I personally wouldn't recommend castling into checkmate
@kindaspongey said in #30:
> "... For players with very limited experience, I recommend using openings in which the play can be clarified at an early stage, often with a degree of simplification. To accomplish this safely will take a little study, because you will have to get used to playing with open lines for both sides' pieces, but you can't eliminate risk entirely in the opening anyway. ... teachers all over the world suggest that inexperienced players begin with 1 e4. ... You will undoubtedly see the reply 1 ... e5 most often when playing at or near a beginner's level, ... After 2 Nf3, 2 ... Nc6 will occur in the bulk of your games. ... I recommend taking up the classical and instructive move 3 Bc4 at an early stage. Then, against 3 ... Bc5, it's thematic to try to establish the ideal centre by 4 c3 and 5 d4; after that, things can get complicated enough that you need to take a look at some theory and learn the basics; ... Of course, you can also play 1 d4 ... A solid and more-or-less universal set-up is 2 Nf3 and 3 Bf4, followed in most cases by 4 e3, 5 Be2 and 6 0-0. I'd rather see my students fight their way through open positions instead; however, if you're not getting out of the opening alive after 1 e4, this method of playing 1 d4 deserves consideration. ... a commonly suggested 'easy' repertoire for White with 1 Nf3 and the King's Indian Attack ... doesn't lead to an open game or one with a clear plan for White. Furthermore, it encourages mechanical play. Similarly, teachers sometimes recommend the Colle System ..., which can also be played too automatically, and usually doesn't lead to an open position. For true beginners, the King's Indian Attack and Colle System have the benefit of offering a safe position that nearly guarantees passage to some kind of playable middlegame; they may be a reasonable alternative if other openings are too intimidating. But having gained even a small amount of experience, you really should switch to more open and less automatic play. ..." - IM John Watson in a section of his 2010 book, Mastering the Chess Openings, Volume 4
bro wrote an essay
> "... For players with very limited experience, I recommend using openings in which the play can be clarified at an early stage, often with a degree of simplification. To accomplish this safely will take a little study, because you will have to get used to playing with open lines for both sides' pieces, but you can't eliminate risk entirely in the opening anyway. ... teachers all over the world suggest that inexperienced players begin with 1 e4. ... You will undoubtedly see the reply 1 ... e5 most often when playing at or near a beginner's level, ... After 2 Nf3, 2 ... Nc6 will occur in the bulk of your games. ... I recommend taking up the classical and instructive move 3 Bc4 at an early stage. Then, against 3 ... Bc5, it's thematic to try to establish the ideal centre by 4 c3 and 5 d4; after that, things can get complicated enough that you need to take a look at some theory and learn the basics; ... Of course, you can also play 1 d4 ... A solid and more-or-less universal set-up is 2 Nf3 and 3 Bf4, followed in most cases by 4 e3, 5 Be2 and 6 0-0. I'd rather see my students fight their way through open positions instead; however, if you're not getting out of the opening alive after 1 e4, this method of playing 1 d4 deserves consideration. ... a commonly suggested 'easy' repertoire for White with 1 Nf3 and the King's Indian Attack ... doesn't lead to an open game or one with a clear plan for White. Furthermore, it encourages mechanical play. Similarly, teachers sometimes recommend the Colle System ..., which can also be played too automatically, and usually doesn't lead to an open position. For true beginners, the King's Indian Attack and Colle System have the benefit of offering a safe position that nearly guarantees passage to some kind of playable middlegame; they may be a reasonable alternative if other openings are too intimidating. But having gained even a small amount of experience, you really should switch to more open and less automatic play. ..." - IM John Watson in a section of his 2010 book, Mastering the Chess Openings, Volume 4
bro wrote an essay
Wow these openings are the oposite of the best openings these openings are weired
As a last resort, you might still be able to play chess for its most enjoyable aspect: the things we can move on the board in various configurations to test their solidity as answering yourself on the board your very question, with the help of various human opponenent doing their part with half the things on board, so you don't have to discover everything alone all the time.
But you need to have a mature ego, and value reasoning over knowledge as your holy grail of strategies to master. And some aloof attitude with respect to rating gain rewards. I mean some games take a month to complete. So you must find intrinsic rewards before such remote consequence. It makes each position possibly its own entertainment or daily reward.
speed of execution is not a currency to leverage at all. But experience and mecanisitic knowledge based on the position information at hand, are still there as a long term challenge or wilderness to discover as often as you might be practicing chess in that category.
Also, need some intrinsic motivation for chess board positions and their possible relation with each other, even if there was no social competition reward ever, conceivable. Such psychological make up, or chosen attitude might help you understand, what I might be spamming here.
I might not be alone. Viewing chess that way. But I do exist, and like to share my subjective chess learner data point. Who knows, you might be at that despairing point given all the answers. Do not. There is still some chess hidden under the brouhaha, that might make your mental torture a distant memory of when you did not know better.
