When you want to develop a certain opening but the opponent/cpu responds with some strange(?) replies not covered in the opening replies explained. What do you do with it? Keep developing your opening you intended or find another response and forget about your opening strategy you had in mind?
abide by general opening principles and be mindful of what they might be planning.
The reason it is strange often is because it is not one of the best moves in the position. That means it is a way to get an advantage. You cannot prepare all this weird moves, but rather look at the patterns. For ex you have prepared say a King's Indian Attack, but already in blacks first move you are out of book. 1. Nf3 Nc6 {Black is aiming for e5 and an open game} 2. d4! {You do not allow e5 and in some lines treathens d5 with gain of tempi and space} ...d5 {We are now in a Chigorin defence, a d4 opening where black has played his knight in front of the pawn on c7, witch is not the best in d4 openings} = white has an advantage :)
The point is, try to take advantage of your opponents move if you know it is not the best. In Queen's Pawns openings is is usually a bad idea to put your knight in front of your c-pawn.
The point is, try to take advantage of your opponents move if you know it is not the best. In Queen's Pawns openings is is usually a bad idea to put your knight in front of your c-pawn.
Or you should give Chess 960 a try, because there are 960 distinct starting position, so the emphasis is more on improvisation and general principles than memorisation. :)
#2 is correct, I think. Just play according to general opening principles. If I play anonymously, I simply abandon a game after moves such as 1.h4 or 1.a3. Nobody has time for that nonsense.
@NorwegianHobbyPlayer
I wholeheartedly disagree, most of the time these "strange" lines are as correct as fashionable lines so one should give them the respect of the fashionable lines. Figuring out how to give up preconceptions and "just play chess" is one of the hallmarks of a good player. Good players don't need guiding principles, good players don't need landmarks, good players evaluate based on the immediate truth. There will always be tactics, find them and you will begin to understand a position's truth.
I wholeheartedly disagree, most of the time these "strange" lines are as correct as fashionable lines so one should give them the respect of the fashionable lines. Figuring out how to give up preconceptions and "just play chess" is one of the hallmarks of a good player. Good players don't need guiding principles, good players don't need landmarks, good players evaluate based on the immediate truth. There will always be tactics, find them and you will begin to understand a position's truth.
@UloseTheGame
So tell me, why does most decent players have a repertoire? :)
Good players is players that have played by guiding principels mostly there whole career? But you are somewhat right. As Magnus Carlsen said, just sitting with the board and play yourself make your feel for the game better.
BTW, by experience I belive it is easier to play against the chigorin then, say the slav or QGD.
And to understand the truth in chess in weird. Most players should play practicle chess, meaning moves that will set your opponent in a challange. Either positional or tactical. To follow the main line for 20-30 moves is not playing chess, it is basicly repeating moves that have been figuered out by masters to be the best and played many times before.
I played moves like b3 and f4 earlier in my career. That worked great against players at my level at the time, but when I played better opponents I realiced the opening were to riscky. Playing unusual opening can be quite good, but stronger opponent may punish you for that.
Back to Magnus Carlsen: He is WC and known for "just playing chess". But to do so, he learns (I guess) all the theory about the game, studies other games (I belive he said he remember about 10 000 games) and do definetly prepare for games.
So tell me, why does most decent players have a repertoire? :)
Good players is players that have played by guiding principels mostly there whole career? But you are somewhat right. As Magnus Carlsen said, just sitting with the board and play yourself make your feel for the game better.
BTW, by experience I belive it is easier to play against the chigorin then, say the slav or QGD.
And to understand the truth in chess in weird. Most players should play practicle chess, meaning moves that will set your opponent in a challange. Either positional or tactical. To follow the main line for 20-30 moves is not playing chess, it is basicly repeating moves that have been figuered out by masters to be the best and played many times before.
I played moves like b3 and f4 earlier in my career. That worked great against players at my level at the time, but when I played better opponents I realiced the opening were to riscky. Playing unusual opening can be quite good, but stronger opponent may punish you for that.
Back to Magnus Carlsen: He is WC and known for "just playing chess". But to do so, he learns (I guess) all the theory about the game, studies other games (I belive he said he remember about 10 000 games) and do definetly prepare for games.
#6 Figuring out how to give up preconceptions and "just play chess" is one of the hallmarks of a good player.
The question is, how does one find out if the good player is 'just playing' and has given up 'preconceptions'. With the exception of a few, most 'decent' chess players were basically spoon fed Nimzowitsch My System one way or the other. The appearance of some GM's to have given up preconceptions and 'just play' does not rule out them actually following these preconceptions, be it in such a way that it appears to be second nature to them. Even club players will not actively appeal to the chess theory they have learned over the years, yet when analysing the game afterwards it indeed seems they fall back on their theoretical background. This theoretical background will always be a version of Nimzowitsch's My System, as that is the present-day paradigm in which chess is played.
This is a very interesting discussion actually. It supervenes on the philosophical discussion between Wittgenstein's notion of 'blindly' following rules and Saul Kripke's, who is of the opinion that a rule is always followed one way or the other, for a rule functions as a guideline in our everyday actions.
The question is, how does one find out if the good player is 'just playing' and has given up 'preconceptions'. With the exception of a few, most 'decent' chess players were basically spoon fed Nimzowitsch My System one way or the other. The appearance of some GM's to have given up preconceptions and 'just play' does not rule out them actually following these preconceptions, be it in such a way that it appears to be second nature to them. Even club players will not actively appeal to the chess theory they have learned over the years, yet when analysing the game afterwards it indeed seems they fall back on their theoretical background. This theoretical background will always be a version of Nimzowitsch's My System, as that is the present-day paradigm in which chess is played.
This is a very interesting discussion actually. It supervenes on the philosophical discussion between Wittgenstein's notion of 'blindly' following rules and Saul Kripke's, who is of the opinion that a rule is always followed one way or the other, for a rule functions as a guideline in our everyday actions.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.