they drop a piece. I can study up on the Italian - I probably should - but I already have theoretical and experiential knowledge of the Sicilian, so I always find myself crawling back to Mr. Najdorf.

"The Katar video explains why the Sicilian is so difficult" - I watched the video, and it was quite wonderful! He's very right that black isn't developing, isn't challenging the e4 pawn, and is creating a more complicated game for herself. It's also true that white's plan is intuitive, but, then again, white's plan of mad, drooling, rabid hacking is generally the way people below 1400 play anyway. 1.e4 players are probably coming straight down the kingside as quickly as they can, and I like the Sicilian's manner of saying "come at me, bro - you can't touch this." I make mistakes - no argument - and many of them are made precisely because the Sicilian is stupidly complicated, but it's actually quite complicated for white as well....the holes are all on the queenside where black's pieces are very strong, forcing white to attack the rock solid kingside or fight uphill on the queenside (not recommended as I'll play Kh8-f5-g5 and pretend it's the Dutch). In other words - I feel like I give up a little bit of firepower for the high ground, and that arrangement is fine with me. 

"Why fear the king's gambit!?" - because, although there are many forced draws, many traps, and many ways white can go totally wrong, there are at least an equal number of stupid moves for the second player, and I don't like blowing open the position on move 3 and seeing who will win the race....I like to develop, castle, and play a real middlegame, not throw pieces at each other until someone snaps. I could book up like a madwoman, but I don't feel like spending 10 hours or whatever on memorizing all of the theoretical draws in sidelines within a sideline. 

"What about Petroff? Solid stuff!" - Definitely not a bad idea! I had actually never considered going Russian as Nc6 feels like the most 'critical' e4-e5-Nf3 position. I'll check up on chessbase and see what kind of middlegames I'll end up with (which is how I pick openings, obviously).

"You don't really need to study openings in depth" - Absolutely not. I booked 20 moves deep in the Sicilian dragon at one point and realized that my opponents were jumping out of theory before move 10 anyway....it's a waste of time, no argument. That said, a little bit of opening prep goes a long way to shepherding you safely into the later stages - the Marshall defense, for example (a sideline of the queen's gambit) is not very good

All that to say - being a true bookie in the spirit of MVL is worthless at my stage...no question...but you should probably have some kind of repertoire, because the "just develop and don't worry about it" mantra will get you into trouble. 

"My System is a great book, and studying the nature of time in chess is instrumental to improvement" - Absolutely! In fact, I actually just started working through Nimzo's book a couple of days ago....I love his weird little analogies "A free mobile center pawn...must be considered a dangerous criminal. Against him all our chess fury must be directed." Yessir Mr. Nimzowitsch, I shall summon ALL the chess fury against criminal pawns! Svidler's commentary on the Annand - Carlsen also got me thinking about the nature of time, as many of his critiques on Sopiko's moves were tempo based. 

Anyway - thanks as always to everyone. I really enjoy getting all of these tips on my chess as, for the moment at least, I'm teaching myself, and the self-taught require guidance!

I don't know, developing and not worrying about it actually isn't that bad at many levels :) To be fair, that approach may build up some bad habits, but you are still (much) more likely to lose due to much more obvious tactics or positional factors (or endgame technique) than deciding whether it's better to develop your knight with Nc3 or Nd2 in some specific position for example. So advanced opening play isn't really the priority. Once you don't let your opponent exploit simpler mistakes these things may start to matter more. Truth be told, even at my level, expert, these kinds of things are kind of important, but still there is a lot left going on in the game if I make a subtle positional mistake like that; my game might just be a bit more difficult to play but it's not necessarily the end of the world.

I would argue that facing 1 d4 d5 2 c4 Nf6?! is not something you really need to know theory for. Keep in mind of course there is still a game to play and anything can happen. Take the good position black gives you and just focus on playing well from there. More often than not that will work, but sometimes your opponent will just play better than you and win anyway. It happens.

To avoid 2...Nf6 you only need to know a second opening principle, that central pawns are important.

