19656 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Backgammon, Yatzy, and more!
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Created on October 14, 2011 |
8081 Votes | 40 Comments
here's my new comment
now i know them all the way up 'til, it's on....
I know the alapin sicilian for 13 moves
main lines don't work for me. the other player is not going to go alone with the whole thing. 2-3 move and it's onnnnn.
2-3 max, seeing as though I don't actually have any favourite opening lines. Seriously, you can be a very reasonable player without knowing any opening theory whatsoever.
Sicilian Dragon Yuoslav Attack 15+ moves deep, rest 5-15
vienna game to the mate :D
nice to see that
Marshall Gambit, about 15ish moves deep.
I know most of my openings5-15 moves
I know the queen's gambit accepted and declined 10-15 and 1...Nf6 lines, slav, tarrasch, and many others very deeply.
Interesting - and thanks for the 'suggestion[?]' ...
But could it possibly be then, that next time you try to get your 'idea' across, you speak in layman's English? - thanks ...
Well I could care less about your 'Traxler Attack' - I think it's rather unsound anyways ... What you don't seem to understand is that any opening variation will inevitably be susceptible to the possibility for some varying degree of attacking chance, both towards that of Black or White, in any phase of the game - either within or out of the variation so chosen.
No one opening [variation] is [yet] 'perfected' enough to safely draw by either side within the realm of opening theory. Safe as it sounds though, in a 'perfect' world, chess would be a meaningless exercise to all who dare to refute its [current] codified 'key' to otherwise play on for some kind of pyrrhic victory. And only then - should the time ever come[?!] - will memory be of any use in the recording of those opening variations [along with its games] which produce the quickest draws for all to bear witness as mere entertainment, as the game lays within some museum, to be invited once more towards a revived resurrection.
But until that day comes (which only appears apparent to approaching, though if in fact ever will[?] ... ), we can only settle with yet continuing our course of confining ourselves to muddle on with our [still] limited approach of the game through the phase of opening 'theory', only hoping to stumble upon some conclusively defining reply/move for either Black or White, either of which [may] lead to a won or drawn game result. But as it currently stands now, even with a duplication of an exact sequence of moves within a particular variation in question - played by either side - will only produce an inconclusive game result, leaving us to question whether the face value of opening 'theory' is not only just that[!], but something to be left alone to the memory bank for all our chess databases to merely entertain themselves with ...
So in this end then, what we can at least say of our efforts up to now behind opening exploration, or 'theory' (whether our attempts in theory are not only 'justified' in finding the best moves/replies for both White/Black, or more reserved towards discovering some obscure variation[s] which ultimately leads to always producing the chess theorist's highest dreams for any desired [won/drawn] game result - i.e. cracking the game's secret 'code'), is that it has only represented thus far something of a misnomer in relation within its field for applicable 'scientific' value. Perhaps then, the term should be abandoned altogether for keepsake, replacing it with: 'The Definitive Memorandum of Modern Opening Anomalies [Handbook]' - as chess is, still largely - yet! - a game of chance for trial and error.
And that's the way 'I' see it! ...
I voted 4-6. Mostly because I change my openings often so I also often forget the theory. In a game though I can play 20+ moves of theory but that is only because I have just prepared for it a few hours before.
2 or3 moves is simply enougn because the difficult of chess
*** This result needs to be analyzed vis-a-vis respondents' ELO. would be interesting to see if a higher ELO group on average calculates farther. One would THINK this is the case. ;)
11 hours ago
6 days ago
13 days ago
3 weeks ago
5 weeks ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2016 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!