lichess.org
Donate

Quote me egocentric openings

Hello person, I am a novice player (rating below 1500), so I don't have much commitment to make good bidding games or study chess seriously. I like openings with tricks, with several differences. The one I find most efficient is the Grob aperture (1.g4), could you name some egocentric openings for me to play? Something that has at least a little theory, why going out playing H4 and E4 like Lella Nice is complicated hahaha. thank you.
Budapest for Black against d4.
Scotch Gambit for White.
Forget the Latvian and Elephant.
Actually the Halloween Gambit for White can be quite deadly, at our level, in spite of what is said about it.
You MUST learn the Blackburne-Shilling gambit against typical white's e4 opening.
Bueno suerte' Viva Royce G.
No, that sounds like, get them out of the book fast so you're on equal ground.
That depends on what is your definition of an <egocentric opening>, but maybe you meant eccentric or unconventional openings, which can fit more in a chess context than a selfish perspective of a technical game that is not bound to egocentricity in my opinion, so with this criterion I'd say you request suggestions for non-typical opening moves that question the rigidity of theoretical rules, but this isn't a wholly new theme in the game my friend, because hypermodernism already considered this matter in the era of Nimzowitsch, Réti, or Alekhine, even if biographical registers quote Alekhine as being egocentric the rules of the game which he had to play with were the same rules kids and elders had, so his outstanding performance was due to innate dexterity with tactics and combinatory calculations but the idea is that his egocentricity didn't apply to understanding of the game as you can see that is mainly a game of logic, so according to this reasoning the variants that are playable from an unconventional criterion can be those that aren't restricted to a set of monotonous planning schemes, what do I mean? That if you play something like: e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Bc5, the scope of planning that you get from that structure in the current standard chess is mostly restricted to the same possible developments from both players that try to get a preponderant control over the central squares and later maybe attacking kingside castled positions, because it's symmetrical, but the principles applied are in fact the same, disregarding any egocentric quality of the players; while if you play something like g3 or f4 as you start with a flank opening then the scope of planning that you get from those moves differ greatly from the character of a symmetrical order of moves, as your opponent may not choose to play in a symmetrical way and play also from the opposite flank or how he understands the chess principles, so the thing is how you understand passivity and activity in the game; but for developing this my brief advice would be that you play following development principles and try gambits in favor of activity, just not only opening moves, and exercise tactics at least once a week to enhance your visualization of combinatory moves even from the opening, cheers
[#5] #1 When you say egocentric openings do you mean openings that are invulnerable ? There are none. I had to look up "egocentric". One thing it said was that egocentric people tend to feel invulnerable. Egocentric people must really have trouble losing a chess game. I wonder if Fischer who was almost obsessed with opening study, was searching for a "invulnerable" opening? :] My Captcha was a cool smother mate!:]
That's why I like to think that losing a game is also learning to play better after a hard fought battle, and winning as learning to avoid mistakes, Fischer was such an unique case, but his legacy endures for our improvement no matter what his 'egocentricity' spoke of him, no invulnerability but great understanding of chess :)

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