@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.