that is my problem too.
The Working Mind when Facing an Inferior Opening
Sort:
Find out what the opening is called and look it up on Wikipedia. For most openings, they will tell you what the main line is, and how to best proceed. Study the opening so that you'll know how to handle it.
Of course, just because an opening is not often played doesn't mean it is inferior. You will still have to know how to refute it.
Niven42 wrote:
Of course, just because an opening is not often played doesn't mean it is inferior. You will still have to know how to refute it.
I understand that just because it is unorthodox, it does not mean it is inferior, yet, I sometimes still get annoyed when my opponent play something like, say, double fianchetto (g3,b3, Bg2, Bb2).
Unorthodox openings, as you call them, in most cases are gambits. Most are actually very sound in their objectivel. If you move out for the "quick attack", more than likely, you're snatching sacraficed material (usually pawns) while your opponent is gaining space and position. This is EXACTLY what your gambit opponents wants you to do. At the same time, you're probably violating sound chess princeples by:
1. Moving the same piece two or more times in the opening slowing down your development
2. Not focusing on controlling the middle
3. More interested in capturing pieces instead of squares
Play sound chess, and you'll avoid falling into gambits and gambit traps. I know they sometimes look irresitable, (see the danish gambit) but they should be resisted. Play the board, not the pieces.
Good Luck
ReLentLess5150 wrote:
Unorthodox openings, as you call them, in most cases are gambits. Most are actually very sound in their objectivel.
Good Luck
thx for ur reply, but that it is not what I mean by 'unorthdox' openings. By unorthodox, I mean openings which are self created, sound but looks dead passive (for example, not long ago, my opponent played e6 followed by d6) , or simply sound but looks dead passive.
Well...I don't really know if my rating only happens to be move than there's
But I always end up playing against people around my rating and as soon as my rating suddenly jumps to be head of them by 50+ points,
I feel as if its impossible for me not to win the game
And then I find myself staring down the edge of my own sword -_-'
ogerboy wrote:
Niven42 wrote:
Of course, just because an opening is not often played doesn't mean it is inferior. You will still have to know how to refute it.
I understand that just because it is unorthodox, it does not mean it is inferior, yet, I sometimes still get annoyed when my opponent play something like, say, double fianchetto (g3,b3, Bg2, Bb2).
That followed by e3, d3, Ne2 and Nd2 would be a reversed Hippo. Played by several World champions and strong Grandmasters as Black including Borris Spassky. So try to crush it at your peril.
atomichicken wrote:
ogerboy wrote:
Niven42 wrote:
Of course, just because an opening is not often played doesn't mean it is inferior. You will still have to know how to refute it.
I understand that just because it is unorthodox, it does not mean it is inferior, yet, I sometimes still get annoyed when my opponent play something like, say, double fianchetto (g3,b3, Bg2, Bb2).
That followed by e3, d3, Ne2 and Nd2 would be a reversed Hippo. Played by several World champions and strong Grandmasters as Black including Borris Spassky.
Say what?
The problem you’re having is that you’re assuming that unorthodox openings are tactically lost; viz. rushing out for a quick attack. Our lightning-speed access to top-flight chess analysis via the internet and databases allows us to assess various openings as superior or inferior; however, most of these superiority/inferiority judgments have been made by top-class grandmasters who are capable of capitalizing on almost infinitesimal positional concessions made by their opponents. Most openings that are “unorthodox” are not forced losses, but positionally inferior lines that a GM could exploit…but it may be significantly more difficult for you or I to “refute” our opponents’ choices.
ogerboy wrote:
atomichicken wrote:
ogerboy wrote:
Niven42 wrote:
Of course, just because an opening is not often played doesn't mean it is inferior. You will still have to know how to refute it.
I understand that just because it is unorthodox, it does not mean it is inferior, yet, I sometimes still get annoyed when my opponent play something like, say, double fianchetto (g3,b3, Bg2, Bb2).
That followed by e3, d3, Ne2 and Nd2 would be a reversed Hippo. Played by several World champions and strong Grandmasters as Black including Borris Spassky.
Say what?
What don't you understand?
I find these sort of postings humorous. I play primarily the Reti, the English, and the Nizmo-Larsen right now. I discovered the Reti a number of years ago after reading an article on ChessCafe about the 1924 New York Tournament, and got hooked on the hypermodern school.
Two of the three openings are looked upon as "inferior," yet were first advanced by Grandmasters. Yes, against top flight opposition I'd probably get beat, but frankly, I don't play that many Grandmaster or even Master level opposition. But you ought to see the faces of most folks I play otb against. I make my first move and you can just see the utter bafflement on their faces. That look is worth the extra effort it takes to win, and I win more often than I lose. And frankly, I enjoy the challenges of playing them so even when I lose, I have fun. And let's face it, it is a game. It's supposed to be fun. I doubt very much you're encountering that many folks here who are playing the game for a livng.
And oft time it leads to interesting post game discussions over the opening. Unfortunately in many correspondence games I play, the opponents often quit after I make my first move, particularly when playing on chess sites where games can be deleted in their early stages without penalty. It's sad.
