|
Understanding why you put pieces in some places in some openings but other places in other openings is a fine thing to spend a little time on, it can help you learn to spot the ingredients for tactics and understand strategic principles. This common line from the Evans Gambit, arising after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 NC6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4 Bxb4 5.c3 Bc5 6.d4 exd4 is a good example. Black has just captured on d4, so I think most people's natural instinct is to play 7.cxd4 in response because you just lost a pawn and it looks like you're about to lose another, and this seems like the safest way to capture back. Now, 7.cxd4 is a perfectly decent move, but it's not necessary to rush to recapture because dxc3 is not a threat, in fact it's a blunder in light of 7.O-O dxc3? 8.Bxf7+! Kxf7 9.Qd5 Kf8 10.Qxc5 d6 11.Qxc3. White has tremendous compensation for the sacrificed pawn in the form of a huge lead in development, a much safer king, and many easy moves to start building an attack. The temporary Bxf7+ sacrifice is a common motif in many e4-e5 openings, and is in some sense the reason the Italian Game (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4) exists at all. Because black cannot shield the pawn by playing e6 once it's been pushed to e5, f7 is a weakness black has to be very mindful of. Studying this line may help you see other Bxf7+ opportunities in other openings (or avoid falling prey to them when you're playing as black). But at the sub-1200 level, it's not worth building a full opening repertoire (what is usually meant when people say "memorize openings") to learn this lesson. Most lines in a full repertoire are going to end on a rather pedestrian "white has the bishop pair and a backward pawn on d6 to play against, while black aims to expand on the queenside and eliminate the d6 weakness with a timely d5 push" kind of evaluation that a sub-1200 player isn't going to know what to do with. And one side or the other will likely end up accidentally hanging a piece in a few moves anyway, which completely overwhelms the subtle positional considerations that were the reason you bothered to memorize the line in the first place.
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 07:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 23:02 |
|
|
I studied too much openings. Because it is a different mental effort and if I am in a mood conductive to studying tactics, I play chess instead. My biggest single rating boost came from making a mental shift and including endgame studies in the opening study mindset. Though the book on openings I learned the most from is John Bartholomew's free chessable 1d4 course. It focuses a lot on the commonalities between the lines. You almost always end up Qc2 and lots of lines merge together. A line almost worth memorizing at lower levels is how to punish people trying to hold on to the gambit pawn. It taught me to give back pawns. And also the difference between memorizing a line and understanding it well enough to react to seeing it in a game with slightly changes move order.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 08:37
|
|
|
e: removed discussion of a daily game. Even saying no hints in bold, I don't want to risk it. I just typed out a whole long post about how my opening prep won me material but now I have no clue which positional move is correct. I mean it was a couple hundred words about the relative value of trading Bishops and Kg1-h1 profilaxis and developing onto open files. ... I went back did one last checks/captures/attacks look at the position before doing something quiet ... and realized I had a one-mover skewer to win an exchange with what I thought was my bad Bishop no less. So before you even start thinking about positions and responding to their plans ... checks/captures/attacks. Draw them on the board, even if they feel stupid. Huxley fucked around with this message at 15:41 on May 1, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 15:27
|
|
|
I'll add this twitter screengrab of an intermediate practice plan I liked. I did the first 2 weeks of this a while back (over the course of a month, 30 hard puzzles and two rapid games is a big chunk of time when you're trying to fit it in around work) and it felt like a good flexible structure. I'm going to start it back up soon and try to get through the whole thing.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 15:56
|
|
|
khazar sansculotte posted:Understanding why you put pieces in some places in some openings but other places in other openings is a fine thing to spend a little time on, Thank you, I think this post really gets at what I'm thinking about doing and should do. Not specifically to claim a higher rating, just to feel more satisfied with my own play. I do not like the feeling of being "lost" on move 5, whereas being a bit lost in the middle game is more OK because I am learning about tactics and that feels like the point where that understanding is applicable, on the foundation of having not hosed up the first five moves.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 18:54
|
|
|
I dunno I learned a bunch of 1 d4 theory from a grandmaster Catalan book and it was a) a lot of fun and b) helpful to understand the big picture. Also it means you generally get a better game because pieces aren't splayed across the board like Fischer Random. However, I did this because it was fun and I enjoyed it. It would have made me a better player to just study tactics however.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 01:35
|
|
|
With no resources or actual strategic positions to control I've been looking at the center of the board as the high ground and try to dominate that while shoring up the flanks. Seems okay as a Fisher Price strategy.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 01:42
|
|
|
"It is the greatest importance to accustom ourselves to carry out operations ... in such a manner that we have from the start some settled, definite objective. It is characteristic of the less practiced player that he chooses an opposite course, in fact he wanders about, looking first to the right, then to the left without any fixed plan. No, settle on your objective is the rule. Such an objective, as we have learned, may be a pawn or a point. Which one, it matters not. But aimlessly drifting from one to another, this will expose you to a strategical disgrace. - Aron Nimzowitsch
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 02:24
|
|
|
in other words, “Y'all can't be playing no checkers on no chessboard!” — The Wire, Season 1, Episode 3: "The Buys."
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 06:54
|
|
|
You can absolutely play checkers on a chess board
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 16:23
|
|
|
3 DONG HORSE posted:You can absolutely play checkers on a chess board What you want the loving cops to shut this forum down? Don't go saying stuff like this, jesus.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 16:44
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qexW6W0e2Sc
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 17:02
|
|
|
this is such chess player poo poo i love it
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2024 17:31
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVgWQyGOTvk re-route the night 
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 15:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 4, 2024 23:02 |
|
|
3 DONG HORSE posted:Thank you Leper! Just watch Chessbrah's Building Habits series on YouTube. Only thing you need to start off with, just good fundamentals.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2024 16:22
|
|
