22 Aug 07
As recommended in the Weyerstrass thread here is the new thread...
My original comment:
I find it fascinating looking at Weyerstrass's games, that he has a tendency to develop his kings knight to the 2nd rank (both in English as white, and French as black), and a willingness to weaken f3 or f6 by pushing both the e and g pawns. These are things that with my scattered gleanings from various books and such I try to avoid - not really knowing why. I almost always put the N on the f-file! If I play the e pawn, why would I then play the g pawn as well - I already have a place to put the KB. Any comments on "non-standard" development welcomed!
22 Aug 07
Originally posted by chessisvanityI would suggest you stop looking to the books.
get your opponent out of the books and play for the win......just my 2 cents.
I changed a major tactic and I have won 9 of my last 10.
A friend looked at my idea and said "that is unsound". He then ran it through fritz and came back saying that fritz could not find much better moves. S
I guess what I am saying is that you need to be careful getting too carried away with what the books say and find your own way.
22 Aug 07
its amazing how i go over the games of my chosen openings(from books) and yet.....i've never had a game where the main lines are played.....there was a game where i asked my opponent to play it ...but other than that....opening books cover very little.....
all thought...my 1300 strength doesn't say much.....
22 Aug 07
Originally posted by chessisvanityI'll make your 2 cents 4. The lines found in books are their because they are tested, sound, and often best. If you deliberately leave the book, you often will deliberately play a weaker (and therefore beatable) move. 😛 Just my two cents 😛
get your opponent out of the books and play for the win......just my 2 cents.
22 Aug 07
Originally posted by badivan1As I'm working my way through the reassess yr chess workbook - one of the themes is developing with purpose. Far be it for me to question GK's opinion, but I'm interested in the ideas, and structures that make it better to go to e2/e7. Not looking for dogma, just the thought process. I think I fear weakening e5/e4 in the opening, and I generally follow the knights before bishops developing maxim, and mostly play e4 as white, hence the Nf3 tendency.
Sometimes, a knight at f3 or f6 is not at its utmost potential. Garry Kasparov once said that the ideal place of a knight is at f5, or f4 for black, where it can help for a mating attack or hit d6 as well, if it is a weakness.
22 Aug 07
1 edit
Originally posted by chessisvanityWell, I guess it's your job to deduce from your opening knowledge why certain moves are not covered. I only say certain, since some people specialize on supposedly inferior lines without publishing their analysis or whatnot.
its amazing how i go over the games of my chosen openings(from books) and yet.....i've never had a game where the main lines are played.....there was a game where i asked my opponent to play it ...but other than that....opening books cover very little.....
22 Aug 07
Originally posted by ExumaDon't get stuck on this usually or always stuff. If you really want a reliable answer you'll have to show an example game or two. I mean, for example in the Sicilian Dragon black moves g6, but very rarely e6 or e5. The reasoning is simple; black wants to leave the pawn on e7 to protect the d6 pawn, pushing e6 or e5 leave it weakened or backwards.
As I'm working my way through the reassess yr chess workbook - one of the themes is developing with purpose. Far be it for me to question GK's opinion, but I'm interested in the ideas, and structures that make it better to go to e2/e7. Not looking for dogma, just the thought process. I think I fear weakening e5/e4 in the opening, and I generally follow the knights before bishops developing maxim, and mostly play e4 as white, hence the Nf3 tendency.
22 Aug 07
Originally posted by ih8sensHere is where I am going to disagree with you. If everyone studied all of the lines and played the book moves, in theory you would end up with a predominant amount of draws. The victory normally goes to the player who surprises his/her opponent with something they have not seen and cannot figure out how to defense. I am assuming that both players are playing top flight and not making silly mistakes. The lines are the basis, but the tactic wins the game. IMO.
I'll make your 2 cents 4. The lines found in books are their because they are tested, sound, and often best. If you deliberately leave the book, you often will deliberately play a weaker (and therefore beatable) move. 😛 Just my two cents 😛
22 Aug 07
Originally posted by shortcircuitAren't a lot of top notch games draws?
