On Feb 27, 9:49 am, " wrote:

As a certified Bad Player (with rating to support my assertion) I have
ditched almost all of my opening books. I don't have a lot of spare
time to study, and something like 95% of that time is spent on the
Chess Tactics Server or with the CT-ART tactics training program.
This does me far more good than any other study plan I can think of.

The other 5% of my time? Chernev's "Logical Chess Move by Move" is
probably 3% of my total time, and opening study is maybe 2%. I just
want to have a few ideas and know a couple of short and simple
sequences. At my level that is more than enough.

Against 1. e4 I play 1. ... d5 and please don't tell me about it being
inferior in theory. It gets into a wide-open game that is sound
enough.

Against 1. d4 I go for the Tarrasch and take my chances. I know it
to a depth of maybe 4 moves; that's enough for now.

Against other stuff I try to transpose, for instance 1. c4 e6 as often
as not will get me back to the Tarrasch, and if not, I just play the
best I can.

With White, 1. e4 and again I know maybe 3 moves in each sequence;
play for an open game (French and Caro-Kann exchange, for instance).

I do try to be consistent so that position patterns often repeat.

One exception to all of this: if I feel I do really poorly in some
opening variant in a particular game, I'll likely look it up
afterwards to try to see where it went wrong.

But again, when I have time, it almost always goes into tactical
practice, because I have no illusions about my losses --- they are due
most of the time to the type of mistake which tactical practice can
help eliminate. And my wins, such as they are, are due to taking
advantage of the opponent's similar mistakes.


In one of my recent tournaments, two of my
opponents each hung a piece due to simple
oversights. In a somewhat more rare display
of stupidity, I hung a Rook in a long exchange
of pieces which I miscalculated. All these
games were lost by the player who erred
tactically-- not the ones who misplayed the
openings.

Having long forgotten much of what I once
knew of the openings, I have taken to looking
at things from the perspective of a book-less
newbie. Where my opponents might make a
rote move without even knowing why, I seem
to get things in their proper order, for a valid
purpose, and this results in decent positions
in the middle game.

But the fact is, most of my recent opponents
know precious little themselves, and so there
has been no battle of the book-monkeys, no
theoretical duels in which one side gets hit by
an unexpected TN and crumples. Indeed, in
one game against a relatively high-rated
opponent, I found myself blundering in allowing
a combination which I had anticipated -- and
carefully avoided -- on just the previous move;
even so, my response shocked the fellow on
the other side of the board and he froze, not
knowing if he had trapped me, or been trapped
himself!

He got my Queen and I got just enough
compensation, but a hard-to-play position
which I later bungled; still, his technique was
sorely lacking, and the fight went on to a bit
of a time scramble where I fought to a near-
draw on the board. Incredibly, his flag fell
despite the newfangled clock, with its five
second delay; this is the second time I've
had a game which was decided this way, in
spite of claims that the delay soothes away
all t.p. pains... .


-- help bot