- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by greenpawn34Yeah, believe them, they're from Scotland... solid and trustworthy like John Law!
"....the best way to avoid getting mugged is to not walk down
the dark alley in the first place."
Play 1.e4 and soon you will be one of the muggers who dwell in the dark alley.
It's OK. You will be safe. We don't mug each other. No need.
Go and see big M he will tool you up for the Alley.
Morphy will give you the infra-red goggles.
Mieses will give you a cosh.
Marshall will give you soft silent shoes.
Maróczy? He'll give you a blockade to hide behind, safe from those nasty Sicilians...
Richard
Originally posted by nimzo5I think the question is a good one:
It doesn't matter, it is still part of the opening phase. It isn't like you removed blunders from your stats you posted.
Is the opening to be punished because some people use it poorly?
It is a fundamental problem with such stats. As you pointed out earlier, if a great player uses it, then the stats look great! If a poor player uses it, then it looks poor.
My position is that there are very few of us who are after chess' great truth. Most of us are playing for the competition and the fun. Why play 1.b3? Because it is playable and fun.
Perhaps 1.b3 and other openings aren't very good for GM's, but for the rest of us it works just fine. Playing 1.e4 in no way guarantees great results, nor does it guarantee improvement. You are selling snake oil.
Originally posted by EladarEladar-
I think the question is a good one:
Is the opening to be punished because some people use it poorly?
It is a fundamental problem with such stats. As you pointed out earlier, if a great player uses it, then the stats look great! If a poor player uses it, then it looks poor.
My position is that there are very few of us who are after chess' great trut ...[text shortened]... way guarantees great results, nor does it guarantee improvement. You are selling snake oil.
1) You were the one who attempted to use stats to prove 1.b3 is no worse than 1.e4 for results. Now you are backpedaling that multiple people have found issue with your claim.
2) Probably most casual 1000-1500 rated players just play for fun- but then again, many of the people who bother to read and post in the forums are more serious than that. Many players are drawn to truth, that is how the game moves forward, by painstaking study to determine concrete truth about a position etc. Clearly you have never participated in a lengthy post mortem with a player working out every possible defense in a difficult postiion- a shame.
3) I think it is silly to lump FM's, Experts and even Class A players with 1400s, b3 becomes marginal the farther up the ladder you go, not solely at the GM level. Can you even tell the difference between a 1900 and a 2200 player?
4) I never claimed that anything will "guarantee" improvement, so don't put words in my mouth. I do claim that playing open games (which generally means 1.e4) is the most effiecient way to improve your chess, I listed a variety of reasons (none of which you bothered to respod to so you must agree with their validity?) and I have pointed out that this opinion is hardly ground breaking.
You are correct Eladar. It's just all fun and seekers of the truth
in the opening often get blown up in the middle game.
Blunders come at any stage of the game and I believe you must
make every blunder before you can say you are aware of it.
I can tell a 100 people beware of snatching a loose pawn that leaves
a piece unprotected and a check in the postion.
They nod in total agreement.
And 100 of them will lose an unprotected piece due to them
snatching a pawn with a check in the position.
1.e4 presents you with all the blunders quicker and the sooner
you get them out of they way then the better player you will be.
You need eyes as big as dinner plates when you venture into a
tactical stramash from a 1.e4-e5 opening. It's a great learning playground.
1) You were the one who attempted to use stats to prove 1.b3 is no worse than 1.e4 for results. Now you are backpedaling that multiple people have found issue with your claim.
No, I said that each move had its good points and bad points.
2) Probably most casual 1000-1500 rated players just play for fun- but then again, many of the people who bother to read and post in the forums are more serious than that.
I do not see how wanting to have fun playing chess makes you less serious. Even I, a person who plays 1.b3 would like to get better. I have gotten better. You really need to get off your high horse.
I think it is silly to lump FM's, Experts and even Class A players with 1400s, b3 becomes marginal the farther up the ladder you go, not solely at the GM level.
I think it is absolutely stupid to give a 1400 advice based on how GM's play. Unless you are willing to hold their hands and explain the ideas of the opening and the ideas behind the moves an ordinary wood pusher isn't going to get much out of playing certain lines.
I never claimed that anything will "guarantee" improvement, so don't put words in my mouth. I do claim that playing open games (which generally means 1.e4) is the most effiecient way to improve your chess
I generally play open games with 1.b3. 1.e4 will no more guarantee and open game than 1.b3.
I listed a variety of reasons (none of which you bothered to respod to so you must agree with their validity?) and I have pointed out that this opinion is hardly ground breaking.
Yeah, it's the same big lie that gets repeated over and over and over again. Just because it gets repeated over and over again doesn't mean it is true.
The only good thing about playing 1.e4 is that most people play it, therefore you will see the same kind of game over and over and over again. You will play it as both black and white giving you more practice. Of course at a low level you will not get to see good ideas. You'll just get to see the ideas of those who have ideas just as bad as yours.
Originally posted by greenpawn34I think the fact that you are talking with those chess learners helps them most. You give them the idea, then get to point out how they didn't apply it so that they can eventually see the problem and correct it.
You are correct Eladar. It's just all fun and seekers of the truth
in the opening often get blown up in the middle game.
Blunders come at any stage of the game and I believe you must
make every blunder before you can say you are aware of it.
I can tell a 100 people beware of snatching a loose pawn that leaves
a piece unprotected and a check in ...[text shortened]... u venture into a
tactical stramash from a 1.e4-e5 opening. It's a great learning playground.
Until the problem is pointed out, most of us will keep doing it not knowing what we are doing wrong.
Mentoring is the key, not the first piece that gets moved.
Originally posted by ThabtosPretty common in weekend swiss events to see Master's deviate very early to force their 1600 opponent work out their own moves. These games rarely get collected into a database so your best way to see these type of games is Simuls.
When you look at the DB figures, has anyone ever though at the possibility that a master could play 1.a3 and probably have the same excellent results? Being masters and all? Especially as there are only a few of them, so they HAVE to play some much weaker players a lot.
Originally posted by EladarNot to get involved too much, but if you quote a post and then write something, which implies that it is a comment on the quotation, then please form some kind of logical connection between the two...
1) You were the one who attempted to use stats to prove 1.b3 is no worse than 1.e4 for results. Now you are backpedaling that multiple people have found issue with your claim.
No, I said that each move had its good points and bad points.
2) Probably most casual 1000-1500 rated players just play for fun- but then again, many of the people wh ideas. You'll just get to see the ideas of those who have ideas just as bad as yours.
Edits: typos
Eladar -
First you played the Colle, then you switched to the London, then you went to the English opening using 1.Nf3 and 1. c4 with an occasional Colle, now you play 1.b3
In 2008 you posted repeatedly how enthusiastic you were about the Colle. Then you posted how you have to try the London system. Why you decided to play the English?!? Idk but now you are a staunch supporter of the 1.b3 per your posts in various threads.
This is precisely why it is wise to just stick to a classical opening as an improving class playerr. How will you ever develop any feel for the middle game positions you encounter if you constantly are switching openings?