First blood! well done
|
Chess
|
|
September 24th, 2013, 04:37
(This post was last modified: September 24th, 2013, 04:39 by Sian.)
i've gone on vacation on chess.com for the moment, since i've cought the flu, and frankly don't feel up for thinking hard about anything ... only reason why i even bother writing it here (in non-native language) is that i'm so used to thinking in English (although specially when its about technical stuff), that it doesn't take much if anything to translate it
September 24th, 2013, 13:32
(This post was last modified: September 24th, 2013, 13:34 by Gustaran.)
 (September 24th, 2013, 04:14)uberfish Wrote: Yeah I'm an e4 e5 player because the opening variations just make a lot more sense to me. My match opponent just resigned in my black game after a failed King's Gambit. I always like playing this as black because the extra pawn black gets immediately controls important squares, so if I avoid being mated early I have a counterattack ready to go. Good job, uberfish! I see you gained a ton of rating points!  The problem with 1.e4 e5 is that you need to learn quite a lot of different openings (if you answer 2.Nf3 with Nc6): - King's Gambit - Italian - Ruy Lopez/Spanish - Scotch - 4 Knights - Vienna Game - Center Game Of course that's not so much of an issue in correspondence chess, but over the board I think it's less work to learn a different system that's not 1...e5. Because after 1.e4 e6 it's a French and there is nothing white can do about it, while with 1.e4 e5 white gets to choose again. Of course 1...e5 is one of the most popular answers in grandmaster chess, so if you feel comfortable with it and know at least one good line against all of white's options it's a very good choice. @Sian: Get well soon. Team RB needs you 
The good thing about e4 e5 is that usually the good moves are ones that look natural anyway, and usually it's a case of playing them in the right order because of tactical issues. In the Najdorf for example, I generally have no clue what the point of half the moves is. (That's also why I play the f4 Sicilian as white.)
The other game was drawn, I thought I got a decent position out of the opening but my opponent defended well after that. Actually what I need is a new defence to d4 as I don't think the Slav really suits my style and I don't want to learn a ton of Kings Indian theory 
September 25th, 2013, 09:52
(This post was last modified: September 26th, 2013, 03:11 by Gustaran.)
(September 25th, 2013, 02:44)uberfish Wrote: Actually what I need is a new defence to d4 as I don't think the Slav really suits my style and I don't want to learn a ton of Kings Indian theory I don't think playing the Slav is really less work than the King's Indian, especially the main lines like the Meran variation have huge amounts of theory because they are so popular up to world championship level. Did you ever consider the Stonewall Dutch? They main ideas are easy to understand and the main setup is very often the same. One of my book says: "On club level, the Stonewall is easier to play for black than white" though I must admit it's a little static. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoPOOPpjSgA Since you have an awesome tactics score at chess.com it might be worth looking at a sharper defense like the Gruenfeld. This is immensely popular but it has accumulated lots of theory as well. On the other hand if you love positions which can get very dynamic and trust your calculation ability this might be the one for you. In addition I have never seen a player under 2000 who was playing the Gruenfeld, so you might have an advantage from the start if you have some knowledge about it and your opponent doesn't. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2A-pYN5nCK4 |
