what is not clear about " saves a lot of time " ? If you already know the few ways a certain opening can progress then you dont need to analyze it each time you play it.
If you show me where I am wrong I will be the first to admit it but sorry, I dont see it.
About the "less familiar sequence"
Here is a link that is interesting:
This is a fast game and afterwards an interview with G. Kasparov and N. Short. Check what Nigel Short says at 11:10 , (11 minutes 10 seconds) in this video. He says that he beat Kasparov because he used a different strategy, perhaps less familiar and unexpected. This was towards the end game but can maybe be used also in middle game or even opening.
The point being neutralizing the advantage of experience and years of studying games to just matching pure wits and instant strategy with unfamiliar positions.
and sorry, certainly did not mean to offend.
btw , chess purely for the purpose of winning & raising one's rating is one way to look at the game. That requires reading many books and studying games.
If you want a purely cerebral exercise like a puzzle or vidoe game, based purely on strategy and realtime analysis then reading a book about what was previously done or what to do in a certain situation defeats the whole purpose. This is like a weekend sports game where the purpose is to enjoy playing the game.
If you want a purely cerebral exercise like a puzzle or vidoe game, based purely on strategy and realtime analysis then reading a book about what was previously done or what to do in a certain situation defeats the whole purpose.
lol...I have no idea how that purports to make sense.
sorry that was an FM not an IM
Valeri Lilov FM 2900 rating.
This is what i saw
noreaster, I am trying to understand what you meant by "ouch" . do you mean its too complicated to follow? or remember the line ?
royalbishop, I dont understand your post either. You saw Fred Sanford ? where ?
Does anyone else feel this way?
OK, The midgame is fine. Its interesting , usually fast action, fire power: its also related to your reaction time in a live game. Its practically like an arcade game.
But when it comes to openings, you have to read some book or learn from a video. You have to memorize all the different openings and variations. And they are all so BORING. Its like doing homework ! or office work - the preparation is everything. There are no reflexes involved just a good memory. So whats the big deal. If I read one or two opening books for 7 hours and my friend reads for only 1 hour, I am probably going to beat him badly in the opening. So what? I just invested more time in it. I have no personal ability that allowed me to win in the opening. Just my thought.
I don't play on memory--I play on positional principles and development strategies.
Are there weak squares to be exploited? How are the pawn structures? Can a move-order adjustment transpose the game into a more favorable variation?
I recommend getting some books that teach positional ideas of development and also general strategies for improving your position. Books like, "My System" by Nimzo, and "Reassess your Chess" by Silman are good places to start.
Sounds good. Use logic - less need to do homework or memorize.
The importance of opening theory of is missed here.Knowing the fundamentals gives you a better chance of a good Middle Game.