You would not need to even know the zoology of named opening sequences or their branching segments, you would have direct visual access to the positions that they visit while vrooming through their alternating side move rapid fire sequence (for those chained by such requirement before getting to play the chess that is on the board). You would even know without cognitive overload the accumulated knowledge from our illustrious predecessor throught testing of such hypotheses of continuations from those positions.
Liberating your full cognitive abliiites to concentrate on the the often mentioneds ideas behind the raw sequence knowledge. Here they would really matter. To have them as building block of your reasoning, or trying to test them or find them as you keep playing.
You would really start by getting exposed first to the ideas,. maybe not with words handles, but their actual position information while visited illustriously found opening knowledge branches.
You might want to ask questions around in the same way other time controls end up needing to ask to, but you would do that a lot more early, as not having been thrown to the wolfs of knowledge fighters..
Did I forget to name that category? just in case, since I alreayd spammed too much beyond my fov. Correspondance (Lichess rules).
I wonder why nobody tried to use open books in other more timely categories. I guess we need to let it grow more that tree. Not as replacement of the existing well tried throughout history existing categories.
Well, it might be possible upon some honro code within the correspondance, but that would need some displine.. and split brain about timers not being in syncs. or doubly verifiable.
But you need to have a mature ego, and value reasoning over knowledge as your holy grail of strategies to master. And some aloof attitude with respect to rating gain rewards. I mean some games take a month to complete. So you must find intrinsic rewards before such remote consequence. It makes each position possibly its own entertainment or daily reward.
speed of execution is not a currency to leverage at all. But experience and mecanisitic knowledge based on the position information at hand, are still there as a long term challenge or wilderness to discover as often as you might be practicing chess in that category.
Also, need some intrinsic motivation for chess board positions and their possible relation with each other, even if there was no social competition reward ever, conceivable. Such psychological make up, or chosen attitude might help you understand, what I might be spamming here.
I might not be alone. Viewing chess that way. But I do exist, and like to share my subjective chess learner data point. Who knows, you might be at that despairing point given all the answers. Do not. There is still some chess hidden under the brouhaha, that might make your mental torture a distant memory of when you did not know better.
You would not need to even know the zoology of named opening sequences or their branching segments, you would have direct visual access to the positions that they visit while vrooming through their alternating side move rapid fire sequence (for those chained by such requirement before getting to play the chess that is on the board). You would even know without cognitive overload the accumulated knowledge from our illustrious predecessor throught testing of such hypotheses of continuations from those positions.
Liberating your full cognitive abliiites to concentrate on the the often mentioneds ideas behind the raw sequence knowledge. Here they would really matter. To have them as building block of your reasoning, or trying to test them or find them as you keep playing.
You would really start by getting exposed first to the ideas,. maybe not with words handles, but their actual position information while visited illustriously found opening knowledge branches.
You might want to ask questions around in the same way other time controls end up needing to ask to, but you would do that a lot more early, as not having been thrown to the wolfs of knowledge fighters..
Did I forget to name that category? just in case, since I alreayd spammed too much beyond my fov. Correspondance (Lichess rules).
I wonder why nobody tried to use open books in other more timely categories. I guess we need to let it grow more that tree. Not as replacement of the existing well tried throughout history existing categories.
Well, it might be possible upon some honro code within the correspondance, but that would need some displine.. and split brain about timers not being in syncs. or doubly verifiable.
thinking back. I think I might have answered a question implied by yours.
Correspondence is ignorant proof, but it does welcome the learning enabled, reasoning wielding or trying and testing (some imagination flexing too) new comer.
A proof way of surviving the war of knowledge of opening sequences time saving strategy (ideas don't help at execution time, they are needed for when that knowledge specialization advantage strategy becomes insufficient to reach higher levels.
Ask around about various strata of competitive play. The winning advantages of the opening game of knowledge imbalances (in term of sequences that are known to be viable stored for fast retrieval, leaving more time beyond), might lose dominance with a certain level of experience. I might not be as wrong by quacking as I might sound.
Correspondence is ignorant proof, but it does welcome the learning enabled, reasoning wielding or trying and testing (some imagination flexing too) new comer.
A proof way of surviving the war of knowledge of opening sequences time saving strategy (ideas don't help at execution time, they are needed for when that knowledge specialization advantage strategy becomes insufficient to reach higher levels.
Ask around about various strata of competitive play. The winning advantages of the opening game of knowledge imbalances (in term of sequences that are known to be viable stored for fast retrieval, leaving more time beyond), might lose dominance with a certain level of experience. I might not be as wrong by quacking as I might sound.
Wow that is a dumb opening
@TalesAmaral said in #1:
>
You're just asking for someone to solve chess.
What do you mean ilovechess16
>
You're just asking for someone to solve chess.
What do you mean ilovechess16
<Comment deleted by user>
the london is probably the most solid in my opinion
l@J-Jones said in #39:
> the london is probably the most solid in my opinion
nah reverse Sicilian aka english
stonewall also solid
> the london is probably the most solid in my opinion
nah reverse Sicilian aka english
stonewall also solid
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.