The Opening is the Most Important Part of Chess - Chess Forums - Page 2

Spectator94

Oct 11, 2015

0

#21

Aquarius550 wrote:

If you read the soltis book on pieces and their relative strengths, you'll realize that the strengths of the pieces are an illusion relative to the endgame.

What exactly do you mean by that? And what exactly are shifting power levels?

ekoarak238

Oct 11, 2015

0

#22

Aquarius550 wrote:

A lot of people think the opening is dribble, that to play the opening well is not only unimportant, but a waste of time. I will tell you this: if you delay chess thought till the middlegame, you will always lose to a person who has spent time on their openings and is prepared to play the middlegame and endgames intuitively. How you open is so important to where your game goes and many people don't realize this.

I know a former IM strength player (He's older now, and dropped to 2200) who has given me much advice and helper me improve my game, and what he always told me was;

"Studying openings is like memorizing the phonebook"

While studying openings IS important, I have done quite well by simply knowing and studying middlegame concepts. The best idea is, IMHO, to study a few openings you really need to know, a few sidelines, and mostly learn how to play the middle game.

Roberta-Baggio

Oct 11, 2015

0

#23

thankfully we can agree to disagree.

ekoarak238

Oct 11, 2015

0

#24

Aquarius550 wrote:

abrahampenrose wrote:

Ok, you just went full troll. Never go full troll.

You lost me at the part where you will be one of the best players to ever live. I won't be holding my breath, just saying.

You've lost all my respect sir penrose. Go to hell.

I'm sure it's a big loss to lose your respect...

Aquarius550

Oct 11, 2015

0

#25

I never said I agreed with studying openings. In fact I don't. Learning to play openings is about learning how to make threats and capitalize on early mistakes. I was lucky, I had a natural knack for openings and a very good teacher. This combination made me an openings, middlegame, and ending monster because I always found an advantage. I recently joined the chess club at NYU, and even there, in a variation of the Scandinavian I had never played before(The Qd6 line), I managed to stick it to a 2400 rated player in a blitz game with a cleverly intuitive pawn sacrifice. I'll try to see if I remember the game, because I remember the critical moment and winning his queen.

ekoarak238

Oct 11, 2015

0

#26

"Even though ratings are hardly a valid indicator of any kind of skill."

Right.

That's why we have ratings. 'Cause they mean nothing.

Got it...

Aquarius550

Oct 11, 2015

0

#27

Gilasaurus wrote:

Aquarius550 wrote:

If you read the soltis book on pieces and their relative strengths, you'll realize that the strengths of the pieces are an illusion relative to the endgame.

What exactly do you mean by that? And what exactly are shifting power levels?

Pieces don't have the same value the whole game. They fluctuate throughout the game. Think of the knight on e5 in the middlegame versus the knight on e5 in the endgame. In almost all examples, which has more clout? A knight on e5 in the opening might be worth as much as a rook! Whereas a knight on e5 in the ending might just be 3 pawns.

Aquarius550

Oct 11, 2015

0

#28

BlackMonarch238 wrote:

"Even though ratings are hardly a valid indicator of any kind of skill."

Right.

That's why we have ratings. 'Cause they mean nothing.

Got it...

Ratings are a good try. Don't let them rule your opinion of others.

ekoarak238

Oct 11, 2015

0

#29

Aquarius550 wrote:

BlackMonarch238 wrote:

"Even though ratings are hardly a valid indicator of any kind of skill."

Right.

That's why we have ratings. 'Cause they mean nothing.

Got it...

Ratings are a good try. Don't let them rule your opinion of others.

I agree. Using ratings to dertimine someone elses' personality and/or mental capabilities is incorrect at best.

However, ratings are normally a good indicator of your chess skill, providing you play regularly.

Aquarius550

Oct 11, 2015

0

#30

BlackMonarch238 wrote:

Aquarius550 wrote:

BlackMonarch238 wrote:

"Even though ratings are hardly a valid indicator of any kind of skill."

Right.

That's why we have ratings. 'Cause they mean nothing.

Got it...

Ratings are a good try. Don't let them rule your opinion of others.

I agree. Using ratings to dertimine someone elses' personality and/or mental capabilities is incorrect at best.

However, ratings are normally a good indicator of your chess skill, providing you play regularly.

Perhaps I'm just underrated then, because I tend to beat people of all strengths without a problem. I think out of my last 6 games, 5 of them were against someone higher rated than me.

ekoarak238

Oct 11, 2015

0

#31

Online, or in real life..

Aquarius550

Oct 11, 2015

0

#32

You can check my last 6 games for yourself. None of them are over 40 moves and all of them are wins ^_^

thegreat_patzer

Oct 11, 2015

0

#33

Ok, Mr op, let me put it this way.

suppose you say "Playing a Great opening is a guarenteed win, just about all the time..." (which I don't agree with, BTW)- you dig out your games and show me game after game where the you blitz'd the opponent and overwhelmed your opponent.

I now share, my own collection, game after sorry game where after wining the opening- and getting a peice- I lose to a sloppy attack.

words occur. you tell me I suck,I call you boastful and ignorant. the mods step in. yahoo, I've spent a whole hour getting to unleash on an oline guy.

I get muted. perhaps you do too.

whats the Point?!? its a waste of valuable time. its all fun till someone gets muted.

I'm not that kind of guy. if your winning your rating will increase. if you play OTB international chess, you get a title, and there'll be, perhaps a little MORE respect of your opinion. but then perhaps not.

the whole rating arguement is silly. and so are online fights.

Roberta-Baggio

Oct 11, 2015

0

#34

well it will not work so well if you are playing someone reasonably higher rated!

Roberta-Baggio

Oct 11, 2015

0

#35

these guys on here know their chess though, bobby only had 3 years at the top.

Roberta-Baggio

Oct 11, 2015

0

#36

his openings worked, as much as you might like to deny it.

zborg

Oct 11, 2015

0

#37

BettorOffSingle wrote:

I've beaten 2100s in the ICC 1 0 pool (that's about 2450 USCF/FIDE) with the "Reverse Ponz" and the Jaenisch Gambit.

Fritz could crush the world champion with the Reverse Ponz. Fact is, humans just suck at chess. That's why Fritz is my coach. He's 3300 and never talks.

You've started 10 thread in 10 days, and haven't played a single game.

You love to type aimlessly, and with verve ??

Pehaps you should take your cue from Fritz, as per your many postings ?

Roberta-Baggio

Oct 11, 2015

0

#38

are the threads any good ?

Roberta-Baggio

Oct 11, 2015

0

#39

there are numerous effective methods. but can we agree that the better you are in the opening the better your results will be, not that you mustn't learn tactics and strategies and endgames also.

remember that Anand beat Carlsen in a WC game with a single move opening novelty ?

Radical_Drift

Oct 11, 2015

0

#40

Enter-The-Tuna wrote:

there are numerous effective methods. but can we agree that the better you are in the opening the better your results will be, not that you mustn't learn tactics and strategies and endgames also.

remember that Anand beat Carlsen in a WC game with a single move opening novelty ?

Anand only won that game because of his impeccable technique. Carlsen played extremely well after the 20 move mark and eventually messed up in time trouble. Anand could not have won if he didn't have the calculational ability to finish the job.