26 Feb 11
Originally posted by Man TooToo funny- I'm one of those 20+ year KIA guys, and I still get games that surprise me! I attribute that partly to the fact that I am liberal about transposing to lines of the Reti or main line variations against the Dutch, etc, if appropriate.
Hi, I'm new here... I just wanted to chime in and say that this was a really great thread to read through. Seems like you have a bunch of nice, knowledgeable guys here - most chess forums I've been too are way too high strung and caustic for my taste.
Anyway, I think the Colle is a fine repertoire choice but I've never known anyone to stick with it (or t ...[text shortened]... ave played the KIA for 20+ years though. Just as easy to use, but more exciting play I think.
I also attribute developments in the Pirc and Modern over the last 20 years, as they seem to cross over to new approaches for black after a year or so- it seems a good portion of my KIAs nowadays are really Pirc/Modern reversed- games.
Thank you also for your comments on the "forum crew", as it was also an attraction for me when I was new here. There is a great diversity of well-conceived (or at least well-intentioned🙂 ) opinions here, and there are some great people here willing to share them without angst or pretense.
We all are entertained and learn something as we go, which is why we come back!
26 Feb 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI will adopt the way of water, as per Miyamoto Musahi in the book of 5 rings.
Nimzo, my son,
I am unworthy of this honour, never the less, remember our adage, be water my friend! If our opponent expands we yield (dxc5!), if he contracts we fill the gaps (e2-e4 or c2-c4), eventually he shall be deluged and suffer catastrophe!
best of luck young grasshopper!
26 Feb 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Paul Leggett"Why you should play the Colle!"
Too funny- I'm one of those 20+ year KIA guys, and I still get games that surprise me! I attribute that partly to the fact that I am liberal about transposing to lines of the Reti or main line variations against the Dutch, etc, if appropriate.
I also attribute developments in the Pirc and Modern over the last 20 years, as they seem to cross over to pretense.
We all are entertained and learn something as we go, which is why we come back!
It's the Semislav with an extra move.
The English is the Sicilian with an extra move.
Why is it that when you play the same black opening as white, it's never as good? Something about having to show your cards first I guess. GM Rowson wrote about is in a mag a few years ago.
For me chess is like my wife. I love her, but no chance I'll understand her.
26 Feb 11
Originally posted by hedonistWhat kills me are those guys who play 1. e4 (1. ... e5 with an extra move) and 1.d4 (1. ... d5 with an extra move). This crazy world of chess we play in!
"Why you should play the Colle!"
It's the Semislav with an extra move.
The English is the Sicilian with an extra move.
Why is it that when you play the same black opening as white, it's never as good? Something about having to show your cards first I guess. GM Rowson wrote about is in a mag a few years ago.
For me chess is like my wife. I love her, but no chance I'll understand her.
When my first daughter was born, I thought about buying a shotgun for when she started dating.
Now I have two daughters (7 and 3), and when they start dating, I plan to meet their dates at the door with a release of liability and waiver of warranty form- those guys will have no idea what's in store for them!
26 Feb 11
1 edit
Originally posted by hedonistFrom "Chess on the Edge":
I don't understand. Why is say 1... g6 better than 1 g3?
"1. g3
Why not? If the move works for Black, it should work even better for White. Shouldn't it?
It turns out this may not be the case. One reason is the psychological aspect of the opening. With White, most players feel compelled to play for an advantage, even to the point of being enraged when Black plays a defence such as 1. ... g6. With Black, the same players will play modestly, offering their opponents fewer chances for attack. 1. ... g6 is a counterpunching opening, but with nothing to counterpunch against, it is sometimes less effective.
There is also a theory that in some positions, especially those where tempos are not critical, it can be disadvantageous to move first, as you may have to commit to a certain scheme of development which the opponent can then answer in the most appropriate manner. This "information theory" argument postulates that it may sometimes be better to move second, because then you know what your opponent has done. This theory assumes implicitly that the side moving first has no useful waiting moves - or at least that every waiting move can be countered by a waiting move."
I haven't got a clue how true that is but I can say that I feel less comfortable playing 1. g3 as white than I do playing 1. g6 as black.
