11 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleTalking about Kasparov - he have preferred mostly active and sharp openings. He was not so universal as someone tend to believe.
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";
11 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexBecause you have to work in a position unknown to you.
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 ...[text shortened]... an advantage gained from an attack, just they shouldnt be setting out to do it from move one.
If you are playing the same opening several times it would be really surprising if positions arising from that opening (their main plans, ideas etc.) wouldn`t be well known. And professionals always have made good preparation (including training games) before they start to play any opening.
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.
There really are such kind of one-sided players who don`t know what to do when they can`t attack opponent. They need to become more universal learning also how to play positional, otherwise they should blame themselves instead of opponents who only used their weaknesses.
It`s your right to ignore reality demanding others to be such one-sided players like you, but dont be surprised if they will not take you seriously.
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.
This can be said about any player who plays one of the same openings, independently of opening they have chosen.
11 Jul 08
Yeap, and he even quoted that although he was WCC for 20 years still there were positions that kept him sleepless in the night; as for his preferences, we may agree that they have to do with his attitude; everybody has totally different attitude, as you said before; it' s a matter of taste afterall. On the other hand, one has not to be "universal": "uncultured" or not, good ole Bobby turned down the whole Russian Machine almost single-handed and never was famous for being "universal";
11 Jul 08
Originally posted by black beetleActually stronger players are much more universal than weaker ones. Talking about the same Kasparov - positional play was not his "hobby horse" and he could be overplayed by strong GM positional player, but Kasparov would be able to beat any amateur independently of if it was tactical or positional play.
Yeap, and he even quoted that although he was WCC for 20 years still there were positions that kept him sleepless in the night; as for his preferences, we may agree that they have to do with his attitude; everybody has totally different attitude, as you said before; it' s a matter of taste afterall. On the other hand, one has not to be "universal": "unc ...[text shortened]... he whole Russian Machine almost single-handed and never was famous for being "universal";
11 Jul 08
So Chess Warrior we could assume that the insight is the main asset of a player, and insight comes through the clear understanding of the position; once you play not "for a win" but you feel free to be accurate, it 's secondary the quality of your that exact move; if you have to act immediately you will be "sharp", if you have to regroup or develop you have to extract the most via deliquate manouvres; we always seek for the strongest quares afterall.
11 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by black beetleYou should understand that there are situations in chess (and also in our lifes) where it`s impossible to determine the most "exact move". So searching for the most "exact moves" in many positions is just wasting for your time which leads to time trouble. In practice there usually are more than one possible solution and you should choose that one which will make your opponent to make mistake.
So Chess Warrior we could assume that the insight is the main asset of a player, and insight comes through the clear understanding of the position; once you play not "for a win" but you feel free to be accurate, it 's secondary the quality of your that exact move; if you have to act immediately you will be "sharp", if you have to regroup or develop you ...[text shortened]... extract the most via deliquate manouvres; we always seek for the strongest quares afterall.
11 Jul 08
3 edits
Originally posted by black beetleIt depends on your opponent - for example against Tyrannosauruschex or !~TONY~! it`s recommended to simplify position as they are "skilled" in such kind of positions 😀 Against some more positional player it would be recommended to make position more lively.
Right, no reason at all to simplify when you can enter complications. "Exact move" I call the appropriate move that copes in full with your plan, and surely a player may well have the chance in several positions to choose amongst some moves the one that he preferes most.
P.S. But you should take into account also your own preferences.
11 Jul 08
Originally posted by KorchI don't mean to say I always play like that, but I prefer to play like that. If my opponent plays a Petroff, I'm happy to sit there and try to grind them out. I also enjoy the white side of the Closed Ruy Lopez, which generally is a bit slower and more closed. The point I'm trying to make is I don't like to see players "ducking" critical lines, especially youngsters (I'm a teacher), just because it requires a little work. Chess is work!
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 🙂
P.S. Kasparov lost his match against Kramnik in 2000 because of similar kind of ignorance - being pla ...[text shortened]... his games are much more intertesting to watch than many homogeneous "open Sicilians".
P.S. - Any opening really has the potential for a sharp game, depending on the mood of both players. I used the London System not because of the boring nature (the majority of the time), but because it's very systematic and lazy in my opinion. It's used by players who'd just like to skip the first 10 moves of the game and be a little lazier than others.
11 Jul 08
4 edits
Originally posted by !~TONY~!The point I'm trying to make is I don't like to see players "ducking" critical lines, especially youngsters (I'm a teacher), just because it requires a little work. Chess is work!
I don't mean to say I always play like that, but I prefer to play like that. If my opponent plays a Petroff, I'm happy to sit there and try to grind them out. I also enjoy the white side of the Closed Ruy Lopez, which generally is a bit slower and more closed. The point I'm trying to make is I don't like to see players "ducking" critical l d just like to skip the first 10 moves of the game and be a little lazier than others.
I agree that chess is work, but if you will study opening lines with gigantic amount of theory (like many systems in Open Sicilian) then you will have less time to study middle games and endgame (which is at least no less important than opening study).
Young players must learn to understand chess instead of swoting up opening lines. But it does not mean that they cant play sharp openings. Most of gambits has not so much theory which makes them useful and playing gambits improves tactical sight, intuition and attacking skills.
11 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by KorchI can "grind it out" if I need to - and frequently do in over the board games where there is simply not enough time to be sure of the complications.
It depends on your opponent - for example against Tyrannosauruschex or !~TONY~! it`s recommended to simplify position as they are "skilled" in such kind of positions 😀 Against some more positional player it would be recommended to make position more lively.
P.S. But you should take into account also your own preferences.
Here is one of my slow positional games (as black) - but you can probably appreciate it was not especially fun to play and does not look spectacular in the forums it is just a win, nothing more.
But, at the same time, why shouldnt people have a go at the more dangerous lines in correspondence? There is not the time pressure, and you can analyse the positions for as long as you like.
11 Jul 08
Originally posted by TyrannosauruschexEDIT "But, at the same time, why shouldnt people have a go at the more dangerous lines in correspondence? There is not the time pressure, and you can analyse the positions for as long as you like."
I can "grind it out" if I need to - and frequently do in over the board games where there is simply not enough time to be sure of the complications.
Here is one of my slow positional games (as black) - but you can probably appreciate it was not especially fun to play and does not look spectacular in the forums it is just a win, nothing more.
[ ...[text shortened]... pressure, and you can analyse the positions for as long as you like.
Dear THex, maybe they don't coz sometimes it's hard to find a sound complication even when you are not under time pressure; unfortunately I cannot make the hypelink work for my game nr. 5179613 against my strong opponent twes who reactet perfectly , but I learned a lot from this game and I think that it deserves a short note: the first 11 moves of this Semi-Slav Defence follow the famous Khalifman-Dreev 1-0, Elista 1998. In the past I studied that game in detail and at the opening my life was sweet, but when I tried to complicate I soon started to drift and I suffered a spectacular loss. Well, some players could think after such an experience that it 's better to play it safe...
11 Jul 08
1 edit
Yes, the exchange slav needs fairly passive play by black to slowly equalise - I have done most of my losing in that opening already for my lifetime, but I also find that white cannot have things all his own way - if he wants to play for a win then it is a poor choice as black can often draw with accurate play.
Not a brave opening though - I bet even korch will agree with me there.
On a side note - the exchange french, which is usually considered drawish, can become a very exciting position if the players castle on opposite sides of the board - so take note all you players who are aspiring to be brave, it is possible to give a good game with a little creativity.