It seems that while developing and not worrying about it probably doesn't hurt badly most of the time, it can run the clock in uncomfortably unfamiliar positions. It might also lessen the chance for best initiative possibilities as White and equality as Black.

Maybe having a plan as soon as possible is best in general. I think Silman really hits a home run stressing that point.

A really interesting example is Karpov-Korchnoi 2008 on youtube. Karpov does a lot of calculating on what appears Korchnoi's 4th or so move in what might be a nimzo-indian. With more thought around the sixth as well, he may well be doing some fairly deep planning.

The video is a little tough to find as it looks Russian with their alphabetical heading. But the 10min clip probably can be found by searching "Karpov Pivdenny Part 1".

I have definitely lost in the Marshall defense more than a few times....but I would humbly suggest that even the likes of me is capable of a plus score in such a dubious system. It's quite true that dropping pieces is the real enemy - tactics, tactics, tactics. But tactics improve at a snail's pace.....I'm barely 50 rating points better in tactics than I was last year. I will get better; I AM getting better, but there's absolutely no antidote for dropping your pieces other than years and years and years of practice. Opening ideas, on the other hand, can be controlled very tightly; I think that's why I am so prone to playing book moves - it feels like something I CAN control versus my tactical strength which is at least a decade away from even resembling competence. I get tired of taking pieces and making checkmates on TT...I want to get to the poetry of the game!

But playing good moves for a while while your opponent is also playing good moves can't win games.

Well, I don't control my opponent's moves....so I do my best to control my own. 

Hello Alison again. You need to stick with only a couple of openings. A kings pawn and a queens pawn. Try to control the center. And the number 1 tactic was " CONCENTRATE " Look at the whole board every time you move or when your opponent moves. Concentrate on all 64 squares at all times. You have to think why  did he move his knight to e4? What does that coincide with what your plan of action is or may be. Develop  knights before bishops; castle as soon as possible and make sure you every move you make threatens something. A piece say a king, If your opponent is planning on attacking king side attack the queen side. If you really want to confuse your opponent, make a off the wall move that dose nothing. He'll be confused. what purpose did that move do? Hang  in there Alison. Keep playing and studying. You will get better.  John Moyer

ple of 

I know that, my point is that book moves are only useful against good moves, so wont really change results.

It's the moves you play when out of book that will.

Every opening is used as a basis. I'll give you an example. Let's pick out the queens gambit. There are a lot opening that have come from the queens gambit. All these openings are not written in stone. Players make  different alternative moves that can make or break the game. Any game and all games turn out different because there are so many ways to opening. Yoy have 8 pawns that can move 1 or 2 squares in the beginning. Then you have 2 knights that can move 4 moves (white example) Na3; Nc3; Nh3; Nf3. The stronger the opening and controling the center the better your chance of winning the game. Castle as soon as you can. Get your king to safety. Pick a couple of openings; work with them for a while if they don't work, try something else. Sit down with the chessboard and work with the pieces. Find checkmate patterns. study books. Get the chess set out and learn. You will improve in time. Keep playing and don't let it get you down. Set up the pins again and bowl another strike. John Moyer

I took a look at the 1st game and I don't think you're a bad player. What I see for starters Is your opening. Always start your openings with e4/d4 ; e5;d5. Always concentrate on the center. Then bring out your knights then your bishops. I seen what you could of done with that pawn on the 7th rank. You could of put you  bishop on the back rank and connected it to your pawn. You would have definitely queened your pawn. In the endgame you want to use your king. The king in the endgame works best in the center. Your moves aren't that bad. Use some of my advice in this note and the others. You'll improve in time. Have a great day Alison.  John Moyer

Related to the Marshall, that is great chess. It's kind of disheartening that now it's very tough to win against anybody booked up.

It would seem Queen play is very important for Black. I remember some early Spassky games kind of suggested that. Whatever one thinks of the guy, it appeared he really loved the game. How many would play the Marshall against Tal in the Candidates, twice! Also playing it against Fischer seemed to indicate a willingness to play some chess. (Interesting Fischer took to trading Queens early if I remember right.)

