Hi,

I'm currently studying various chess openings.

I've noticed that the standard 'book' openings usually proceed for a few
moves until you reach the 'variation' territory.

What I want to know is this:

Let's say, for example, that I have black, and my opponent opens with 1.e4,
and I respond with ...c5, going for a Sicilian Defense.

What if my opponent does something bizarre, like b3 or g4, etc? Can we still
have a Sicilian? How should I proceed when the opponent immediately deviates
from 'book'? None of the chess books I have purchased (and I have many),
demonstrates this. They all are stuffed with grandmaster games, many of
which are 'book' clear through move 10 and beyond. Most of the players I run
into deviate almost immediately because they don't know the standard
openings. I sense that I should be able to hammer a mistake like that, but
I'm at a loss as to how to proceed. In the sample I gave, if we proceed, are
we still in the Sicilian, or some other, more bizarre formation?

Could you also recommend any books that give the _reasons_ behind the
various openings, rather than endless repertoires?

Help!

Thanks,
Patrick
(Remove the "_" from email address if you wish to reply via email).

Patrick Hoerter wrote:

Could you also recommend any books that give the _reasons_ behind the
various openings, rather than endless repertoires?

Oh, yes. Get Capablanca's Textbook of Chessgame (or whatever its precise
name is, it's easy to figure it out).

Help!

Thanks,
Patrick
(Remove the "_" from email address if you wish to reply via email).




--
Roman M. Parparov - NASA EOSDIS project node at TAU technical manager.
Email: http://www.nasa.proj.ac.il
Phone/Fax: +972-(0)3-6405205 (work), +972-(0)51-34-18-34 (home)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The economy depends about as much on economists as the weather does on
weather forecasters.
-- Jean-Paul Kauffmann

Look first to see if there's some obvious psoitional or tactical
disadvantage your opponent had given himself. Otherwise, see if you can set
up your own side with a position you're already familiar with. Your book
side, other things equal, is likely to be better than his uninformed
novelty. Don't worry about whether or not the opening still has a name or is
a known line. It doesn't matter -- unless saying the name to yourself
reminds you of the move or position you've studied.

One of my favorite older books is one by Irving Chernev entitled "Logical
Chess Move by Move." You get a good understanding of the openings in the
games he takes you through. It's that understanding, if developed, that is
what you need in strange opening situations. When white plays the Polish
Opening, you know he has given black an immediate advantage. So you play Nf6
and beat him.

Wilma


Wilma


Wilma

"Patrick Hoerter" wrote in message
...
Hi,

I'm currently studying various chess openings.

I've noticed that the standard 'book' openings usually proceed for a few
moves until you reach the 'variation' territory.

What I want to know is this:

Let's say, for example, that I have black, and my opponent opens with
1.e4,
and I respond with ...c5, going for a Sicilian Defense.

What if my opponent does something bizarre, like b3 or g4, etc? Can we
still
have a Sicilian? How should I proceed when the opponent immediately
deviates
from 'book'? None of the chess books I have purchased (and I have many),
demonstrates this. They all are stuffed with grandmaster games, many of
which are 'book' clear through move 10 and beyond. Most of the players I
run
into deviate almost immediately because they don't know the standard
openings. I sense that I should be able to hammer a mistake like that, but
I'm at a loss as to how to proceed. In the sample I gave, if we proceed,
are
we still in the Sicilian, or some other, more bizarre formation?

Could you also recommend any books that give the _reasons_ behind the
various openings, rather than endless repertoires?

Help!

Thanks,
Patrick
(Remove the "_" from email address if you wish to reply via email).

Also "Ideas Behind the Chess Openings" by Reuben Fine (if I remember
correctly) is a good book that explains the why and not only the how of the
openings. Its theory isn't very much up-to-date but that won't be a problem
if your opponents are deviating from book in move 2!

Regards,
mafergut

"Patrick Hoerter" wrote in message
...
Hi,

I'm currently studying various chess openings.

I've noticed that the standard 'book' openings usually proceed for a few
moves until you reach the 'variation' territory.

What I want to know is this:

Let's say, for example, that I have black, and my opponent opens with
1.e4,
and I respond with ...c5, going for a Sicilian Defense.

