Opening theory up to at least 10-15 moves in advance is so thouroughly analyzed that you would be shooting yourself in the foot if you didn't know how to play the Ruy Lopez, say, or the Queen's Gambit. Innovation is great, and novelties and new plans are important and useful. However, there are some moves that are just plain unsound because they violate principles of chess that are quite simply written in stone. You would have to be an idiot to play 1.f3 at any level of play, for example; unless you're facing a rabbit, of course.
Is your playing formula limiting you?
Sort:
Thanks.. I get your point and your right. Sometimes it depends on the type of player your going against but there are only so many combinations... I have to say though some of the stupidest looking one's can be useful if you skilled.
I think I recall reading about a gm using the beginners opening. Which is two spacing the pawn in front of the rook, and then moving the rook out after it.
Could you help me understand notation? It's something that seriously cripples me... As shown in the statement above.
Sometimes GMs will use odd-lookng moves in an attempt to confuse or psyche-out their opponent. This does not mean that the opening is sound, however.
It's pretty simple once you get the hang of it. Basically, the Queenside Rook is on the first square, or the a-square. The Queenside Knight is on the second, or b-square. The bishop is on the c-square, queen on the d-square, and so forth up to the Kingside Rook on the h-square.
Those are the files. The ranks start at the a-square and are mapped horizontally. Thus, all of White's pieces are on the first rank, and all of the pawns are on the second rank. It goes up to the 8th rank, which is where Black's pieces reside.
From then on it's like a math grid. The b2-square, for example, is the square that is on the b-file and the second rank (two spaces to the right, and two spaces up). The c5-square is on the c-file and 5th rank (three spaces to the right and 5 spaces up).
When a move is written down, you have to show what piece is moving. If you write 1. Nf3 Nf6, that means that on the first move (1.) White moved his Knight (N) to the f3-square (6 files to the left, and 3 up), and also that Black moved his Knight to the f6-square (...Nf6). Every move is numbered, with White's moves being written first.
The King is noted as "K", the Quees as "Q", the Rook as "R", the Bishop as "B", the Knight as "N", and the pawns have no letter. Thus, 1.e4 means a pawn was moved to e4, and 5...Nxc5 means that on the 5th move Black's Knight (noted by the ...N) captured (noted by the "x") on the square c5.
A checking move is shown by a "+" sign. 6.Nf6+ means that White checked Black's King with that move from the f6-square.
When two pieces of the same kind can move to the same square, you have to show which one moved where. So if two Knights can move to the d4-square, say, you would write: 4.Nbd4 to show that it was the KNight on the b-file that moved there. If two Rooks could move down the same file, say, you would write: 22.R3c5 to show that the Rook on the third rank moved to up to c5.And so on with different pieces.
That's pretty much it.
Everyone plays uniquely.
But how do you play?
Don't let all the set defences and gambits and attacks completely define you. Sure those are battle plans that clearly work, but when the game comes down to initiating repeated battle plans, don't you lose the fun?
I know for me it does. Maybe that's immature I feel it is. But if chess is a war you still can come up with your own plans. It seems a lot of us fall into the trap of using what works on paper; rather than thinking outside of the box.
I'm all for knowing openings and such, but has it ever occurred to you that by creating your own openings, traps, and defenses your more dangerous on the battlefield than what's clearly known?
At the big leagues the good players, maybe even gm's use a mixture of both. But at the smaller leagues where I feel I am; the opponents use strategies because they know it works but not how.
Using set openings and plays can limit you but also make you better.. But when creativity gets lost to using what works even if your winning games, is it limiting your skills to get better? We all know you learn more from defeat rather than victory.. But if these set moves are giving you victories and your not improving... Your enemies, the more serious ones can pass you I think...
What do you think about this?