Carlsens piece sac was a part of why he lost as well, if he played naturally I'm sure he could have held. Of course gambits are playable and I've played many myself, but attacking isn't necessarily always the right way to play, which many people seem to think. E5 isn't always the sharpest response to e4 either. Many of my sicilian games and caro kann advance games were sharper.
Are 1.d4? or 1.c4? questionable
Sort:
Feb 7, 2015
0
#43
Again there's nothing wrong with "attacking" but I'm not interested in hack attacking every game, because I'm trying to be a more positional player these days, and get better at calm positions. Attacking is very fun when your opponent lets you mate them, but when you throw your entire army at the king and then it's all for nothing, it's a bit of a waste, hence why I'm trying to change my style a bit. Not a fan of modern romanticism. I don't care if people play kings Gambits or Evans etc I'll play my Ruys and Scotches and won't be any worse.
"Modern romantic" is a nice euphemism for patzer.
Feb 7, 2015
0
#45
I play for more than 3 years on this site and I can remember only one game my opponent started with 1.c4.
Feb 7, 2015
0
#46
Tal wasn't a romantic either. You didn't see him playing crazy openings and playing yahoo chess. Sure there were many wins of his with insane sacrifices, but is that the only way he played? No! Tal knew how to play positionally as well, and often opened with d4 (which is wrongly coined a positional move).
Feb 7, 2015
0
#47
Studying positional ideas is one of the keys to improving in chess, if you can't play positionally then you're a one trick pony and you won't always be able to get a wild position if your opponent doesn't want it. It's good to be balanced, that's why I play pretty much every opening with white and black now, just whatever crosses my mind first. And the key is: play the best moves, not the most confusing moves. That's what I learned at least.
^This guy's name is a hint he's spamming
The idea is to play moves that are either solid, exploit a sound idea in the position, or sacrifice WITH SUFFICIENT COMPENSATION.
Feb 7, 2015
0
#49
The idea that everyone under 2000 needs to play e4 and hack attack chess is just wrong, this is advice nobody should take. There is no wrong way to play chess if you're making good moves and winning, so saying playing Catalans and London's under 2000 is wrong, is wrong. It's like saying everyone under 2000 should only play symmetrically, another common terrible advice theme.
Feb 7, 2015
0
#50
It isn't reason, this is terrible advice. Playing insanity doesn't make you a better chess player, neither does hope chess. I got to 1846 OTB increasing my rating by over 200 points before having a bit of stoppage by playing different positions. Maybe if you also added some positional chess into your repertoire you could make 2200.
Feb 7, 2015
0
#51
His argument is flawed for another reason, since he is rated higher than me, he must be right, yet I know the majority of titled players would disagree with him. Does that mean he's right and wrong at the same time? Or is he only right when approached by a lower rated player, but wrong when arguing with a master in the same issue.
chessmicky wrote:
Your question recapitulates a couple of centuries of chess history, during which many of the top players, in game after game, wasted no time in going after their opponent's king in a regicidal frenzy. And those old-timers played some wonderful games. But over time, the defenses got better and better, the attacks petered out, leaving the attacker down a few pieces or pawns, and some scientifically-minded players wondered if there might be a better way, Gradually, good players came to the conclusion that it was neccessary to attain some advantages before they could expect to destroy their opponents.
But if you're a relatively new player, just starting out, there's a lot to be said for just going after the enemy king with all your might and getting some experience in seeing which attacks succeed, which ones fail, and why.
+1.
I'm not sure what all the fuss is about, it doesn't matter if you open with e4, d4 or c4 or any other solid opening, Chess is a complex game & how it starts is not always how it ends. A while back I was messing around with the English opening 1/-c4. I was using the Chess.com computer set on hard just to get a feel for the opening. Unfortunately the Computer wanted to play the Janisch Gambit which is not the strongest line against 1/-c4 but anyway I decided to play it out rather than reset & try again. Now I used to use the Stonewall Attack in OTB tournaments which usually involves a Bishop sacrifice on Blacks Kings position & an overwhelming attack on the King with often a quick win (If you get it right)
This game started on the Queenside in typical English fashion but on move 16 I saw some familiar patterns from my old Stonewall days. The game could have been won on the Queenside by forcing a passed Pawn but on a whim I switched to a Stonewall inspired assault on the Kingside which proved successful.
Ok, so its only a computer I was playing against & not a particularly good one but I have played many humans who have not defended as well so lets just accept that for what it is. After move 16 the computer plays a few strange Rook moves, this is a computer in Zugzwang, it doesn't quite know what is coming or how to defend but I've seen that in humans too.
So I hope you enjoy the game & see that a Queenside opening can end up in a Kingside demolition & that 1/-c4 or 1/-d4 can be as dynamic as a Kings Gambit in some cases.
I like it! Nice game. Do you have any other interesting ones...maybe Stonewall Attacks and/or games starting with 1.c4 etc?
Chicken_Monster wrote:
I like it! Nice game. Do you have any other interesting ones...maybe Stonewall Attacks and/or games starting with 1.c4 etc?
I can probably dig out a few old games, also I have a part finished piece on Stonewall Attack basic concepts for beginners on my Blog that might be worth a look. Give me a day to see what I can find. Glad you enjoyed tha game!
Thanks.
@ Chicken_Monster
Ok, I found this old Stonewall Attack from an Inter club tournament many years ago. My rating was much lower than now but it embodies all the concepts of the Stonewall.
Note I don't advocate the Stonewall Attack these days unless it is in OTB play where the opponent has to deal with it directly & can't run for a book or database. Also the Stonewall is for intermediate players only, if Black is well versed in it he has many options to negate its threats or to avoid playing against it completely. But it may have a place in ones repertoire as a secret weapon.
Its relevence to this thread though is it shows that 1/- d4 can be exciting & dynamic & lead to a Kingside demolition.
I've left in my old annotations, they may help a bit for ppl who don't know the opening.
Even going for such tricks unless in pure desperation is foolish, attacking isn't always cheap, but when you start giving up material and overpressing, the game could easily turn against you. Plus e4 isn't even a more tactical choice than d4 in the first place!
It certainly can be. I will admit that there are very sharp d4 but I would still say that an e4 e5 game can still be more sharp if say an evan's gambit is played or a king's gambit. Maybe giving up material is the correct approach in a certain situation. Strong players can still lose to gambits. Strong players can also lose to piece sacrifices. Now I wouldn't advice just to randomly sac a piece for the sake of it. The piece sac has to at least be interesting and not easily refuted. I'm not going to just take on f7 in every e4 e5 game I get as white but in certain openings like the Cochrane gambit of the Petroff it can be interesting and strong players have used it. Topalov played it a few years ago against Kramnik. Look at the piece sac that Carlsen did a few days go with Bxg4. Computer said he got equality. So this hog wash of you saying people can't give up material is wrong.