What if my opponent does something bizarre, like b3 or g4, etc? Can we
still
have a Sicilian? How should I proceed when the opponent immediately
deviates
from 'book'? None of the chess books I have purchased (and I have many),
demonstrates this. They all are stuffed with grandmaster games, many of
which are 'book' clear through move 10 and beyond. Most of the players I
run
into deviate almost immediately because they don't know the standard
openings. I sense that I should be able to hammer a mistake like that, but
I'm at a loss as to how to proceed. In the sample I gave, if we proceed,
are
we still in the Sicilian, or some other, more bizarre formation?

Could you also recommend any books that give the _reasons_ behind the
various openings, rather than endless repertoires?

Help!

Thanks,
Patrick
(Remove the "_" from email address if you wish to reply via email).


I recommend Fine's "The Ideas Behind the Chess Openings." It's exactly what
you're looking for.

Matt

"Patrick Hoerter" wrote in message ...
Hi,

I'm currently studying various chess openings.

I've noticed that the standard 'book' openings usually proceed for a few
moves until you reach the 'variation' territory.

What I want to know is this:

What if my opponent does something bizarre, like b3 or g4, etc? Can we still
have a Sicilian? How should I proceed when the opponent immediately deviates
from 'book'? None of the chess books I have purchased (and I have many),
demonstrates this. They all are stuffed with grandmaster games, many of
which are 'book' clear through move 10 and beyond. Most of the players I run
into deviate almost immediately because they don't know the standard
openings.

Most of the time when I encounter early deviations I go to my database
and look for games that have been played with that variation. With the
more mainstream openings you will generally find that the early
deviation may have once been popular even at the top but were later
abandoned. I often find interesting Alekhine, Mieses and Bronstein
games with an early deviation for the opposite side when I research my
pet opening. Go through the games, analyse them and hopefully they
will teach you both how to respond, as well as, why the deviation is
not good. Be careful about over-reacting to an early deviation though
- not all are easily punishable, or punishable early. There are tons
of early deviations in many openings that are OK but have been put to
rest by a better response. I guess what I am trying to say is that not
all early deviations are a "blunder" - just a better move was found.

The other issue is that from the black side you often encounter
unambitious white replies that are quite OK but are not considered by
theory precisely because they are unambitious. There is no point for a
theory book to consider a move that gives white equality on move 2. If
that happens, and you are black, good for you - you have achieved with
no sweat what many black openings fight for in the first 10-15-20
moves. Now play some chess.

I also reommend Fine's "Ideas behind the Chess Opening". Very well
written.

Another book is "Chess Master vs. Chess Amateur" by Euwe and Meiden. It
is a collection of games from simuls and shows how masters deal with
exactly the kind of moves you're talking about. What I especially liked
was the fact that it explained the thought processes of a master when
facing an out-of-the-book move - it did not simply give a series of
variations. I found the book, incidentally, in the Huntsville, AL
public library; so if you find yourself down here, you might check it out!

Patrick Hoerter wrote:

Hi,

I'm currently studying various chess openings.

I've noticed that the standard 'book' openings usually proceed for a few
moves until you reach the 'variation' territory.

What I want to know is this:

Let's say, for example, that I have black, and my opponent opens with 1.e4,
and I respond with ...c5, going for a Sicilian Defense.

What if my opponent does something bizarre, like b3 or g4, etc? Can we still
have a Sicilian? How should I proceed when the opponent immediately deviates
from 'book'? None of the chess books I have purchased (and I have many),
demonstrates this. They all are stuffed with grandmaster games, many of
which are 'book' clear through move 10 and beyond. Most of the players I run
into deviate almost immediately because they don't know the standard
openings. I sense that I should be able to hammer a mistake like that, but
I'm at a loss as to how to proceed. In the sample I gave, if we proceed, are
we still in the Sicilian, or some other, more bizarre formation?

Could you also recommend any books that give the _reasons_ behind the
various openings, rather than endless repertoires?

Help!

Thanks,
Patrick
(Remove the "_" from email address if you wish to reply via email).

In article ,
"Patrick Hoerter" wrote:

Hi,

I'm currently studying various chess openings.

I've noticed that the standard 'book' openings usually proceed for a few
moves until you reach the 'variation' territory.

What I want to know is this:

Let's say, for example, that I have black, and my opponent opens with 1.e4,
and I respond with ...c5, going for a Sicilian Defense.

What if my opponent does something bizarre, like b3 or g4, etc?