The only analysis by Spassky I remember reading was for the Karpov-Polugaevsky match around 1974 in Chess Life and Review. I think I still have it around somewhere and it was great. Little lines analysis but a lot of spirit of the game. Anybody seen anything else written by Spassky? 

A good point worth expanding upon.

The sicilian is very demanding on the players understanding and tactical ability for both black and white.  GMs play it with black because its complicated enough that their fellow GMs may well go astray, allowing them to win.

Its not very surprising that when you take the opening down to club level, there is a lot of people playing openings they don't really understand.

Generally speaking, club players copy the openings played by the top players they most admire, that was certainly what I did back in... well a while ago.

And its not a good idea, I know now.

Say a club player idolises Anand or Carlsen, very common and copys their openings, again very common.

But unless our club players playing strength is 2750 plus, they don't have the same sort of understanding of chess.  Or a team of seconds and trainers.  Or the time to put into the game of a professional chess player.

Players at club level should choose openings they understand [most important], lead to positions they are fairly happy to play and have decent results with.

I disagree with you rather strongly to be honest with tactics, Alison. As long as you are willing to put the time into the exercises, and learn why you passed and failed, you can improve relatively quickly there -- it didn't take me years to avoid regularly dropping simple tactics. Usually once you see the pattern your brain can process it; you are less likely to get stuck on something you simply can't understand right away, such as an esoteric endgame maneuver.

So if you are deciding how to distribute your time, I do think you should spend most of it on tactics. You won't master anything immediately but that affects your results the most. But, true, that doesn't mean that if you find an inspiring positional concept that you discover in like 10 minutes you shouldn't use that to your advantage. But I think in general you, as I used to, are trying a bit too hard to justify learning the more advanced stuff. From an improving standpoint that is -- from an enjoyment standpoint you might as well do whatever you want.

"but I would humbly suggest that even the likes of me is capable of a plus score in such a dubious system."

To be honest with you I'm not sure your chances are that much higher at that level. They weren't for me. You will get a bit of a boost, but 90% of the game is still left to be played and you have to pay a lot of attention to that.

"I get tired of taking pieces and making checkmates on TT...I want to get to the poetry of the game!"

Yeah, enjoyment is good. One can certainly argue that it makes sense to exchange the most efficient way to improve for some enjoyment. And that is because we are not robots but people, and we want to keep ourselves motivated. If you are more interested in chess it may motivate you to be more enthusiastic in your studies.

I never thought of it that way, hehe. Interesting.

Going to respond to a few points without quotes:

I don't think you need a 2750 understanding to play any openings.  You need that to play against Carlsen or Svidler, sure, but not against other class players.  However, some openings are "easier" to play at the class D/E levels because they are intuitive.   Like katar mentions in his video, in the Sicilian, black spends a lot of time on non-developing pawn moves, and if you don't understand where your play comes from, it's easy to just become passive and let your opponent blow you off the board with an attack.

And I agree with Elubas, it certainly shouldn't take years to learn how to not drop pieces.  45-60 days of study with Bain's tactics book is all you need. And I think that's probably the biggest issue here. I went back and looked at a couple of your last standard game losses, and almost every one featured you dropping material by move 15.  That's not a calculus problem, it's an arithmetic problem.  You need to get the foundation straight before you look at other things.  Playing closed, positional openings to avoid tactics is the exact wrong thing to do.

Lastly, I think Tactics Trainer is a pretty horrible tactics server, especially for beginners.  Buy this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Chess-Tactics-for-Students/dp/B00EDP4I6K/

Do like Dan Heisman says: Go through it multiple times until you can do 85% of the problems in 15 seconds or less.  I'd recommend a spaced repetition method doing each problem 6 times.  It should take you roughly 2 months. I could give you an exact schedule to follow if you want. You'll find you suddenly stop dropping material all over the place.  That book is the basic math of chess tactics.  Once you can do that quickly and easily, those algebra problems become doable.

There's no timestamping on cc (another reason why this place is inferior to everything else out there), so another problem might be you move too fast, which is why you drop material.