lichess.org
Donate

What to do against a center avoiding opening?

#1
I look for a strategy against all the hypermodern openings where you do not put pawns into the center, fianchetto the bishop and attack only when development is done.
Should I put my center pawns on same or different coloured squares?
Should I even occupy the center at all?
Pawn storm against the early castle with a hook?
What to do with the indirectly pinned rook?
Should I play a hypermodern development in turn?

All ideas I could find are aimed at specific openings and end with the bishops being exchanged (KID). Afterwards, no idea...
#2
Fianchetto bishops are a bit more worth than regular ones. Because of the stabilization factors, not just the direct impact on open diagonals. The source of dynamics. By means of them one can play on the whole board safely. One cannot counter this strategy with some words, even not with a million of them. It‘s pretty concrete.

So give a position and and a suggestion will be given.
#3
You're basically asking the same question as 100 years ago when the hypermodern openings first appeared. Back then, White had too much respect for counterplay against an overextended centre and preferred not to have the pawn duo d4/e4. It was popluar to meet the KID by fianchettoing your own Bishop on g2 or play Bf4 and e3 against the Gruenfeld. Later, people appreciated the dynamic potential of occupying the centre and you saw main lines against the King's Indian starting from 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 or the Exchange against the Gruenfeld 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5. e4 and these remain critical to this day.
As Sargon says, there are multiple openings in this broad category-
KID
Gruenfeld
Modern
Benoni
Benko gambit
Leningrad Dutch

Against each, there are multiple setups available to White and you have to approach this in a concrete way rather than play an universal system against all of them. Perhaps that's why some prefer to avoid all this and play the London System!
#5
I do not have any OTB examples, all I know is that I lack understanding of what to do provided the ability to occupy the center.



This has an opening I do not even know the name of...
I did lose to a tactic (and on review, the e5 pawn does not look that bad), but when playing, my entire (maybe only) thought was "if I do not attack somehow, my blocked double pawns will lose longterms". Although, in my defense, a black e5 would have closed the game down.

So if I understand it, there is no 'general' rule against non commitment? How about general pawn setups (same colour different colour)?

Is the London an opening? I searched in the database, these are wildly different positions.

