30 ( +1 | -1 )
White; Chess opening Pe2-e3 ...
is anyone familiar with White Pe2-e3, and later White Pd2-d3, and later White King-side Castleing opening. i, am particularly interested [..i, have been playing Chess "on-and-off" for 30 yrs] how to Play an Offensive against this initial Pe2-e3 ..etc. i, hope i don't sound like a complete div. - thanks for your time
81 ( +1 | -1 )
Playing 1.e3 or 1.d3 is not all that ambitious, but it's not bad. Black is allowed to develop as he wants since white didn't claim any of the center. While there are other choices, it looks to me like this will either transpose into some reversed opening (white playing as if black with an extra move), or they will become some sort of hypermodern opening for white (holding back, developing pieces, and then striking in the center).
You can probably find sample games that open like this. The only problem is that 1.e3 and 1.d3 leave so many options for both sides that the game really becomes what you make of it. It all depends on what your goal is with the opening -- that is, what do you hope to achieve by playing 1.e3 or 1.d3 instead of 1.e4 or 1.d4?
115 ( +1 | -1 )
I, have found playing White, that: prior to Move3 Pe2-3, and, Move4 Pd2-3 - if I start with: Move1 Ph2-3, then, Move2 Ng1-f3, I can usually make o-o with Move5 Bf1-g2; then timely, Move6 Nf3-h2 prior to o-o or, soon after o-o.
I have found, that: Nh2 from Ng1 via Nf3 is quite strong, especially if, later: Pe3-e4, or, Pd3-d4 ....
ganstaman - it appears to me - if Ph2-h3 can be made before my Opponent makes Pe7-e6[or /e5] then: once he\she has made that Move, the OPEN Diagonal c8/h3 goes someway to cancelling ,strong: N at h2.
Of course, if I [often] still have: P at e3, or P at d3 while N is getting to h2 [ ..an Objective, as I see it in this case,] many of my P do n't even reach Row4, or, Row5.
If I am lucky: I can capture my Opponent's N at e7, with, my: Bc1-g5 ..then later Bg5xN, there. - Sometimes, failing to capture: N at e7 [with my B at g5;] if I can get that B to g3, I have "some position."
IF, my Opponent captures Q-side pieces [especially Ps..] quickly, early-on in the Game his\her Ps can quickly get to Row3, at least, and forthrightly open e-File ...where Qs may get quickly-swapped.
- Thanks for your time ganstaman. If, you know more of this .. prehaps you have an opinion. I would definately like to hear it. Or you could make some corrections to my thinking. best
49 ( +1 | -1 )
gangstaman, Move1 Ph2-h3 is: an irregular-opening called the Clemenz Opening. Since I generally align my Clemenz Play to an Advance of King's Pawn, I suppose this is aligned-play. Sometimes with play Ph2-h3, I play: Grob's Attack with Pg2-g4, or, sometimes to g3, again aligned to; Advance of King's Pawn. I play this sort of Opening with French Defence ..and o-o. And: Barne's Opening, with; Pf2-3 the BEST [though: I find Play AFTER Barn's, complex.]
105 ( +1 | -1 )
Well, some of these ideas are playable. The Grob and Barne's won't win except against weaker oponents (but then you likely would have won regardless of how you opened). I've tried them both and can say that they definitely give an advantage to the other player, which isn't something you have to or want to do.
The Clemenz is playable, but pointless. You have many other moves that sever a better purpose. If you really enjoy opening like this, then go ahead and do it. But I would certainly recommend more popular openings where you develop your pieces to active squares and actually try to win the game through some aggressiveness. This opening seems too passive and overly defensive.
There is a thread about the hippopotamus opening here. You may want to check it out (I think it links to some games and articles). While it's usually used by the black player, white can play it too. You should see how the player that started that thread likes the opening now after studying/practicing it for this time.
23 ( +1 | -1 )
Thanks, for your opinion. I, will check out the hippopotamus Thread ..sounds interesting.
