14 Jun 18
Originally posted by @eladarIt's better to work on tactics and common endgames first and worry about opening theory later. Opening theory is for people who don't blunder very much.
How are you going to get better if you do not try?
14 Jun 18
Originally posted by @bigdoggproblemAmen. I do tactics and middlegame exercises to try and get better. If I get above 1800 in real tournaments then I will start to analyze openings. I still blunder. Not for long though. Kia PIRC and kid are just as good as any other opening. Openings don't win games. Barnes beat Morphy as black with 1. e4...f6!
It's better to work on tactics and common endgames first and worry about opening theory later. Opening theory is for people who don't blunder very much.
14 Jun 18
Originally posted by @bigdoggproblemLol, that is why I neber suggested learning opening theory...aka memorizing moves assuming your opponents makes the same memorized moves lol.
It's better to work on tactics and common endgames first and worry about opening theory later. Opening theory is for people who don't blunder very much.
Originally posted by @nevareI'm not sure i agree that these are the best openings for someone who doesn't intend to study the opening in much detail. The KID in particular requires you to know quite a bit. If i was discussing what openings to play with someone who is a new player, or someone who doesn't have time for learning openings, i would recommend something classical. 1.e4 ..e5 is much easier to get your head around than 1.e4 ..d6. To play in a "hyper modern" style when you haven't gained some experience with classical play seems to me to be making ones own life difficult.
Amen. I do tactics and middlegame exercises to try and get better. If I get above 1800 in real tournaments then I will start to analyze openings. I still blunder. Not for long though. Kia PIRC and kid are just as good as any other opening. Openings don't win games. Barnes beat Morphy as black with 1. e4...f6!
The KID and Pirc are somewhat advanced. You often have to know and understand specific maneuvers, or be prepared to sacrifices material for initiative or space. These are some of the most difficult parts of the game to get a feel for. Start with the "Normal" stuff (Spanish, italian game, stuff like that). Move on from there when you are ready.
15 Jun 18
Originally posted by @bigdoggproblemIn other words pick your poison.
It's better to work on tactics and common endgames first and worry about opening theory later. Opening theory is for people who don't blunder very much.
16 Jun 18
Originally posted by @bigdoggproblemOne must play something. So while you suck you lose no matter what you choose to open.
Umm...no. There is relevant prioritazation.
Such is life I guess.
18 Jun 18
This was my very first approach to openings when I started in 1987.
I bought an old copy of Horowitz's [I]Chess Openings: Theory and Practice[/I] from a "seconds" book store for $7, and the sheer breadth of potential openings astonished me.
As I thumbed through the book, I noticed that all three openings played the same first 5 moves, and I thought to myself "Hey, if I play these, I already know theory 5 moves deep, so I can save time on the clock and get deeper into a game before losing."
Naïve, for sure, but I felt equal parts flattered and cheated when Seirawan later made the same recommendation in his book on chess openings.
Nowadays, more emphasis is placed on repertoire choices based on similar pawn structures, so the idea has some traction.
18 Jun 18
1 edit
Originally posted by @paul-leggettI agree that the KID and Pirc look very similar during the opening phase, but the plans are often very different. In the Pirc, white often develops the white bishop to c4, and tries to maintain the bishop on this diagonal, aiming at f7. Compare that to the KID, with a pawn on c4 (often also a pawn on d4 that is advanced to d5), this is a completely different structure, and consequently a completely different strategic environment to work in. Vast amounts of theory in the KID involve advancing the f and g pawns, often as a sacrifice, to open up lines on the kingside. You could try this stuff in the pirc i suppose, except that teh f7 pawn is pinned by the bishop! Small detail, massive difference.
This was my very first approach to openings when I started in 1987.
I bought an old copy of Horowitz's [I]Chess Openings: Theory and Practice[/I] from a "seconds" book store for $7, and the sheer breadth of potential openings astonished me.
As I thumbed through the book, I noticed that all three openings played the same first 5 moves, and I tho ...[text shortened]... is placed on repertoire choices based on similar pawn structures, so the idea has some traction.
18 Jun 18
Originally posted by @marinkatombAlthough recommended in books I'm not sure a classical repertoire is necessarily the best for non theorists. To win in symmetrical positions tends to require accurate move after accurate move (think of Karpov playing the Petrov) whereas the flexible pawn structures of Pirc KID can be more fertile ground to find ideas with which to outplay a similar rated opponent. All openings have precipitous tactical lines so it's inaccurate to claim that such and such an opening has "no theory" which you often read in forums.
I'm not sure i agree that these are the best openings for someone who doesn't intend to study the opening in much detail. The KID in particular requires you to know quite a bit. If i was discussing what openings to play with someone who is a new player, or someone who doesn't have time for learning openings, i would recommend something classical. 1.e4 . ...[text shortened]... "Normal" stuff (Spanish, italian game, stuff like that). Move on from there when you are ready.
Thus picking a system makes sense for those who don't want memory tests when they sit down at the board. I have often argued that all opening moves are rubbish since they are either busted or someone is just about to bust them. For many years books on the kings gambit laughed at
Then you find 10 years ago a load of GMs start playing it.