@kindaspongey , Youtube gives all sorts of 'miracles' against xyz opening. Their ideas against the KID are basically exchange the bishop, and end there.
I have chess books, but these only suggest centralization (written 1925) and some positional play. Did not work for me...
#6
@teachmewell said in #5:
>... all I know is that I lack understanding of what to do provided the ability to occupy the center.
>[1 Nf3 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Bb4 4 a3 ...]
>This has an opening I do not even know the name of... ...
"... You should play the simpler and more adventurous openings, from which you will learn how to use the pieces. Much later on you can go on to the more difficult openings - if you play them now you won't understand what you are doing ... Play the openings beginning [1 e4 e5]. ... if you haven't learnt how to play the open game you won't be able to use positional advantage even if you are able to get it. ..." - C. H. O'D. Alexander and T. J. Beach (1963)
"... If you look at games played by grandmasters, you will sometimes find that White does not start with 1 d2-d4 or 1 e2-e4; instead he plays 1 c2-c4, 1 Ng1-f3 or even some other move. How, you may wonder, does this fit in with what I have been saying above? The answer is that grandmasters are cunning beasts, and starting with 1 c2-c4 or 1 Ng1-f3 doesn't mean that they aren't aiming at controlling the centre -- they are just doing so in a subtle way. ... I would recommend that you avoid these subtle opening systems; they depend on a knowledge of a wide range of openings, and this can only be acquired over a period of time. ..." - Learn Chess by GM John Nunn (2000)
As far as I can tell, in the vast majority of games that reached the position after 3...Bb4, White's choice was 4 Qc2. Not that it is necessarily the end of the world if you choose 4 a3, but the machine sees the position evaluation as closer to level after 4 a3.
@teachmewell said in #5:
>... when playing, my entire (maybe only) thought was "if I do not attack somehow, my blocked double pawns will lose longterms". ...
At lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/how-to-attack, you presented games where you also seemed to me to make reckless attacking decisions. in this case, your position just seemed to progress to greater and greater disadvantage.
"... One should strive for attack, to be sure; but, Steinitz concluded, the attack should begin only when the position is ripe for it. Otherwise the eventual repulsion of the attack will bring with it positive advantages for the opposition. ..." - Euwe and Nunn (1997)
@teachmewell said in #5:
>... on review, the e5 pawn does not look that bad ...
After 4...Bxc3 5 bxc3 c5 6 Qc2 d6 7 d4 Nc6 8 e4 O-O, you chose 9 e5 without any apparent concern that both of your bishops were still at home, and you still had not castled. (Resistance to O-O seemed to be a theme of your other two games, as well.) After 9 e5, the machine sees the position as approximately level. It thinks that 9 Be2 would have been better.
@teachmewell said in #5:
>... Although, in my defense, a black e5 would have closed the game down. ...
After 9 Be2 e5, the machine thinks that you could have continued with 10 d5 and an advantage over .3.
@teachmewell said in #5:
>... I did lose to a tactic ...
I am guessing that you are referring to the moment, after 9 e5 dxe5 10 dxe5 Nd7, when you chose 11 Qe4, still doing nothing about your bishops and rooks on their starting squares. As it happens, the machine thinks that 11 Ng5 would have been particularly strong, but, since you didn't notice that opportunity, 11 Bf4 would have been a reasonable choice.
You made other mistakes later. After 11 Qe4 f5 12 Qf4 Qc7 13 Qg3 Ndxe5, your choice of 14 Bf4 made things much worse, but, even if you had instead chosen 14 Nxe5, the machine thinks that the position would have been over 1.2 in favor of your opponent.
@teachmewell said in #5:
>... So if I understand it, there is no 'general' rule against non commitment? How about general pawn setups (same colour different colour)?
That sounds to me like another attempt to find an overly general rule.
"... Read many annotated game collections ... By looking at entire games, the aspiring player learns about openings, middlegames, and endgames all at one fell swoop. Playing through annotated games spurs improvement as the reader learns how good players consistently handle common positions and problems. ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2007)
web.archive.org/web/20140627062646/https://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman81.pdf
If you want to continue using 1 Nf3 Nf6 2 c4 ..., maybe look at games like the one at www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1292650 .
@teachmewell said in #5:
>Is the London an opening? I searched in the database, these are wildly different positions.
As I understand it, if White goes for the London, Black has many options as to how to respond,
@teachmewell said in #5:
>@kindaspongey , Youtube gives all sorts of 'miracles' against xyz opening. Their ideas against the KID are basically exchange the bishop, and end there.
My own (strong) preference is for reading instead of watching, because I can easily proceed at a pace that is slow enough for me to somewhat understand. Also, books like Opening Repertoire 1 d4 with 2 c4 have room to provide lots of examples ilustrating ideas that might come up throughout the game.
@teachmewell said in #5:
>I have chess books, but these only suggest centralization (written 1925) and some positional play. Did not work for me...
"... I found [the books of Aaron Nimzowitsch to be] very difficult to read or understand. ... [Nimzowitsch: A Reappraisal by Raymond Keene explains his] thinking and influence on the modern game in a far more lucid and accessible way. ... The books that are most highly thought of are not necessarily the most useful. Go with those that you find to be readable. ..." - GM Nigel Davies (2010)
Maybe, try Simple Chess by GM Stean
www.amazon.com/Simple-Chess-New-Algebraic-Dover/dp/0486424200?asin=0486424200&revisionId=&format=4&depth=1
web.archive.org/web/20140708104258/https://www.chesscafe.com/text/review400.pdf
or Simple Attacking Plans.
www.amazon.com/Simple-Attacking-Plans-Fred-Wilson/dp/1936277441?asin=B00NLPJULG&revisionId=ead47e50&format=1&depth=1
web.archive.org/web/20140708090402/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review874.pdf
#7
@kindaspongey said in #6:
>"... You should play the simpler and more adventurous openings, from which you will learn how to use the pieces. Much later on you can go on to the more difficult openings - if you play them now you won't understand what you are doing ... Play the openings beginning [1 e4 e5]. ... if you haven't learnt how to play the open game you won't be able to use positional advantage even if you are able to get it. ..." - C. H. O'D. Alexander and T. J. Beach (1963)
Play equals study first, then play?
Even the standard, known Ruy Lopez theory is 16+ moves long, with who knows how much splitter theory.
Do you really learn all the theory? Or is it preferred to learn ideas? If so, is there a place all these ideas are listed? And what exactly should I 'test' out when playing if the opponent does not play that specific sideline? Another try of categorization, I know...

