Originally posted by SquelchbelchIt`s the matter of taste. everyone has his right to play in way which leads to good results. There is only one way how to wipe it out from the face of theory is to find refutation or at least the way for black to force draw. Because if some opening will give good results there always will be players using it.
I prefer this winning effort for GM Adams against GM Nunn.
I forget the name of the Sicilian variation though...
[pgn][Event "Oviedo Fischer Blitz"]
[Site "Oviedo"]
[Date "1992"]
[Round "?"]
[White "M. Adams"]
[Black "J. Nunn"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B21"]
1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 d6 5.Nf3 g6 6.Bc4 Nc6 7.O-O Bg7 8.Qe2 Nf6 9.h3 O-O 10 ...[text shortened]... e7 29.Ke2 Nc7 30.Bb7 Nb5 31.Kd3 d5 32.Bxd5 Nc7 33.Bf3 Na6 34.Kc4 Kf6 1-0
[/pgn]
It doesnt bother me online really, because it is an uncommon surprise for me here and I either have the time to find accurate moves or am playing blitz where white struggles to find the perfect moves to keep control of the position.
It is more a problem in real life in the rating band I am in, I get either c3 or closed sicillians almost every game - it has been 3 years since I last had an open position as black and I have probably played 20 sicillians in that time.
P.S. Squelchbelch - that opening is the mora gambit, a tricky system where white gets good initative for the pawn and black has to be very accurate to avoid the traps. However..... not a very brave opening, since all whites moves are just natrual developments and the tactics present themselves quite easily.
Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexYou have 2 possible choices:
It doesnt bother me online really, because it is an uncommon surprise for me here and I either have the time to find accurate moves or am playing blitz where white struggles to find the perfect moves to keep control of the position.
It is more a problem in real life in the rating band I am in, I get either c3 or closed sicillians almost every g ...[text shortened]... all whites moves are just natrual developments and the tactics present themselves quite easily.
1) Learning to play against these systems (actually Closed Sicilian was used by Spassky in highest level);
2) Switching to other openings.
Because most of players don`t care about your standarts of chess bravery. They are playing to win instead of looking brave in your eyes.
IMHO in chess there are only 2 kinds of moves, openings, systems etc. Strong and weak ones. All the rest, like beauty, bravery is a matter of taste. Chess player only then has a right to dislike an opening by his opponent, if this opening is weak and gives you easy win without any interesting play 😀
With this definition of bravery, it is better to play chess variants like
Birds and Ninjas, Stealth Ninja Ches, Omega Chess, Gothic Chess.
These games have absolutely no opening theory and you are in uncharted waters from move 1.
With std chess, you have the option to learn chess openings well enough to secure a draw against players slightly higher rated than you. Not necessarily implying that chess is extremely draw prone but if you think about it, the advance of opening theory does make it more draw prone than most chess variants.
Capablanca felt this way, and eventually developed the 10x8 Capablanca Chess. Gothic Chess is Capablanca chess with a better starting configuration.
Gothic/Capablanca chess requires far more tactical expertise than standard chess (which was obviously not a problem for Capablanca) so much so that strategy may be downplayed. However this can be said for many starting positions in Fischer Random also. A player who prefers tactics over strategy would love Gothic Chess and Fischer Random.
Birds and Ninjas, Omega Chess both games with more space (10-x10 versus 10x8) might be preferred by more strategic minded players. (It is also recommended by a few GMs)
An interesting sidenote:
Karpov had agreed to play Fischer a game of Gothic Chess. -- The whole deal did not work out in the end though. There are even recent games of Fischer playing online Gothic Chess a few years before his death . There are however allegations that this is a hoax perpetuated by the inventor of Gothic Chess
URL for Birds and Ninjas
http://chess.computerwebservices.net/birds.php
Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexI`m afraid that your choice will not match with your own definition of bravery 😀
Or, better yet, only play in the national league where I know who my opponent is going to be before I play them and avoid any that do this.
In the meantime, petition for an article to be written on chessbase on the flaws of the opening - thus decreasing its popularity.
I haven't read anything but the first post and this page, but I really like this post. I pride myself on playing aggressive, principled chess, always pushing for an edge as white and for complications as Black, and wish everyone would do the same. I get unjustifiably annoyed when I see someone playing the London system and always trying to chop the queens off the board. And yes, I know Kamsky is an expert in the London system. I don't give a crap.
PS - This post is just my opinion, no one get offended that I think you play chess in the poorest fashion possible. I can assure you you offend me more than I could offend you. 😀
Originally posted by !~TONY~!Actually I`m interested in players "playing aggressive, principled chess, always pushing for an edge as white and for complications as Black, and wish everyone would do the same" as I usually have not bad results playing against such a primitive approach 🙂
I haven't read anything but the first post and this page, but I really like this post. I pride myself on playing aggressive, principled chess, always pushing for an edge as white and for complications as Black, and wish everyone would do the same. I get unjustifiably annoyed when I see someone playing the London system and always trying to chop the queens o the poorest fashion possible. I can assure you you offend me more than I could offend you. 😀
P.S. Kasparov lost his match against Kramnik in 2000 because of similar kind of ignorance - being player of active and aggressive style, Kasparov could not foresee that Kramnik will refuse to play "aggressive, principled chess, always pushing for an edge as white and for complications as Black".
P.P.S. And I would recommend you to read all thread. Then maybe you will understand that unpretentious opening does not obligatory mean "boring play". For example such aggressive and interesting player as Tal was not so ignorant and did not limit his options by playing only Sicilians.
And such aggressive, interesting and original player as Morozevich dont follow your "bravery" and his games are much more intertesting to watch than many homogeneous "open Sicilians".
Hi Korch et al!
Dear Korch we agree regarding them giants, but for a player around 2000 it seems very important a repertoire which due to the fleeting nature of the royal game permits him to deepen and enrich his knowlegde constantly; I don 't know any such a player who can cope in full with even several Sisilian defences.
PS: Hi TONY, finally you devoured my pour a pawn!
Originally posted by black beetleWhy do you think that only sharp opening systems with large amount of theory can help to deepen and enrich chess knowledge?
Hi Korch et al!
Dear Korch we agree regarding them giants, but for a player around 2000 it seems very important a repertoire which due to the fleeting nature of the royal game permits him to deepen and enrich his knowlegde constantly; I don 't know any such a player who can cope in full with even several Sisilian defences.
PS: Hi TONY, finally you devoured my pour a pawn!
Because you have to work in a position unknown to you. In a closed positional game, the 'attacker' could be equally as clueless as to how to proceed as the defender but as long as he messes about keeping his opponent from achieving anything then most of the time they end up making a mistake out of frustration.
Plus also, they tend to play the same positions over and over so get to know what works and what doesnt I.E. their means of getting an advantage is never new to them.
Not that people shouldnt know how to play like this - it is often essential for converting an advantage gained from an attack, just they shouldnt be setting out to do it from move one.
I don't think such a thing, I referred to your quote regarding Tal. I think that Kasparov never limited hiself at one or even at several openings, instead he was quite energetic and had deep knowledge of too many openings. I estimate that the openings must be sound and cope in full with each arising position, no matter if they "sharp" or "tame";