02 Mar 11
Originally posted by hedonistWhile 1.g3 is playable and is a popular white first move (ranked 5th), and Pal Benko used 1.g3 to defeat Bobby Fischer and Mikhail Tal, one general criticism is that it doesn't timely put pressure on Black's position and therefore Black can take a setup of choice.
I don't understand. Why is say 1... g6 better than 1 g3?
Moreover, while some of the databases clearly show good statistics for fianchetto structures -- g3 (and g6 for black), the strategy of sitting-in-the-wing hypermodern stuff I think is overrated, especially at the club level where the opponent knows how to dominate the center and not let it be diffused remotely or from the flank by the opponent's hypermodern setup.
Further, in general, a fianchetto bishop may be strong in certain situations, but is not magic and not so clearly the greatest as some assert, in my feeble opinion.
There is nothing more powerful than grabbing the center quickly with e4 or d4.
While there is definitely strong play with hypermodern that will always be around, I think it will in the long run be more of a fad with, in contrast, early pawns to e4, d4, c4, e5, d5, c5 being the most productive and the mainstay.
02 Mar 11
Originally posted by moon1969It appears to me to come down to a matter of belief, in that, you play the system you believe to be the best. If you believe in a strong centre you play classically, if you do not you play in the hypermodern tradition, controlling the centre with pieces and only then challenging it with pawn thrusts. Who can say which philosophy will prevail.
While 1.g3 is playable and is a popular white first move (ranked 5th), and Pal Benko used 1.g3 to defeat Bobby Fischer and Mikhail Tal, one general criticism is that it doesn't timely put pressure on Black's position and therefore Black can take a setup of choice.
Moreover, while some of the databases clearly show good statistics for fianchetto structure ...[text shortened]... n contrast, early pawns to e4, d4, c4, e5, d5, c5 being the most productive and the mainstay.
02 Mar 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI think it comes down to what you are most comfortable with. Recently I decided to test the theory that if I play respectable, classical openings my results will improve. It was a disaster. While I did well on the rare occasions when my opponent went the way I wanted, I suffered in the vast array of openings that I am not so familiar with. I will stick with what I know from now on and leave the GM repertoires to GMs.
It appears to me to come down to a matter of belief, in that, you play the system you believe to be the best. If you believe in a strong centre you play classically, if you do not you play in the hypermodern tradition, controlling the centre with pieces and only then challenging it with pawn thrusts. Who can say which philosophy will prevail.
02 Mar 11
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI don't think modern chess is all to concerned about classical vs hypermodern. Theory is deep enough now in practically any line you choose that it is more a question of concrete decisions and the fight for the iniative. Yout strive to put pressure on your opponent so they make mistakes. The technique of modern players is high enough that without putting pressure on them they are unlikely to have much problem equalizing.
It appears to me to come down to a matter of belief, in that, you play the system you believe to be the best. If you believe in a strong centre you play classically, if you do not you play in the hypermodern tradition, controlling the centre with pieces and only then challenging it with pawn thrusts. Who can say which philosophy will prevail.
Openings like g3 in modern master play is an attempt to gain a favorable transposition not a philosophy on the merits of central control.
Some strong center and some hypermodern opening lines work, but they do so because of concrete factors.
02 Mar 11
Originally posted by DiophantusYou don't learn to play a new set of openings in a day, it took Leko two years to learn 1. d4 openings for his WC match.
I think it comes down to what you are most comfortable with. Recently I decided to test the theory that if I play respectable, classical openings my results will improve. It was a disaster. While I did well on the rare occasions when my opponent went the way I wanted, I suffered in the vast array of openings that I am not so familiar with. I will stick with what I know from now on and leave the GM repertoires to GMs.
The danger in falling in love with sub par openings that you know well is that at some point you will meet opposition strong enough to negate your advantage in familiarity, then it will come down to the objective merit of the position.
At it's simplest form, this is why at some point, everyone drops playing for Scholar's mate as you reach opponents strong enough to not fall for it.
I think it is far better to put in the work learning quality openings and take your lumps.
Thus no Colle.