>"... [...] I would recommend that you avoid these subtle opening systems; they depend on a knowledge of a wide range of openings, and this can only be acquired over a period of time. ..." - Learn Chess by GM John Nunn (2000)
Is this not advocating for knowing one specific opening and always play the same? Like I do...?

>As far as I can tell, in the vast majority of games that reached the position after 3...Bb4, White's choice was 4 Qc2. Not that it is necessarily the end of the world if you choose 4 a3, but the machine sees the position evaluation as closer to level after 4 a3.
Yes, but had black taken, I would have played bxc3 as well. Why not force the bishop pair and open the position? (Because black does not open it...)

>At lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/how-to-attack, you presented games where you also seemed to me to make reckless attacking decisions. in this case, your position just seemed to progress to greater and greater disadvantage.
In hindsight yes, but I have a double pawn blocked by black. What good would it do to have pawns on c3,c4 and e5? And what should I do with the space advantage?
About the reckless attack, that is kind of the only setup I know of how to pose a threat. How does a 'slow', 'methodical' attack work? I think that is a key question here...

>"... One should strive for attack, to be sure; but, Steinitz concluded, the attack should begin only when the position is ripe for it. Otherwise the eventual repulsion of the attack will bring with it positive advantages for the opposition. ..." - Euwe and Nunn (1997)
Yes, but otherwise I lose a long, positional battle against people who have more experience with uncertainty (I make lots of errors in calm positions).

>After 4...Bxc3 5 bxc3 c5 6 Qc2 d6 7 d4 Nc6 8 e4 O-O, you chose 9 e5 without any apparent concern that both of your bishops were still at home, and you still had not castled.

>(Resistance to O-O seemed to be a theme of your other two games, as well.)
Yes...? Resistance to castling is not.. suggested..?
Teach me another setup that vying for a g4 sometime... I think I am overreliant on this (same with openings)

>After 9 e5, the machine sees the position as approximately level. It thinks that 9 Be2 would have been better.
>After 9 Be2 e5, the machine thinks that you could have continued with 10 d5 and an advantage over .3.
That position would be even more closed, with my bishops worse than knights. What features give white this miniscule advantage?

>I am guessing that you are referring to the moment, after 9 e5 dxe5 10 dxe5 Nd7, when you chose 11 Qe4, still doing nothing about your bishops and rooks on their starting squares. As it happens, the machine thinks that 11 Ng5 would have been particularly strong, but, since you didn't notice that opportunity, 11 Bf4 would have been a reasonable choice.
It was an OTB match, I did consider 11. Ng5 g6 12.f4, yet chose not to because this too is a closed position from where (for once and without reason) I considered my open king exposed. [It was ten in the evening, I was clearly not by my clear senses...]

>You made other mistakes later. After 11 Qe4 f5 12 Qf4 Qc7 13 Qg3 Ndxe5, your choice of 14 Bf4 made things much worse, but, even if you had instead chosen 14 Nxe5, the machine thinks that the position would have been over 1.2 in favor of your opponent.
>
>That sounds to me like another attempt to find an overly general rule.
There it is, yes, an overall rule I seek. Otherwise I will spend years trying to memorize lines that I never get the chance to use.
>"... Read many annotated game collections ... By looking at entire games, the aspiring player learns about openings, middlegames, and endgames all at one fell swoop. Playing through annotated games spurs improvement as the reader learns how good players consistently handle common positions and problems. ..."
I have a book collection of games, but is it enough to just read them, or should I simultaniously play in these positions / do something else?

>If you want to continue using 1 Nf3 Nf6 2 c4 ..., maybe look at games like the one at www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1292650 .
>
>My own (strong) preference is for reading instead of watching, because I can easily proceed at a pace that is slow enough for me to somewhat understand. Also, books like Opening Repertoire 1 d4 with 2 c4 have room to provide lots of examples ilustrating ideas that might come up throughout the game.

