I always play this against the French. It's a risky gambit and the compensation is not enough, but in the time pressure of blitz you can really make them regret playing the French.
Theory ruins chess
Sort:
Aug 17, 2022
0
#43
Blunder_Wizard wrote:
nMsALpg wrote:
If you don't even know 10 moves of the advance French as a 2000 player...
But anyway, all skills (not just chess) involve study and memorization. I think the title should be "Theory makes it harder, and I'm lazy"
Does it matter how someone reaches a specific rating? If they got there with less theory, it just means they made up for it by being better at tactics.
Also that's a lazy excuse to justify theory. Chess is already full of memorization, you memorize patters to improve pattern recognition, different ideas to make use of them in suitable positions.
But out of these types of learning, mindlessly memorising lines of opening theory is by far the most passive, and least fun way to learn. Why should I not be allowed to complain about it?
Now that I got 2000 rapid I realize 2000 rapid is like 1500 blitz, so now I know.
Before that I was thinking you were more or less 2000 blitz strength, sorry about that.
And yeah, openings are boring to me. I didn't bother trying to make a repertoire until I was 1800 OTB. Before that I was changing my openings tournament to tournament and even game to game (in between rounds asking my friend what I should play in my next game).
You need "opening theory" to inform you that moving a misplaced bishop for the third time in ten moves with no other pieces developed, to the side of the board, when there's no concrete attack possible - is not the best plan?
No you don't. This wasn't a failure of theory; in fact the game is arguably off-book at move 6.
You're rated high enough that you obviously and definitely know this, so I'm not sure why you're posting other than to tell us the almost certain real answer to the question:
> I was simply tired