Here is where I am going to disagree with you. If everyone studied all of the lines and played the book moves, in theory you would end up with a predominant amount of draws. The victory normally goes to the player who surprises his/her opponent with something they have not seen and cannot figure out how to defense. I am assuming that both players are pl ...[text shortened]... light and not making silly mistakes. The lines are the basis, but the tactic wins the game. IMO.
Also, book only goes so far into the game, meaning even if two people did study the lines, that would only get the game so far
22 Aug 07
1 edit
Originally posted by cmsMasterFor example - in this game, after e3, which stops th black knight from penetrating, I'm still not sure why Ne2 is better than Nf3? Game 980371
Don't get stuck on this usually or always stuff. If you really want a reliable answer you'll have to show an example game or two. I mean, for example in the Sicilian Dragon black moves g6, but very rarely e6 or e5. The reasoning is simple; black wants to leave the pawn on e7 to protect the d6 pawn, pushing e6 or e5 leave it weakened or backwards.
Edit - well has to do with control of e4, and not blocking the bishop, but it is not always this obvious. Sorry - I have not often tried 1.c4 so my own games are no help
22 Aug 07
Originally posted by ExumaTypically the english is played with the idea of controlling d5. Nf3 does nothing toward that end. However Ne2 can go to either f4 or c3 where it supports d5. In the french, it would depend on the position. I assume you mean Ne7 and not Nb-d7 which is almost never played in the opening (rather Nb-c6 which along with c5 attacks d4).
As recommended in the Weyerstrass thread here is the new thread...
My original comment:
I find it fascinating looking at Weyerstrass's games, that he has a tendency to develop his kings knight to the 2nd rank (both in English as white, and French as black), and a willingness to weaken f3 or f6 by pushing both the e and g pawns. These are things that with ...[text shortened]... - I already have a place to put the KB. Any comments on "non-standard" development welcomed!
Interestingly enough if my theories are correct (and I have played enough of both the english and the french to suspect they are) as both black and white, he is seeking to control or at least fight for Queen 5 from the start.
22 Aug 07
Originally posted by zebanoThis is very interesting. A little bit of the chess magic, that the pawn does not go to d5, instead the pieces aim to control it, along with the c4 pawn in the english. What is given up is e5 (in both the french and the english), not abandoned, but without a pawn on d5 in the english, or by allowing e5 in the french?
Typically the english is played with the idea of controlling d5. Nf3 does nothing toward that end. However Ne2 can go to either f4 or c3 where it supports d5. In the french, it would depend on the position. I assume you mean Ne7 and not Nb-d7 which is almost never played in the opening (rather Nb-c6 which along with c5 attacks d4).
Interestingly enough if ...[text shortened]... as both black and white, he is seeking to control or at least fight for Queen 5 from the start.
22 Aug 07
Originally posted by ExumaI think that we (the mere mortals) have to take great care in deciding to bypass the theory and guidlines that have evolved over the lifetime of competitive chess. To understand how and when to deviate from the 'norm' one has to have a mastery of the game. I agree fully with the comment made in this post that to deviate from opening theory, just to 'throw' your opponent is flawed, as you are deliberately selecting a less perfect move. Clearly if your opponent doesnt know how to exploit this, you may gain significant advantage, but you are taking a chance on this. To prove this assertion, I know that 2200+ rated players have played lines against me that they would not have dreamed of playing against people rated at their level.
As recommended in the Weyerstrass thread here is the new thread...
My original comment:
I find it fascinating looking at Weyerstrass's games, that he has a tendency to develop his kings knight to the 2nd rank (both in English as white, and French as black), and a willingness to weaken f3 or f6 by pushing both the e and g pawns. These are things that with ...[text shortened]... - I already have a place to put the KB. Any comments on "non-standard" development welcomed!
The same applies for the rest of the game. It is clear that in Weyerstrass's games, moving the knight to the second rank not the third, and moving the f- and g-pawns in ways we are taught not too is possible because he has assessed that in the specific requirements of the position, it is the best move. Unless you know this too, the likelihood is that you are better adhering to the guidance that says these moves are 'weakening'.
My point being only when you are as good as these guys can you break the guidelines, because you are doing it for a specific reason on the basis of a level of assessment we can't make. So to mirror them, just because we know they are a better player, would miss the point considerably.