Originally posted by tomtom232Well, yes, but not lasting, if I inspect my games. I have more minus-games, than plus-games. Then I have a game where I will lose 30 points, because of a rediculous blunder made by me... So my future of a 1700+ player is short. Will I ever reach these heights again? 😕
still over 1700 I see
Originally posted by exigentskyBy the same argument, you should not study basic endgames, because then you might beat somebody who has no familiarity with endgame theory. Similarly, don't study mating attack patterns because then you might win because your opponent doesn't know how to defend against them. Furthermore, don't study your games, or master games, because your opponent mayn't, and then you'd be guilty of winning by knowledge rather than by chess intuition. And by the same token, don't play too many games, because then you might start to memorize patterns and be able to take advantage of them, and that's playing by acquired knowledge. Finally, don't learn "tricky" rules like how to capture en passant, because what if your opponent doesn't know them? He might say something like "I guess you got to win fancy, don't you?" And then you might feel guilty.
A few months back, I quickly won a sharp Sicilian game as Black. Later, I showed my opponent the relevant ideas and where I thought he went wrong. Then, he asked me, "How much was the opening?" I didn't like the implication that I essentially had a book win and I told him that his opening errors were important but that it's impossible to say if the result ...[text shortened]... some feedback here because it is bothering me on many levels.
Thanks in advance.
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsYes, I see your point and hard work should be rewarded. However, this is quite different. Being better positionally or tactically just makes you a stronger player. It would make you stronger in virtually every position. However, being stronger in the opening does not necessarily carry over to other phases of the game. One can't say that because player X played almost perfectly for 15 moves in the opening he is stronger. However, if they see player Y make brilliantly calculated combinations and excellent positional moves, compared to another, they can. This is the problem.
By the same argument, you should not study basic endgames, because then you might beat somebody who has no familiarity with endgame theory. Similarly, don't study mating attack patterns because then you might win because your opponent doesn't know how to defend against them. Furthermore, don't study your games, or master games, because your opponent m ...[text shortened]... g like "I guess you got to win fancy, don't you?" And then you might feel guilty.
Originally posted by exigentskyIf anyone took a cheap shot at my outplaying them in the opening I'd laugh in their face and tell them to go take up Fischer Random if they can't handle losing in the opening. I certainly wouldn't feel any guilt. If you can't handle winning in the opening then I suppose the same advice applies. Take up Fischer Random, problem solved.
Yes, I see your point and hard work should be rewarded. However, this is quite different. Being better positionally or tactically just makes you a stronger player. It would make you stronger in virtually every position. However, being stronger in the opening does not necessarily carry over to other phases of the game. One can't say that because player X p ...[text shortened]... ombinations and excellent positional moves, compared to another, they can. This is the problem.
Originally posted by scandiumLOL, there's no one left to play it with. Fischer died.
If anyone took a cheap shot at my outplaying them in the opening I'd laugh in their face and tell them to go take up Fischer Random if they can't handle losing in the opening. I certainly wouldn't feel any guilt. If you can't handle winning in the opening then I suppose the same advice applies. Take up Fischer Random, problem solved.
Originally posted by exigentskyto me, being good in an opening equals knowing the positions which arise. that entails the middlegames as well as the endgames connected to that specific opening. knowing things regardless of the move order, knowing instead calculating or analysing. "that knight on g6 is harmless", "that open file is useless", "that doubled pawn is actually good for me", "that knight on the rim is p o w e r f u l", "I can just sac that pawn/piece and get a fatal attack", things like that. recognizing these properties like you'd recognize a tactical problem you've seen dozens of times, instantly.
Yes, I see your point and hard work should be rewarded. However, this is quite different. Being better positionally or tactically just makes you a stronger player. It would make you stronger in virtually every position. However, being stronger in the opening does not necessarily carry over to other phases of the game. One can't say that because player X p ...[text shortened]... ombinations and excellent positional moves, compared to another, they can. This is the problem.
in one of my openings I've developed a rudimentary understanding of that kind, but still just scratching the surface. in my other openings I'm still on the level of memorizing lines, which I consider the lowest possible level of understanding. well, it's not even understanding yet. blind parroting would be a more fitting expression.
it's hard for me to see how I could ever reach a level of understanding which was somehow 'full', as it would practically mean 'solving chess'. which also means that the challenge of understanding more about games in a specific opening never ends.
I get no guilt over understanding more of the game as a complete entity.
Originally posted by exigentskyWhile it's true that good opening play needn't carry over into the rest of the game, it seems beside your original point: you said that you felt guilty because your opponent asked you "How much was the opening?" after you pointed out some important opening errors there.
Yes, I see your point and hard work should be rewarded. However, this is quite different. Being better positionally or tactically just makes you a stronger player. It would make you stronger in virtually every position. However, being stronger in the opening does not necessarily carry over to other phases of the game. One can't say that because player X p ...[text shortened]... ombinations and excellent positional moves, compared to another, they can. This is the problem.
