1,2 & 3 yes.Excellent!
But 4 & 5 are not always possible.If set out to attack the king from move 1 you'll crash often.You're supposed to play to the demands of the position (or so I've heard 😉 ).
However,at lower levels it'll work every time provided your tactical ability is up to the task.
Originally posted by moggyboggThis may sometimes work provided you have the white pieces and the attacking ability of Paul Morphy. However, when playing with the black pieces, the defense of the King is of primary importance and counter-attack, when the opportunity presents itself, is usually the best policy. For most of us, it is a slow process of maneuvering the pieces in hopes of gaining enough advantage to win a pawn, a piece, or the exchange that occupies our thoughts in a game of chess.
As a low rated struggling to improve player can anyone see flaws in my simple game logic...
put a pawn or two in the middle
develop my pieces
castle
aim as many pieces as i can at their king
move in on their king
what do people think
bogg
Originally posted by moggyboggits good, i wrote and posted the greatest treatise ever on the subject, openings for
As a low rated struggling to improve player can anyone see flaws in my simple game logic...
put a pawn or two in the middle
develop my pieces
castle
aim as many pieces as i can at their king
move in on their king
what do people think
bogg
beginners, but it was too far ahead of its time and ill received by the forum because if
its simple brilliancy! It introduced opening principles with emphasis on development and castling.
It's near perfect, I'd say a tweak here and there and we have solved Chess.
put a pawn or two in the middle
Yes to one, the other will depend on the reply.
Ideally you want the other to join it's partner with a threat.
develop my pieces
And if you can, whilst developing hinder you opponents development.
castle
Always if you are going for central play. (rule 1).
Think of Castling as a attacking move.
aim as many pieces as i can at their king
Always. Those that cannot be aimed at King are aimed at the King defenders,
either by swapping them off or luring them away from the King.
move in on their king
Backed up with a chunk of mating ideas, patterns and sac sac tricks.
Getting your pieces swarming all over their King and not knowing or seeing
how to finish them off defeats all the previous play.
Now play out Morphy at Opera and you will see all those rules in action. 🙂
Originally posted by hamworldIt is more fun to attack. I did not pay much attention to defense in my early games before joining a chess club. There, I soon discovered that my attacks to mate the opponents king was one move too late. I got mated several times just before I was about to give mate, before I decided I needed too pay more attention to my defense of my own king. The people I had been playing outside the chess club were not that good, so I could attack at will against them. However, I had a rude awakening at the chess club. Those guys were nasty.
Whatever happened to learning how to defend in chess?
Originally posted by RJHindsYou got checkmated before you could checkmate the other guy? How does that work? I can't remember getting in a double-edged game like that. I've made some dubious sacrifices before, but never anything like that.
It is more fun to attack. I did not pay much attention to defense in my early games before joining a chess club. There, I soon discovered that my attacks to mate the opponents king was one move too late. I got mated several times just before I was about to give mate, before I decided I needed too pay more attention to my defense of my own king. The peopl ...[text shortened]... t will against them. However, I had a rude awakening at the chess club. Those guys were nasty.
Attacking lost most of its appeal to me when I found that attacks never worked well because my position wasn't good enough. I lost to an 1800 because of my lack of positional skills despite making an accurate sacrifice. His position was too good, and I lost on time in an equal endgame.
By studying the art of positional play, I feel my attacking skills will be improved. I think this logic works. If you have a +.5 positional edge, any attack you try should work well enough.
Man, I need more experience. I'm getting rusty and I can't keep track of my games to find a pattern.
Originally posted by hamworldI had several of those double-edged games about 40 something years ago. I can't remember all the details now, but I can remember coming out on the losing end of the deal with a mate coming up on the next move. But before that move my opponents made several checks and I ended up mated myself instead.
You got checkmated before you could checkmate the other guy? How does that work? I can't remember getting in a double-edged game like that. I've made some dubious sacrifices before, but never anything like that.
Attacking lost most of its appeal to me when I found that attacks never worked well because my position wasn't good enough. I lost to an 1800 be ...[text shortened]... ed more experience. I'm getting rusty and I can't keep track of my games to find a pattern.
P.S. I think one are two were simple ones in which I thought there was no way my opponent could stop the mate, but overlooked the simple back-rank mate he had on me.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by hamworldAt below 1000? It doesn't happen, and cannot happen. To attack, you need pieces. To defend, you need a position. To get a position, you must learn how to build one, and the best way to do that is experience. And how are you going to get that experience? Attack! Defending can and will come when you're ready for it.
Whatever happened to learning how to defend in chess?
Richard