Finally Broke 1000!

yeah chill out msjean and quit being such a meanie

 That's right. Read the link posted in here.

Clicking "offer draw" when threefold repetition occurs =  computer ends the game with a draw. Excellent. Thank you.

 Yes. I have been spanked.

Well, chess players always have an excuse. Here's mine. I've never had my king in opposition with the enemy king with so many pieces still on the board.

Thank you.

Absolutely. TT rocks.

You were the one to break 1000, but who is the one who is supposed to fix it?

Thank you.

Yes. I missed those free pawns. I've got a new routine, which should make a big difference. I am now going through each of my games until I reach the FIRST mistake by me. 

A little while back, you said something to me that stuck. Play tactical chess. I've heard of the two basic playing styles, positional and attacking, but never tactical.  I like it.

Yep. 

1. For sake of argument, let's say the player at 1200 knows twice as much opening theory as me. If my tactic and endgame strength is stronger than him, then even if I am a little worse off after the opening, he will lose in the end to a tactic or better endgame technique.

2. I've played several players in the 1200's, and have yet to find one that knows more than 3 to 4 moves deep in, for example, the Guioco Piano, Evans Gambit, French Defense, Caro-Kann, Philidor Defense, Sicilian Defense, etc.

I know this to be true because I happen to know more opening theory than the 1200 rated players I have played, but still can't beat them. It's simply because I am weaker in the area of tactics and checkmates. My endgame play is slightly better than the other two areas, but only because I went through a couple of chapters in Silman's Endgame book.

Evans Gambit: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4. I didn't even look at a chessboard, but can playback that sequence in my head, or blindfolded.

Scotch Gambit: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4

French Defense: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5

Caro-Kann Defense: 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5

In both the French and Caro-Kann, there is the Exchange Variation with 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 (French) and 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 (Caro-Kann)

Let's see, The Scandinavian: 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc6 (Very Important Move)) Qa5.

I was a 1.d4 player. Let's see, The Queen's Gambit Declined: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6.

Um...The Nimzo-Indian Defense: 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4. Also, I know one purpose of 3...Bb4, to give White doubled pawns on the c-file at the cost of the bishop pair. Some players with the White pieces may opt for 4.Qc2, the Classical Variation, to avoid doubled pawns.

Thinking about this a bit more deeply, I seriously doubt that all but a few 1200 rated players know as much opening theory as me, especially when you factor in the tricky part - knowing the reason behind each of the moves. 

It makes me sick to my stomach that I can even pound out a few 1.d4 lines, and I have not played 1.d4 in some time. Also, I know many more lines, longer lines, with a few sub-variations....but has it made me a better chess player? Nope. 

Ruy Lopez, Exchange Variation: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6. Now, it is better to play dxc6, and not bxc6. Why? Because even though you are capturing away from the center, (which as a general rule is not best), by playing dxc6, you open up the d-file for your queen and the c8-h3 diagonal for your light squared bishop.

Again, I did this all in my head.

If there was such a thing as a chess rating for opening theory alone, I wonder what my rating would be? 

Should a beginner NOT study opening theory?  It depends on what you like to study, but I really can't see a beginner getting better by studying opening theory alone.

The very first thing a beginning chess player needs to learn -  tons of checkmates. That IS how the game is won. The very next thing, while still working on checkmates, would be tactics.

The most basic ideas of developing one's pieces might help, but I am now of the opinion that the beginner will still get crushed by the person who is stronger at tactics and checkmates, with even the most unorthodox way of opening a game, like 1.a3.

That (1.a3) person will beat any beginner who does not know tactics and checkmates, even though the beginner knows far more about opening principles, i.e., rapid piece development, only push as many pawns as necessary to get all the pieces into play (if it could be done with no pawns, that would be ideal, but not possible), castle quick and connect the rooks by getting the queen off of the back rank.

Yep. Even knowing sound opening principles will not save the beginner from a tactical genius.  

Geez! Too much typing for one night. I guess I needed to get all of that stupid opening stuff out of my head, so I can just get on with playing chess.

I just played this game. The time control was 5 minutes. Notice how my first 8 moves are pawn moves.

Agreed. Openings are the least important part of chess in my opinion - even I still wing them in 1700 rated blitz games about half the time. A good tactical brain is far more important. And yes, you can definitely hope to beat 1200s without knowing openings. Definitely. No 1200 understands openings deeply - sure they might know the moves - but not all the ideas behind them. I know I don't.

This may be your opinion but its simply not true. In every game of chess there is an opening and some of these games are lost in the opening  . This means there is no middlegame and no ending.  Think about that and let it sink in awhile and then you will understand that what you said is ridiculous. At the lower levels openings arent so important as at the upper levels. The higher up you go the more important they become. 

i used to think so too.  then i ran into rooperi and the vienna gambit (i think that is what he called it) and had to resign in 14 moves or so. 