If you won the game because of superior opening skills, despite being an otherwise inferior player, then you won in the opening, and the errors committed by your opponent must have been pretty serious for him not to be able to overcome you with his otherwise superior skills in other portions of the game. But if he committed such serious errors in the opening, how strong of a player is he, really? I mean, you're rated 1800, at least at cc chess, and your opponent despite being otherwise stronger than you, lost the game in the opening? Or did you simply use your opening knowledge to get a superior middlegame, which then resulted in a win because you're either on a par with the other player, or not much weaker. On the other hand, if he didn't lose in the opening, then how can it be said that you won through opening knowledge?
Finally, what difference does it make? Let's assume for the sake of argument, as a working premise, that you are indeed an otherwise inferior player relative to the individual you beat. You were still competent enough, having obtained an advantage in the opening, to retain/increase it in the rest of the game. But let's just say that you are, relative to him, an inferior player *in general*. Fine. Does that mean you don't want to win against players through greater opening knowledge? Is it going to improve your other skills to play bad openings? No. So, play your openings to reflect your study and work, and in the meantime keep working to improve other phases of the game.
Nobody gets to 1800 through opening skills alone. If, without your opening skills, you'd be rated less, because you'd be getting poor middlegames and wouldn't know what to do with them, then congratulate yourself on having obtained a skill valuable to your chess game.
Finally, nobody crawls out of the womb able to deliver brilliant combinations. They get that way through playing a whole lot of chess games; most also study quite a bit, whether games alone or games and books, and some get tutoring. Tactical ability is also an acquired skill to the extent that it depends on long experience, the familiarity with patterns that this brings, and the development of the kinds of static and dynamic spatial skills and analytical skills which derive from experience. Tactical skill learned through observation and application is acquired, just as opening knowledge obtained through book study plus experience is acquired.
P.S. Have you ever read a book on tactics? What if you had won by means of some combination in the middlegame rather than opening knowledge, and your opponent had said something like "How much was the tactic?" implying that you bought your knowledge of tactics? You might say that it takes more than merely reading tactics books to get good at tactics, but then, doesn't it take more than merely reading opening books to get good at an opening? Doesn't it generally take application and insight, whether more or less than someone else?
All of this is hopelessly infantile. I say that not to be critical or cruel, but merely because you are being neurotic, and a figurative bucket of water in the face might be just what you need to stop whinging because you beat somebody in a chess game. That, plus the logical arguments offered so far.
Edit: If you'd cheated you'd have good reason to feel guilty. But winning a game in the opening because you studied it isn't cheating. Get over it. Your opponent's comment has a name: "sour grapes".
I don't think I am an inferior player to him even if I played an opening I didn't understand well. It's just the accusation of not deserving the win that really bothered me and actually made me consider all this.
You're absolutely right that strong players, even in positions they don't know, tend to find decent if not actually book moves. This is an excellent point. Thus, losing in the opening is not just lack of knowledge, it is lack of general chess strength. I had made the rare decision to play a Najdorf and we reached the main line English Attack:
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Be3 e5 7. Nb3 Be6 8. f3
Nbd7 9. Qd2 b5 10. O-O-O Rc8 11. g4 Nb6 12. Bxb6? Qxb6 13. g5 Nh5 14. Nd5 Bxd5
15. Qxd5
Black to move
He was afraid of the knight going to c4 and made the blunder 12. Bxb6?. Instead, he should have continued his attack. Black would have to spend another tempo to move the knight to c4 and White's undeveloped and not that great light squared bishop could take it immediately. The dark squared bishop was already developed to fantastic square and rules the board from both sides. Moreover, it is essential to control the dark squares because they have been weakened when moving the central pawns all on white squares. Now, Black can continue with a decisive advantage by playing the uncontested knight to f4. A strong player would not have considered Bxb6 in principle and I certainly never analyzed it. Thus, while I obtained a big edge, I won through my superior understanding.
Furthermore, would one go into a war without looking at previous war strategies and how they worked in similar situations? OK, so I guess this isn't a good example since we invaded Iraq, but you get my point. Chess is like real battle: meticulous preparation and hard work are rewarded. History should not be ignored.
This thread really helped. I don't think I'll have any qualms about having better openings than my opponents and essentially starting the game with an advantage. After all, they could do the work too.
Originally posted by Mark AdkinsNo, I haven't read any books on tactics yet, but I really need to. Still, I see your point.
P.S. Have you ever read a book on tactics? What if you had won by means of some combination in the middlegame rather than opening knowledge, and your opponent had said something like "How much was the tactic?" implying that you bought your knowledge of tactics? You might say that it takes more than merely reading tactics books to get good at tactics, ...[text shortened]... d it isn't cheating. Get over it. Your opponent's comment has a name: "sour grapes".
While these feelings may seem infantile to you, they were very real to me. In fact, it is threads and attitudes like these: http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=85960 which made me feel such dissatisfaction whenever I got a good position in the opening.
Re that thread: how anyone can take seriously an individual calling himself pigface (whose icon features a hog's head), stridently asserting that "them what study chess is bluenose egghead revenuers" I can't imagine. (OK, I admit that I made this quote up, but it fits...except that he would have spelled it "revenooers".)