I try to play games according to what I've gleaned is general sound opening theory from books: develop your pieces, link your rooks, no pawn moves without a reason, etc. My frustration, at the 1000 plus or minus range I play in, is how people push immediate attacks, and whether I can refute them or not isn't the issue; it's that I have to refute them at the expense of building a solid foundation. I'm all for initiative in a game, but let a guy tie his shoes, you know?
Or is this what people mean by 'coffeehouse chess'? Does it stop once you've reached a certain level and everone's played through those lines?
Heh, I know what you mean. A guy comes by my club from time to time, and I'm much better than him, but I never get comfortable positions because to punish the wild moves he plays means we enter odd looking unbalanced positions.
Yeah, coffeehouse chess is wild attacks, initiative >> material type of evaluations.
In blitz, if you don't like to be under pressure, a tactic is to play super-defensive, lock everything up, over-defend everything, and play for a win on time never undertaking any active play. Super boring to me but some people specialize in it for blitz :p
If they attack like crazy on the wings you can consider waiting to decide which side you castle on. Also don't lock the center, that way you can counter-punch there where play is more valuable, generally speaking.
If they just attack all around no matter what, focus on development, castling, and all that. I can't say it ends without seeing a game, but there are always aggressive players. If you mean openings with pawn structures all on one color and weird stuff like that, yeah, that does end as you go up.
thanks for the reply, you raised some good points. We're going to dig back in, then, and see how it goes. thanks.