Only Chess
29 Sep 06
Originally posted by z00tOne of the reasons I play the Marshall is that it is very easy for white to screw it up. If I never catch my opponent in any mistakes, if I never find a hole to wiggle through and I get into even endgames I'm usually screwed. I tend to almost automatically play for a draw in those situations.
You know I could not resist (with a nick like that). How about a game of tic-tac-toe?
I did tell you what I have stated above in the relevant thread. You cannot illustrate a "good opening" with an irrelevant game? Who plays the Marshall because white may blunder at move 30?
I do feel I understand the Marshall, and because of this I feel that I know where the holes tend to appear. Actually, I'm in a couple of games right now where I completely imagined holes I thought I could attack through and broke my own back. That's how it goes. My point is, most players don't play for complicated positions that are theoretically won, but instead watch for mistakes from the other side of the board and base an attack on that percieved mistake. An opening is chosen because it creates positions that a player "sees" or understands where weaknesses may appear, not because the player thinks that the opening wins the game automatically.
You can certainly illustrate an opening with any game that uses the opening as far as use demonstrates what the player is trying to do even if he doesn't do it well. Whether or not an opening is "good" is a matter of opinion. Once again, if one opening was universally liked everyone would play it. Would you be happier if I dug up an alapin game played by GMs rather than displaying my substandard work?