LOL that was funny, the only opening I consider boring is the French but everything else is fine.
"Boring Openings"!!
Sort:
I had a boring opening for the longest time. But then I got it pierced* and now I got cool friends.
* it got infected shortly after and healed funny, but that just makes it more interesting.
Why is the London System boring or passive? The whole idea is quick development...
Jul 1, 2009
0
#5
I sort of treat these "system" openings all the same -- I figure my opponent read a book or two on that "system" and doesn't really know much else about chess!
I remember a story awhile back - a friend of mine was playing the Stonewall Attack, and then his opponent said "How to Think Ahead in Chess, eh?" -- and my friend became very flustered after that and lost soon. It's a psychological blow when you know that your opponent has read the entire book that you are basing your game on!
Well, if I ever play d4 OTB, I will be playing the London System, based on the fact that I've read 'Ideas Behind Modern Chess Openings'. But that doesn't mean I don't know much else about chess, Ozzie! Indeed, I actually have less experience in this system than other openings, and so, your assumption will be entirely false.
Of course, this whole argument falls down if I know nothing about chess anyway.
It's considered boring because white has less of a position in the center than the queen's gambit lines. Also, even though his pieces may be active, his lack of space and potential pawn breaks make his positions rather passive. Basically white is playing as if he is black.
Not that there's anything wrong with this! My attitude towards these openings has changed somewhat since listening to John Watson's interview of IM Cyrus Lakdawala. Basically white is trying to avoid theory and "just play chess". This is perfectly reasonable if you have a poor memory or just find studying opening theory boring. Personally as black I am always happy to see this stuff as it allows me to immediately play for the initiative and gain space, something you rarely get to do as black in the opening.
Jul 1, 2009
0
#8
Nytik wrote:
Well, if I ever play d4 OTB, I will be playing the London System, based on the fact that I've read 'Ideas Behind Modern Chess Openings'. But that doesn't mean I don't know much else about chess, Ozzie! Indeed, I actually have less experience in this system than other openings, and so, your assumption will be entirely false.
Of course, this whole argument falls down if I know nothing about chess anyway.
Yes, I know it doesn't necessarily mean that - and in your case I would just be wrong, which hopefully I would find out rather quickly or else I'd lose my shirt! :-)
Well an amazing opening was
Me vs. Fritz 11 on 2000
This was a 16 move opening because it was a 16 move game
I won in 16 moves
My rating is 805
Jul 1, 2009
0
#10
Yes, also there's the vague realization that this is the only opening that this person has ever played against higher rated players. So, you can imagine that they've played this against IMs, and already gotten the post mortem advice...
So there's a tendency to steer the game away from what might be best in order to get the opponent out of book.
That being said, I haven't faced the London.. I want to say ever.
(In an OTB tournament game.)
I used to play the KIA, but it just doesn't feel right for white. Black can get any setup he wants to, in fact it may be best to avoid the reversed KID main lines. Also black can easily draw with ...dxe4 after white plays e4, in fact with a slight but safe edge. In the KID, white is already commited to d4, so he may as well build the center that black wants to counterattack. So sometimes the extra tempo is quite awkward and can allow the opponent whatever setup he chooses, usually pretty aggressive. The colle and london are tough to crack, but it's nice as black to fight for the initiative by playing ...c5 as if he is white. It's just too easy for black to go for an advantage but it can sometimes lead to interesting play and is fine below master level. The problem with the london is that the Bf4 is not always necessary and white usually needs to keep it safe with h3, so hopefully those moves don't turn out to be wasted. In the QG however, white immediately pressures the center and goes for e4 before developing the bishop at all, confident that he can do it quick enough. But I do think the london is perfectly fine otherwise.
Jul 1, 2009
0
#12
LOL Kepler - that was an amazing game! You are correct, sir, it was *not* at all boring! Thanks for the share :).
Jul 1, 2009
0
#13
ozzie_c_cobblepot wrote:
I sort of treat these "system" openings all the same -- I figure my opponent read a book or two on that "system" and doesn't really know much else about chess!
I remember a story awhile back - a friend of mine was playing the Stonewall Attack, and then his opponent said "How to Think Ahead in Chess, eh?" -- and my friend became very flustered after that and lost soon. It's a psychological blow when you know that your opponent has read the entire book that you are basing your game on!
LOL ouch, that's horrible! I can only imagine the look on his face when he realized he really had very little chance of winning, or even really getting an edge. That's classic man.
Jul 1, 2009
0
#14
I wonder if I should take up the London - it seems like white is pretending to be black, and is fine with "simple" equality. Develop the bishop outside the pawn chain, develop the other pieces, and castle. This is somewhat what black would do against 1.d4 d5 if white doesn't play energetically, right?
Well you get some advantage in the london instead of the slav since usually black can't soundly get out his bishop unless he gives up the center. But other than that, black can go for the initiative though because of white's smooth development it's probably equal. Why not play the queen's gambit though? I think it's the safest opening that gives white serious winning chances with good positional play. For leading GM's it's like win or draw, probably half win. Bf4 is more like 90% draw
i wonder if sex foreplay openings can sometimes be classified as "boring" as chess openings sometimes are.....perhaps i digress, just thinking outloud.........
Jul 1, 2009
0
#17
Elubas wrote:
Well you get some advantage in the london instead of the slav since usually black can't soundly get out his bishop unless he gives up the center. But other than that, black can go for the initiative though because of white's smooth development it's probably equal. Why not play the queen's gambit though? I think it's the safest opening that gives white serious winning chances with good positional play. For leading GM's it's like win or draw, probably half win. Bf4 is more like 90% draw
I do play the QGD now. It might be nice to have a safer, drawish system to rely on when I get paired against people like IM Sevillano.
Personally I dislike sharp openings. I prefer "boring" openings where I get the chance to set up for an exciting middle game! Too often the sharp openings result in a boring middle game where I am a pawn behind and my opponent grinds out a boring win in fifty or sixty moves. I'd rather have the slow build up and the big explosion. Though any way to win is a good one . . .
I don't like sharp openings either.
Some call the King's Indian Attack opening, as well as the Colle, Catalan, London , "Boring " and "passive" I don't feel that is fair or correct.....also i am not a "boring " person either..........thanks i just wanted to get that off my chest............ would you be my friend????