Understanding why a general principle exists can help you determine when it can be ignored.
Knights before bishops stems from the advice to get your pieces out onto the best squares.
We know the best squares for our knights are c3 and f3 for white and c6 and f6 for black. And this
is pretty much always the case. The best square for a bishop is more dependent on what
your opponent plays.
So the knights before bishops rule is simply saying that we know where the knight should go so
lets put it there...we'll wait and see what's happening before we commit the bishop.
Also - recognising your opponents mistakes is one thing - understanding how to exploit those mistakes is another. A good way to develop both these skills is by going over your own games.
Playing out book moves can form part of learning by both memorising the lines and finding a way to understand why these are considered to be the best moves. Centuries of chess study is condensed in these openings and they are there to learn from. As recommended by another poster "Logical Chess Move by Move" has good text explanations of the reasons behind the
moves and on how to exploit and opponents mistake.
Thanks very much for all your responses.
On the subject of castling - my natural instinct is always to hold off on castling until a point when I recognise it has an imediate defensive or offensive advantage - I especially enjoy castling queenside to get my rook into the d-file to protect a piece or offer a threat when I get the chance.
But wormwood - what you say is doubtless correct - at my current skill level I'm not really in a position to accurately determine when it is safe and when it isn't to leave my king in the centre for a few extra moves. Probably best in the vast majority of games to tuck him away safely in the corner at an early opportunity.
Macpo, I espically like your point about the opening being a dialogue, rather than a solo endeavour. More often than not, my openings feel as though my opponent and I are just mumbling away incoherently to ourselves, rather than being engaged in a genuine dialogue.
Looking through a few of my games, the point at which I perk up and start paying closer attention to what my opponent is doing tends to be the first move on which a pawn threatens a piece. That's usually the point at which I consider the mid-game to have started. I'm not sure if that is an unusual mindset for a beginning player - but it seems there's no doubt it's not an intelligent way to play the game.
Thank's for trawling through a few of my games, greenpawn. And for confirming my suspicions about hitting a ceiling - there's no quick and easy way to break my way through it - it'll take a bit of hard work and study.
I'll look into joining a chess club - although I'm a little reluctant, to tell the truth. I've literally never played a game of chess over the board before - and after reading through a few threads here, the geeral consensus seems to be that correspondence chess and OTB chess are two very different games. I suspect I would have a lot of difficulty adjusting to the time restraints and lack of a pop-up 'analyse board' window.
I'll see if I can hunt down a copy of Logical Chess - it sounds very much like exactly the kind of thing I'm after - so thanks to those who have recommended it. I'll report back once I've had a read through it.
Originally posted by Nybesdon't be afraid of OTB chess, the difference really isn't that great, the rules are the same, its both chess
Thanks very much for all your responses.
On the subject of castling - my natural instinct is always to hold off on castling until a point when I recognise it has an imediate defensive or offensive advantage - I especially enjoy castling queenside to get my rook into the d-file to protect a piece or offer a threat when I get the chance.
But wormwood - wh ...[text shortened]... ose who have recommended it. I'll report back once I've had a read through it.
Originally posted by greenpawn34what is this outrage Chandler dude, you send me a copy of chess Scotland and it has a game, with GM Jacob Aagaard playing the London and getting his a$$ kicked by a mere 1800, i dunno!
Joining a Chess Club will be the best move you ever make. 😉
I thought that would appeal to you.
I also awarded that game the brilliancy prize.
JA was not too happy with me but had nothing but praise for his
young opponent and took his lose very well.
I hate it when a strong players storms off after losing to a lesser light.
They don't realise that that moment is so huge, they will remember
it all their lives. Don't try and ruin it.
Jacob played his part very well.
I sent you two actual score sheets of your other favourite player.
Noticed how hard he presses the pen into the score sheet he nearly
goes through the other side. Compare that with his opponents whose
writing glides across the sheet as normal.
That lad is a different creature when playing a game of chess.
He is Mr.Nasty.
PS - I once coached that lad that beat JA - I've no idea where he
got the London system from? I don't do openings, infact I teach
against stuffing your skull with other peoples moves.
Nick their ideas and plans but don't learn them like a parrot.
I do the middle game.
And it the lad won it in the Middle game, he got nothing from the
opening.
Played a Najdorf yet?
Out of curiosity I just filitered my DB loking for Najdorf wins v losses
under 20 moves. It found 2,034. 1300 White wins v 734 Black.
That is 64% v 36%.
Good Luck getting past those first 20 moves.
Originally posted by greenpawn34Lol, yes Paul Motwani almost demolishes the score sheet, i was actually examining it for bite marks! there is a rather wonderful game in that edition where Roddy Mackay beats the Gm with the move ...a6, it was an unbelievable game, 1.e4 ..a6, 2.d4 ..c5, a bit Chezk benoni if you ask me!
I thought that would appeal to you.
I also awarded that game the brilliancy prize.
JA was not too happy with me but had nothing but praise for his
young opponent and took his lose very well.
I hate it when a strong players storms off after losing to a lesser light.
They don't realise that that moment is so huge, they will remember
it all t ...[text shortened]... hite wins v 734 Black.
That is 64% v 36%.
Good Luck getting past those first 20 moves.
the Najdorf has progressed my friend, and is founded on sound principles, presently i am playing two games, both where my opponent went for the English attack, and knowing even less than me, has led them into trouble. it is so completely a double edged sword that one slip and your gone! if black survives the attack, he is in good shape. In the old mainline, there is some great input from the forum, Fat lady has chipped in, black beetle, Jonathan B, and i have been in correspondence with my friend from Greece, Ulysses72. Its just so good from both perspectives either as white or black, i would also wish you would take it up.
we are saying to white
1. i am playing for a win, you shall face the wrath
2. i am playing from a slightly more elevated perspective (hehe)
3.if you do not kill me, you shall be killed
4.if you play 3,d4!? you shall suffer in the end
5.i may be black, but in playing 5...a6 i am gathering information and threatening ...e5
6.i am cool because i know an opening up to the twentieth move
7.chicks love Najdorf Sicilian players cause it sounds amazing, 'yeah i play the Najdorf dont you know','ohhh the language of love'.
8.i had to go against all your good advice to learn the hard way
9.Bobby Fischer appeared to me in a dream and told me that it was the only way
10.white in the mainline needs to give up his dark squared bishop to continue his attack, what a woosie!
so apart from all that my friend, its going well!