I don't think openings are important at all at the lower levels. I've been beaten many times by others who only push pawns in the opening, completely confusing my booked up brain.

All players under 1200 develop their own personal opening schemes, but most of it certainly does not look like anything I have seen in chess books, so I can't beat these guys with my book knowledge. I have a far easier time playing against someone who plays the French against me than someone who opens in an unorthodox way, and I am not talking about hypermodern openings, of which I am familiar with.

---

The question to ask is this: why do lower rated players (under 1200) lose games during the opening phase?  It's not because of lack of knowledge in opening principles or opening theory. It's due to counting errors and leaving pieces en prise. 

Just a few years ago, I was under 800 for a long time on this site, and most of my games were decided by those two things, counting errors and pieces left en prise.   

When I play chess against my elementary band and orchestra students at lunch, they lose pieces in the same manner.  

My students don't see all 64 squares yet, playing mostly with tunnel vision.  At this entry level, under 800, the  basic tactics such as pins, forks and skewers do not decide these games, nor do they even know those tactics yet.  The games are always decided by who can find checkmate faster.  So, checkmates need to be taught first, then comes tactics. I’ve seen many games between young elementary students go on forever because neither one of them could find checkmate. The more checkmates they learn, the faster the game proceeds.

I'll back pedal a bit on my previous statement regarding NOT needing to know opening principles and say that I do teach my band and orchestra students the fundamentals of opening play.  

Before any teaching, most of my students will open the game by moving one pawn, one square. Do they think it is a game of checkers? I'm not really sure. Maybe they think the move is a safer bet.  So, I teach, because 1.e3 sucks.   

First - I teach them to advance a center pawn two squares, 1.e4 or 1.d4,  and I don't care which one it is, so long as it actually lands in one of the key four center squares.

I don't want to confuse them yet with the English opening, 1.c4. That's a bit abstract, as c4 does not occupy a center square, but it does control a key center square, d5.

Second - Knights before bishops is not such a bad rule of thumb, since there are actually a few good reasons behind this plan.  Knights move slower than bishops and take more time to get to the enemies camp.  Second, with the goal of moving each piece only once in the opening,  it’s better in general not to commit bishops to a specific square right away, because you may need to move it again if it lands on a square where an enemy pawn can push it around.

Third -  In general, castle short to get one’s king away from the center faster and to safety, while developing  a rook.  At the cost of only one tempo, two pieces are moved. Not a bad deal.   

Fourth -  Develop the queen off of the back rank, permitting the rooks to connect, communicate, and be free to roam that rank to find the best possible files.

Applying these four simple rules of thumb have made chess more fun for my students.

Last, kids have a great imagination. After I teach the four basic rules, they start to give names to the various openings that THEY create. It’s really fun to watch.

Can I bet the farm on that?

Your statement suggests that no one needs to buy a single book on opening theory as a beginner. No beginner needs to rattle off the first 5 or so moves of the Sicilian - Najdorf.

So, any beginner under 1200 can survive the first 14 moves with NO knowledge of opening theory and still have winning chances? Incredible.

That's an exciting thought to have stuck in one's brain. This motivates me all the more to crack the whip on Chess Mentor, Tactics Trainer, Chess Tempo, Polgar's Checkmate book and Silman's Endgame book.

No opening theory for me. Zip! Time to unleash the tactical beast within.

Sure, but that would also be a tactical blunder.

one day you be gm! 

You must be punished for that loss!  Punished!!  

Geez planeden, how could you not know this stuff?!  It's really quite a simple thing to remember.

Vienna Gambit 1. e4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3.f4

The move 3.f4 is best met by 3...d5, striking back in the centre, since 3...exf4 4.e5 Qe7 5.Qe2 forces Black's knight to retreat. After 4.fxe5 Nxe4, 5.Qf3 is well met by 5....Nc6, with the point 6.Nxe4 Nd4. 5.d3 is also possible, but the normal continuation is 5.Nf3. White obtains open lines and attacking chances, but Black can usually hold the balance with correct play.

I don't know, but that looks to me like Chess 101 stuff there.

---

Here's a little homework. Karpov didn't seem to have any problems with the Black pieces against the Vienna Gambit.

---

Cool. This game was decided by a fundamental tactic in the end, a pinned queen to her king. That's game over.

i am going to post the game for clarification.  i made my mistake on my third move with 3...Nc6 and was not able to recover from it.  did i play other poor moves?  certainly, but after move 3 i was already running for my life.  I usually play with opening principles as opposed to memorized (and/or understood) specifics.  in this case 3...Nc6 is typically a decent opening move and follows principles, but i did not see that trap that ensued.  so, sure, open failure, tactical failure, positional failure, and stratgic failure...all occuring in 15 moves. 

i do still tend to believe that book openings are not the most important aspect for beginners.  but, by not studying openings and not using the opening database, sometimes i will fall for traps.  of course, this might just be because i like playing tactics trainer more than i like going through openings.  :)

Traps are tactics.