Underminer wrote:
I find these sort of postings humorous. I play primarily the Reti, the English, and the Nizmo-Larsen right now. I discovered the Reti a number of years ago after reading an article on ChessCafe about the 1924 New York Tournament, and got hooked on the hypermodern school.
Two of the three openings are looked upon as "inferior," yet were first advanced by Grandmasters. Yes, against top flight opposition I'd probably get beat, but frankly, I don't play that many Grandmaster or even Master level opposition. But you ought to see the faces of most folks I play otb against. I make my first move and you can just see the utter bafflement on their faces. That look is worth the extra effort it takes to win, and I win more often than I lose. And frankly, I enjoy the challenges of playing them so even when I lose, I have fun. And let's face it, it is a game. It's supposed to be fun. I doubt very much you're encountering that many folks here who are playing the game for a livng.
And oft time it leads to interesting post game discussions over the opening. Unfortunately in many correspondence games I play, the opponents often quit after I make my first move, particularly when playing on chess sites where games can be deleted in their early stages without penalty. It's sad.
The Reti and English aren't looked upon as "inferior" even at the highest level..
atomichicken wrote:
ogerboy wrote:
atomichicken wrote:
ogerboy wrote:
Niven42 wrote:
Of course, just because an opening is not often played doesn't mean it is inferior. You will still have to know how to refute it.
I understand that just because it is unorthodox, it does not mean it is inferior, yet, I sometimes still get annoyed when my opponent play something like, say, double fianchetto (g3,b3, Bg2, Bb2).
That followed by e3, d3, Ne2 and Nd2 would be a reversed Hippo. Played by several World champions and strong Grandmasters as Black including Borris Spassky.
Say what?
What don't you understand?
no i understand - just shocked *speechless* 
each player is unique combination of strengths and weaknesses. use you strengths maybe and be aware of your weakneses. i know that whenever i go on auto pilot, i lose. i lose often!
atomichicken wrote:
The Reti and English aren't looked upon as "inferior" even at the highest level..
You wouldn't know it from the reactions of the people I've played them against. My theory is that with sufficient study and understanding, any opening system can get you into the middle game in decent shape. I just finished winning a correspondence game playing the Nizmo-Larsen. And I've just taken up that opening after reading Odessky's "Play 1. b3!"
Actually the English doesn't really get much of a reaction from folks I play against, but I still get looks of disbelief when I open 1. Nf3. I don't know why, since from what I've garnered from looking it up online, it is actually the third most popular opening.
Underminer wrote:
atomichicken wrote:
The Reti and English aren't looked upon as "inferior" even at the highest level..
Actually the English doesn't really get much of a reaction from folks I play against, but I still get looks of disbelief when I open 1. Nf3. I don't know why, since from what I've garnered from looking it up online, it is actually the third most popular opening.
My ancient copy of Batsford Chess Opening by GM Raymond Keene and Gary Kasparov give black equality after a series of move against the Reti - yet I find it to be perfectly playable.
By the way, I always thought that 1.c4 was the third most popular opening?
I find playing against the flank openings (English,Reti,b3,g3,etc.) to be very tricky. I wouldn't call them better or worse than more 'mainstream' openings (e4,d4) but they can be very tricky. I recently played a game,http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=14558648, in which my opponent played Nf3,g3 and Bg2. I played d5,c5 and Nc6 not realizing that after d4! I was left with the choices of playing a reverse Grunfeld which seems incredibly dangerous or going into a line of the Tarrasch QGD, something I never play as black. I won the game in the end but I feel that my opponent outplayed me in the opening as far as steering the position away from what I was comfortable with. Those types of transpositions are very typical of the flank openings and one of the reasons they can be so dangerous. As far as resisting the quick attack, it would probably help to study the games of the great positional players and concentrate on the 'themes' they focus on in their games(i.e.Steintz, Capablanca, Petrosian, Karpov, etc.) When you start seeing less speculative ways to win games you will find it easier to resist the impule to head for unclear complications.
threat_of_mate wrote:
The problem you’re having is that you’re assuming that unorthodox openings are tactically lost; viz. rushing out for a quick attack. Our lightning-speed access to top-flight chess analysis via the internet and databases allows us to assess various openings as superior or inferior; however, most of these superiority/inferiority judgments have been made by top-class grandmasters who are capable of capitalizing on almost infinitesimal positional concessions made by their opponents. Most openings that are “unorthodox” are not forced losses, but positionally inferior lines that a GM could exploit…but it may be significantly more difficult for you or I to “refute” our opponents’ choices.
Well spoken!
Whenever I face an unorthodox/what seems to be inferior opening, I always feel that it is my job to punish my opponent by having a quick win. So, I rush out to a quick attack, only to resign a few moves later.
Perhaps I should also add that whenever I try to control myself (getting only a modest centre, instead of pawns on e4,d4,c4,f4 etc), I still can't help but to go out for a quick attack in certainly the wrong conditions.
Has anyone else faced this problem? Is there anyway to overcome this?