I am interested too, in the notion that the Barn's opening won't Win, except against weaker Opponents. I find the opening intriguing .. but thanks anyway -
45 ( +1 | -1 )
Well I guess it can win, just much less often than other openings. Not only does it not do anything helpful, it actually does harmful things to your position. If you actually want to win fairly often and you're not crazy, then I see no reason to use the Barne's Opening.
I'm sure there are people out there that will claim it has many merits, but every opening, no matter how bad it is, will have a cult that follows it....
38 ( +1 | -1 )
ganstaman: Barn's opening
..I have been looking at a few games with Barn. At the present, I have an interest in the Ruy Lopez game.
..I, suppose that: in your last posting in this thread, quote "..every opening, no matter how bad it is, will have a cult that follows it.... " - is different from saying that Chess is:
" cultish "
..a less sure pose.
< - a priori > ~amenhotepi
176 ( +1 | -1 )
Openings that do not attack the center are bad.
Also, basic chess rules are that you want to save tempi, therefore moving your pawn one space is inherently bad. Low rated players tend to remain such because they like to play fundamentally weak opening moves. There is a reason that GM, IM.... play basic solid openings. That is how you win.
When was the last time you opened a Chess Life and found a GM playing a GM and 1.e3, 1.h3, 1.g4 was the opening move? Again there is a reason for this.
Lower rated players also tend to blame the opening for their losses. This usually is not the case. They tend to lose their games the first few moves 'out of the book'. They memorize all the moves, but as soon as they are past their memorization (or their Chessbase) BOOM, there is the blunder.
I advise all my students to play good solid openings, not to blame the openings for their losses, and post mortem all their games. Run it through Fritz if they cannot get a human to look it over. They find that moves 10-20 usually doom them.
This also goes back to an old arguement I have had here. Lower rated players tend also to purchase a bunch of chess books, mostly opening books, but do not understand the meaning behind their moves. When I am training someone, I will stoop games in the 'book opening' phase and ask why they made a particular move. Most times they say "book move" This is why when there is no longer a book move they are lost. Stop reading chess and start playing it. You learn much more from making a blunder than memorizing the first 10 moves of the Ruy Lopez :)
126 ( +1 | -1 )
about that argument...
I'd like to discuss this a bit further as long as it doesn't annoy anyone. Are you (coyotefan) against all chess books, or just opening books? In the other thread, we were (at least I was) discussing all books in general. If a book teaches you why to make certain moves, then wouldn't it be exactly what you want?
I don't own any chess books, but I have read an excerpt from Eric Schiller's book on the Caro-Kann online. Besides providing the moves for the opening, he explains the purpose of each move and tells you what each piece on the board should be doing (and why). For other openings, I've seen him show typical middle game attacking strategies. Are you saying that a book like this is bad somehow for learning?
Of course, any tool can be misused. Someone can even get a chess computer and just use it to memorize its opening book. But if used properly, books can teach you a lot, even about openings.
Interesting sidenote: I went through a short stage where I tried out the Grob (1.g4). Where did I get the idea? Chess Life had a game of Claude Bloodgood's, where he dominated with that opening. However, I quickly learned why practically no one else plays that opening. I doubt I'll ever play it again.
125 ( +1 | -1 )
Interesting you bring up Claude's name
You will note that I have a few games in his Grob book. The main reason he was so successful with that opening was that he was a GM class player playing against much lower quality opponents. Claude was sentenced rto life in prison for multiple murders and therefore had no access to books or in his later life databases. He felt that he needed an equalizor, so he played odd openings. I played Claude for many years via mail. Up until he passed away a few years ago.
As far as my being opposed to books, it is not so much that, as I feel that when you are sitting at a chess table, you should be playing chess, not memorizing moves. Game collections are fine, as you can make their move, then study the board and determine why the move is good. Well anotated game collections are fine. Opening books for the most part suck. As I stated before, you need to know how to determine the best move, not memorize the books best move. Also books that can be read and learned from without a chess board in front of you are OK. "Bathroom reading" tactic books for example. Mate in 2 or three type of books. Being able to study and solve these without a board is great.