02 Mar 11
Originally posted by nimzo5This is interesting in itself, for there are openings which seek to fight for the initiative right from the start and openings which do not, the so called quite openings, thus it appears to me not to be so entirely clear cut as fighting for initiative. The hypermodern player knows that at some point he needs to challenge the centre, yet he is willing to delay the action, thus initiative is not so important to him at the very beginning. Whether of course it results in a favourable transition, remains to be determined. I still say it essentially comes down to philosophy and what you personally believe to be good for you. For example, why does Kramnik never play 1.e4, because his results with it have been very poor. This cannot simply be put down to his chess ability, for no doubt he is a truly formidable player. Therefore it must be on the basis of some other factors.
I don't think modern chess is all to concerned about classical vs hypermodern. Theory is deep enough now in practically any line you choose that it is more a question of concrete decisions and the fight for the iniative. Yout strive to put pressure on your opponent so they make mistakes. The technique of modern players is high enough that without putting pres ...[text shortened]... ong center and some hypermodern opening lines work, but they do so because of concrete factors.
02 Mar 11
Originally posted by nimzo5I spent ten years playing the standard "good" openings. I always played 1. e4 as white, intending a Ruy Lopez, and generally played Sicilian or Nimzo/Queen's Indian as black. Good solid stuff. That was a long time ago but even so I should have been able to hold my own as this sort of knowledge is not the sort of thing that vanishes quickly. Being CC, I could look over my old game scores and consult books and databases so any killer novelties shouldn't really have been a problem.
You don't learn to play a new set of openings in a day, it took Leko two years to learn 1. d4 openings for his WC match.
The danger in falling in love with sub par openings that you know well is that at some point you will meet opposition strong enough to negate your advantage in familiarity, then it will come down to the objective merit of the position. ...[text shortened]... far better to put in the work learning quality openings and take your lumps.
Thus no Colle.
I put in the work learning quality openings, I took my lumps, and after ten years I was a fair to middling chess player and bored. So I took a different route. That path was suggested by someone who noticed that I played Dragon and Accelerated Dragon, and seemed to to better with that than the other openings I played. We looked at my games and had the thought that maybe I was more comfortable with the sort of pawn structure and piece placement that comes out of Dragons, whether accelerated or not. I looked for games with the king's bishop fianchetto and liked what I saw, I felt I understood Pircs, KIDs and Dragons better than the other stuff. Then I looked at the white side of things and found a similar result. I often use the g3/g6 thing as a transpositional tool. I can get an English setup that I like from g3, but avoid attempts to drag me into a Slav or Semi Slav, for instance.
This isn't a case of falling in love with a sub par opening, this is just me playing what I am comfortable with for the positions I enjoy. If I was ever going to be a professional chess player I'd have likely knuckled down and forced myself to get good with the standard openings. However, I chose the path of science and chess is just a hobby. I'm damned if I'm going to do any hobby that is harder work than my day job!
02 Mar 11
Originally posted by nimzo5What he said.
I don't think modern chess is all to concerned about classical vs hypermodern. Theory is deep enough now in practically any line you choose that it is more a question of concrete decisions and the fight for the iniative. Yout strive to put pressure on your opponent so they make mistakes. The technique of modern players is high enough that without putting pres ...[text shortened]... ong center and some hypermodern opening lines work, but they do so because of concrete factors.
02 Mar 11
3 edits
Originally posted by DiophantusThis is mostly how I play OTB, although sometimes I start with 1. Nf3 as white.
[b]I put in the work learning quality openings, I took my lumps, and after ten years I was a fair to middling chess player and bored. So I took a different route. That path was suggested by someone who noticed that I played Dragon and Accelerated Dragon, and seemed to to better with that than the other openings I played. We looked at my games and had the tho ...[text shortened]... sh setup that I like from g3, but avoid attempts to drag me into a Slav or Semi Slav, for instance.
My favorite transpositional novelty the last 3 years is when I play 1. ... g6 against 1. d4, and if the game continues 2. c4 Bg7 3. Nc3 d6 4. Nf3 (white's 3 and 4 being interchangeable), I leave the King's Indian, play 4. ... f5, and take the game into Leningrad Dutch channels.
I am comfortable in the main line Leningrad Dutch, and I avoid all the anti-Dutch lines that patzer players like myself often use as white.