>[Links to books]
those web.archive websites I could not open. Should I use a vpn?
#8
@teachmewell said in #7:
>... Play equals study first, then play?
>Even the standard, known Ruy Lopez theory is 16+ moves long, with who knows how much splitter theory.
>Do you really learn all the theory? Or is it preferred to learn ideas?
"... As [First Steps: 1 e4 e5 is] a First Steps book, I’ve tried to avoid encyclopaedic coverage. In any case, you certainly don’t need to remember every single variation and all the notes before playing the opening. Take in the first few moves and the key ideas, and then try it out in your games! ..." - GM John Emms (2018)
www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/7790.pdf
"... Review each of your games, identifying opening (and other) mistakes with the goal of not repeatedly making the same mistake. ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2007)
web.archive.org/web/20140627062646/https://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman81.pdf
"... the average player only needs to know a limited amount about the openings he plays. Providing he understands the main aims of the opening, a few typical plans and a handful of basic variations, that is enough. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2008)
@teachmewell said in #7:
>If so, is there a place all these ideas are listed?
Books (such as FCO and Understanding the Chess Openings) have been written in an attempt to provide that sort of information, but I do not think that they are very successful. As the Emms book suggests, ideas are helpfully communicated in the context of complete games.
@teachmewell said in #7:
>And what exactly should I 'test' out when playing if the opponent does not play that specific sideline? Another try of categorization, I know... ...
Most of the time, one faces a position with no knowledge of a specific move indicated in a book. One has to accept that as part of chess, and think of opening knowledge as a sometimes-helpful aid.

@kindaspongey said in #6:
>... "... If you look at games played by grandmasters, you will sometimes find that White does not start with 1 d2-d4 or 1 e2-e4; instead he plays 1 c2-c4, 1 Ng1-f3 or even some other move. How, you may wonder, does this fit in with what I have been saying above? The answer is that grandmasters are cunning beasts, and starting with 1 c2-c4 or 1 Ng1-f3 doesn't mean that they aren't aiming at controlling the centre -- they are just doing so in a subtle way. ... I would recommend that you avoid these subtle opening systems; they depend on a knowledge of a wide range of openings, and this can only be acquired over a period of time. ..." - Learn Chess by GM John Nunn (2000)
@teachmewell said in #7:
>... Is this not advocating for knowing one specific opening and always play the same? Like I do...? ...
As I read it, GM Nunn was advocating that one avoid alternatives to 1 e4 and 1 d4 until one has spent a period of time, acquiring a knowledge of a wide range of openings.

@teachmewell said in #5:
>... when playing, my entire (maybe only) thought was "if I do not attack somehow, my blocked double pawns will lose longterms". ...
@kindaspongey said in #6:
>As far as I can tell, in the vast majority of games that reached the position after [1 Nf3 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Bb4], White's choice was 4 Qc2. Not that it is necessarily the end of the world if you choose 4 a3, but the machine sees the position evaluation as closer to level after 4 a3. ... If you want to continue using 1 Nf3 Nf6 2 c4 ..., maybe look at games like the one at www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1292650 . ...
@teachmewell said in #7:
>... Why not force the bishop pair and open the position? (Because black does not open it...) ...
Unfortunately, neither the machine nor Kramnik is explaining this to me. I am just letting you know what their behavior seems to indicate about the choice of 4th move. In view of your “double pawns” comment in #5, it seemed appropriate to me to note that you apparently had 4 Qc2 as a better alternative to 4 a3. If you are not comfortable with standard choices in an opening, perhaps that is a signal that the opening is not a good choice for you.

@kindaspongey said in #6:
>... At lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/how-to-attack, you presented games where you also seemed to me to make reckless attacking decisions. in this case, your position just seemed to progress to greater and greater disadvantage. ... After 4...Bxc3 5 bxc3 c5 6 Qc2 d6 7 d4 Nc6 8 e4 O-O, you chose 9 e5 without any apparent concern that both of your bishops were still at home, and you still had not castled. (Resistance to O-O seemed to be a theme of your other two games, as well.) After 9 e5, the machine sees the position as approximately level. It thinks that 9 Be2 would have been better. ... After 9 Be2 e5, the machine thinks that you could have continued with 10 d5 and an advantage over .3.
@teachmewell said in #7:
>... I have a double pawn blocked by black.
“... If you ask an amateur player what he thinks of when you say hanging, doubled, backward, or isolated pawns, the most likely response will be ‘a weakness.’ ... If the amateur gets these so called weaknesses, he usually panics because he is not aware of the dynamic potential inherent in all these structures. The simple truth is, it’s impossible to label anything in chess as always being weak. ...” - The Amateur’s Mind (1999) by IM Jeremy Silman
@teachmewell said in #7:
>What good would it do to have pawns on c3,c4 and e5?
I do not think that it did much good, in part, because you played 9 e5 while your bishops and rooks were still on their starting squares.
@teachmewell said in #7:
>And what should I do with the space advantage?
9 Be2 would apparently have been a good start.
@teachmewell said in #7:
>About the reckless attack, that is kind of the only setup I know of how to pose a threat. How does a 'slow', 'methodical' attack work? I think that is a key question here... ...
That is why I have suggested books like Simple Chess and Simple Attacking Plans (by Fred Wilson).

