|
RoflcopterPilot posted:I'm also having a hard time with 1. d4. I'm not a fan of neither the King's Indian nor the Grunfeld, and QGD (and accepted) don't feel that great. The Tarrasch Defense is often erased in discussions of 1.d4, but it can be a useful tool, especially since you can use it against English and KIA players. This is more suited to aggressive players since it concedes structural health for attacking chances though. As a French player, I imagine the Slav might be your future home. Bodyholes fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Jan 4, 2017 |
#
¿
Jan 4, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 21:24 |
|
|
Elyv posted:With regard to openings, I'm of the opinion that at low levels at least, it's more important to understand what you're trying to do with an opening rather than to know the actual line inside and out. You will run into opponents who make untheoretical moves(I don't mean, like, sacrifices, I mean developing in a suboptimal order or exchanging when you're not supposed to or something) and you need to know what to do if the game gets off track. Yeah, openings are not meant to be treated like incantations, handed down from on high. There are some pretty surprising moves that break from mainlines early on that are totally playable, even if they're considered inferior by the top players. Pretty easy to get thrown for a loop by those if all you do is memorize the perfect line. We all have different ways of learning. For me... I find the best way was just to play it out many times. Read a chapter from my opening book, then play lots of blitz to internalize it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2017 23:40
|
|
|
Occasionally engines mess up and get stuck with an entombed piece. That is one blind spot they still have. I don't see how you could forcibly push them into entering such positions every game though. Considering engines always beat humans in top level play on their own, it doesn't seem like something that happens often. And usually when an engine does make a mistake, it allows the human to draw when they would've lost. Sometimes the 2nd-4th move Stockfish sees is better, in terms of generating winning chances... when humans play each other those are often the moves they opt for. Very often the first move is a hyper-solid and unambitious move, and the 2nd or 3rd is a more dynamic but also more dangerous one. Against another engine it seems futile though.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2017 19:13
|
|
|
There are too many social factors that discourage young female players that we'd have to remove before we could say anything definitive. In the US, most chess clubs in school have only one girl in them. Most likely she'll get discouraged and quit when she gets older, because it's very isolating socially. Anyway, I'm Vatnos on lichess. https://lichess.org/@/Vatnos
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2017 17:43
|
|
|
The QGA is a perfectly valid way for Black to play. Just give the pawn back for a tempo at some point and develop a little more freely than you could in the QGD or Slav, with the price being capturing outwards with a central pawn, I guess. I don't play it personally. I'm a Tarrasch defense kinda guy, but the QGA shows up at all levels, not just poo poo tier.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2017 16:25
|
|
|
Hand Knit posted:This is gonna get really weird when we reach some critical position and someone just lunges to make the first move just because. Would've gone for the fianchetto variation with Black but that's not gonna win any popularity contests. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
I wanted to try 2.Nc3 as well. Handknit you read my mind.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2017 17:38
|
|
|
Hand Knit posted:If you get to actually play an English there's basically no concrete theory. Of course sometimes people are tremendous assholes and push you into stuff like a Slav or a KID. I usually go for a Tarrasch against the English, but occasionally something really funny happens when they try to turn it into some kind of Panov. 1.c4 e6 2.e4 d5 3.exd5 Nf6 4.dxe6 Bxe6 and now it's an Icelandic Gambit. While I don't play this way normally against e4, as I don't like the most critical lines with Black, I feel that 1.c4 players are likely to be totally unfamiliar with it, which makes it okay enough.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2018 20:17
|
|
|
For me it's the opposite. Lichess frequently hangs and my ping will randomly go to 500 in the middle of a game. In the past, it was by far the superrior site in terms of its user interface and speed and yet now I find myself playing on Chess.com more often than I had for the past couple years.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2018 23:30
|
|
|
Hand Knit posted:But enough about the main line. Still more sound than anything I play.... sigh
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2019 01:20
|
|
|
I don't think playing sidelines holds people back as much as some claim. ...Within reason of course. Nothing like the Englund or the Fred Defense. But I improved my OTB rating by 800 points and got my first win against an IM in slow chess with the Portuguese Gambit so, take that as you will. I think as long as you enjoy chess enough to put in the work to improve, and your opening isn't horrid enough that it's preventing you from getting reasonable positions out of the opening, it's fine. Some people climb their way up by being specialists of some pet sideline. That said, if you already play the Ruy Lopez and like it, stick with it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2020 06:39
|
|
|
algebra testes posted:Chess.com was hyper toxic when I played regularly. I noticed that on the forums for Chess.com back in the day. Some people get really bent out of shape about opening choices. I don't get it. Chess would be pretty boring if everyone played the same 3 openings over and over.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2021 07:33
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:Imagine the horror of being CHECKMATED by a mere pawn. The hired help! Stabbing you with his little pawn knife! Oh the humanity. On the other hand pawns promote to queens. How progressive for the 19th century having transgender characters in the game.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2021 20:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 21:24 |
|
|
Salt Fish posted:I like openings 3 good reasons to learn them I would agree. I stagnated for a long time in chess because I stubbornly refused to learn openings. Eventually I got sick of having bad positions every game and found some openings that spoke to who I was, and got better very rapidly over the next five years because I was passionate about learning my pet openings and getting nasty combos and winning with them. Now it is fair to say some players spend too much time on openings compared to other aspects of their chess. Different people learn different ways and some people get more mileage out of endgames and midgames. Some people benefit from having the plans and structures of openings imposed on their play though. Every coach's advice is good for someone and bad for someone else. That's my advice, as a coach.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2021 05:24
|
|