Bird's Opening Study

@GLSmyth said in #19:
> I think you see my point. The study is not for Masters, it is for club players. Statistics in the Masters database have no relevance in this situation.

Studying is for improving, And as you see, the better you get, The more useless becomes.


> Studying the opening may be a waste of time for you, but apparently not for your opponents, who have a winning record against you when playing it. I would offer that as evidence that there just might be something there for those who do study it.

I stopped studying 20 years ago. When you use me as a measure stick, you have gone wrong already.
You are the one not getting the point. People who have been around for a long time are giving you advice so you dont follow their mistakes and actually improve.

@NickUK1969
> You can play the line 1. f4 e5 2. fxe5 Nc6 3. Nf3 g5!?
> and things get very spicey....great for people who like chaos
I don't understand. White seems solid after 4.d4 g4; why do you think this is chaos? Do you have any examples of games following your continuation? I would very much like to see.

@Alientcp
> When you use me as a measure stick, you have gone wrong already.
What? Then who is the measuring stick? Who is this 'you' that doesn't need to study this line and who may simply 'wing it' at the board? What is their rating here on Lichess?

@KingRod said in #24:
> @Alientcp
>
> What? Then who is the measuring stick? Who is this 'you' that doesn't need to study this line and who may simply 'wing it' at the board? What is their rating here on Lichess?

Facing irregular and not known positions forcces you to think and to sharpen your positional and tactical skills.
Regurgitating theory doesnt.

There is a vast difference between studying and practicing. Studying is to acquire new useful knowledge. Practicing is to maintain the level of your already known knowledge and tactical awareness..

The study does not provide useful knowledge in the long run, studying something not useful is detrimental to your chess improvement and it may become a habit, which is the worst possible scenario.

So, playing a practice game is the better option of the 2 given.

@KingRod said in #23:
> @NickUK1969
>
> I don't understand. White seems solid after 4.d4 g4; why do you think this is chaos? Do you have any examples of games following your continuation? I would very much like to see.
Don't you have access to a database?

@Alientcp said in #22:
> When you use me as a measure stick, you have gone wrong already.
> You are the one not getting the point.

My point, which you did not address, was that you said, "Its just that the opening is bad. Its not worth studying it." I pointed out that this "bad" opening has defeated you more times than you have won against it. You claim that one should not study chess, but do so from a position of failure.

So what you are basically saying is that you do not study, feel that the opening is crap, and to support your statement show that you usually lose against it.

Perhaps you are right in that you should not be used as a measuring stick for anyone.

#22:

> I stopped studying 20 years ago.

This thread is about a "study", so what are you even doing here? You don't have to comment on everything, ESPECIALLY an opening you're not interested in.

@NickUK1969 Yes, but having to sift through every game trying find one with what you classify as 'chaos' would be silly since I can ask you instead; I thought you might have had a game in mind. So do you?

@KingRod said in #29:
> @NickUK1969 Yes, but having to sift through every game trying find one with what you classify as 'chaos' would be silly since I can ask you instead; I thought you might have had a game in mind. So do you?
Messingbird v Harcourt - Harrogate club championship U1500 league 1997