@kindaspongey said in #6:
>... "... One should strive for attack, to be sure; but, Steinitz concluded, the attack should begin only when the position is ripe for it. Otherwise the eventual repulsion of the attack will bring with it positive advantages for the opposition. ..." - Euwe and Nunn (1997) ...
@teachmewell said in #7:
>... Yes, but otherwise I lose a long, positional battle against people who have more experience with uncertainty (I make lots of errors in calm positions). ...
You are not exactly avoiding error in your current attempted attacks. 9 e5 is the sort of thing that makes it more likely that YOU are going to be the one making the errors.
@teachmewell said in #7:
>... Resistance to castling is not.. suggested..?
"... One of the three golden rules of the opening is to ensure king safety. In the majority of cases this means simply tucking up the king safely by castling. However, it's not always quite as simple as that. Sometimes when you castle early you have to be careful not to run into an attack by, say, inviting a pawn storm. Similarly, when the pawn centre is closed and your king is in no immediate danger in the middle of the board, on occasion it pays to keep your options open regarding whether to castle 'short' or 'long'. ..." - Discovering Chess Openings (2006) by GM John Emms
If you play a move like 9 e5, it does not seem that you can expect the center to be closed and your king to continue to be in no immediate danger in the middle of the board.
@teachmewell said in #7:
>Teach me another setup that vying for a g4 sometime... I think I am overreliant on this (same with openings) ...
You could also try looking at The Amateur’s Mind or the Batsford edition of The Most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played by Chernev.
@teachmewell said in #7:
>... [The position after 9 Be2 e5 10 d5] would be even more closed, with my bishops worse than knights. What features give white this miniscule [(over .3)] advantage? ...
The machine isn’t talking, but lots of authorities discuss the danger of opening the center with your king in the middle of the board and a largely undeveloped army.
@kindaspongey said in #6:
>... the machine thinks that [after 9 e5 dxe5 10 dxe5 Nd7] 11 Ng5 would have been particularly strong, but, since you didn't notice that opportunity, 11 Bf4 would have been a reasonable choice. ...
@teachmewell said in #7:
>... It was an OTB match, I did consider 11. Ng5 g6 12.f4, yet chose not to because this too is a closed position from where (for once and without reason) I considered my open king exposed. [It was ten in the evening, I was clearly not by my clear senses...] ...
After 11 Ng5 g6, the machine favors 12 h4.
#9
@teachmewell said in #5:
>... So if I understand it, there is no 'general' rule against non commitment? How about general pawn setups (same colour different colour)? ...
@kindaspongey said in #6:
>... That sounds to me like another attempt to find an overly general rule. ...
@teachmewell said in #7:
>... There it is, yes, an overall rule I seek. Otherwise I will spend years trying to memorize lines that I never get the chance to use. ...
As far as I know, there is no general rule for the color of pawn setups. I guess there is the thing about not keeping the pawns on the same color as the bishop. Maybe that is what you are looking for. My impression is that most amateur chess players function somehow or other without spending years trying to memorize lines that are never used.
@teachmewell said in #7:
>... I have a book collection of games, but is it enough to just read them, or should I simultaniously play in these positions / do something else? ...
"... I suggest a norm of getting out a chessboard, playing each move, reading what the author has to say about the move, and then making the next move. At this rate, it should only take 20-40 minutes to play over an annotated game. [It is not absolutely necessary to play out all the analysis lines.] I would play out any analysis line that answers a question you don’t understand. ... (use a separate board for analysis moves if that makes things easier or quicker) ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2005)
web.archive.org/web/20140627023809/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman50.pdf
@teachmewell said in #7:
>... [Links to books]
>those web.archive websites I could not open. Should I use a vpn?
I know almost nothing about links. I think that it sometimes helps if one uses a computer instead of a phone. Anyway, the archive links were to reviews of the books. You can find out some information about the books by online investigation.
#10
The exact precise way you play in the opening against hypermodern setups will not decide whether you win or lose.

The main thing about hypermodern setups is they're very non-threatening in the opening. If you follow general opening principles you are very unlikely to get destroyed out of the opening even if you don't know any theory. So you can basically play anything within reason (usually 3 pawns in the center is standard, but not required) and get a playable position. It's what you do later that matters

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.