This is part of the reason why studying openings is considered a waste
of time until you're a fairly strong player. If you opponent plays an
apparantly bizzare opening move, you need to react the exact same way
you'd react to an unexpected middlegame move: you have to evaluate the
position, understand your opponent's probably plan, and develop your own
plan accordingly.

This is the same thing that happens when your present with an unknown
move on move 3, move 10, move 30, or move 60. You need to look for
immediate tactical issues, as well as evaluate the position aspects of
your opponent's move.

If you are not capable of doing this, throw out your opening books. You
need to be studying complete games, not openings.

Could you also recommend any books that give the _reasons_ behind the
various openings, rather than endless repertoires?

This is a common request, but in my mind it represents a certain
misunderstanding of the game. I don't think even Fine's book (except for
a chapter or so) really does this.

But there's a reason. You see, the reason for opening X is to get to
type of middlegame Y or endgame Z. The idea, say, of some variations of
the french is to accept a bad bishop in exchange for pressuer against
d4. The idea of the Tarrasch defense is to accept a weak isolated pawn
in exchange for active counterplay. The idea of the exchange Ruy Lopez
5.d4 is to reach a favorable endgame

That being said, those generalizations don't help you very much, if at
all, unless you undestand how to execute those plans. And the way you
learn that is to study complete games, so you know how to play that
middlegame and that endgame.

This is one of the great unsung advantages of studying older masters--
Tarrasch, Capablanca, Alekhine. They don't play today's "book" moves and
neither do their opponents, so from very early int he game you see them
battling in a much more middlegame oriented way.

"Patrick Hoerter" wrote in message
...
. I sense that I should be able to hammer a mistake like that, but
I'm at a loss as to how to proceed.

This is the biggest mistake you can make, and often the reason your opponent
plays the bizarre move, inviting you to overextend. Don't try to punish it
immediately!

Joe

Ron, you make a good point. I am revising my advise to Mr. Hoerter,
"Ideas behind Chess Opening" is a good book but not really what you need
now. Study the middle/end game. My other recommended, Euwe's "Chess
Amateur vs Chess Master" is appropriate since it is a collection of
complete games that covers mostly the middle games and transition to
endgame Most of the games leave the book lines early and both players
are left to their own devices. And Jeremy Silman used to do a column in
Chess Life where he analyzed games between lower rated players. Very
instructive. If you can find old copies of CL, it worth the effort to
search for these. And finally, Larry Evans wrote a book "Whats the best
move?" you might look into. Also very good.

Ron wrote:

In article ,
"Patrick Hoerter" wrote:



Hi,

I'm currently studying various chess openings.

I've noticed that the standard 'book' openings usually proceed for a few
moves until you reach the 'variation' territory.

What I want to know is this:

Let's say, for example, that I have black, and my opponent opens with 1.e4,
and I respond with ...c5, going for a Sicilian Defense.

What if my opponent does something bizarre, like b3 or g4, etc?



This is part of the reason why studying openings is considered a waste
of time until you're a fairly strong player. If you opponent plays an
apparantly bizzare opening move, you need to react the exact same way
you'd react to an unexpected middlegame move: you have to evaluate the
position, understand your opponent's probably plan, and develop your own
plan accordingly.

This is the same thing that happens when your present with an unknown
move on move 3, move 10, move 30, or move 60. You need to look for
immediate tactical issues, as well as evaluate the position aspects of
your opponent's move.

If you are not capable of doing this, throw out your opening books. You
need to be studying complete games, not openings.



Could you also recommend any books that give the _reasons_ behind the
various openings, rather than endless repertoires?



This is a common request, but in my mind it represents a certain
misunderstanding of the game. I don't think even Fine's book (except for
a chapter or so) really does this.

But there's a reason. You see, the reason for opening X is to get to
type of middlegame Y or endgame Z. The idea, say, of some variations of
the french is to accept a bad bishop in exchange for pressuer against
d4. The idea of the Tarrasch defense is to accept a weak isolated pawn
in exchange for active counterplay. The idea of the exchange Ruy Lopez
5.d4 is to reach a favorable endgame

That being said, those generalizations don't help you very much, if at
all, unless you undestand how to execute those plans. And the way you
learn that is to study complete games, so you know how to play that
middlegame and that endgame.

This is one of the great unsung advantages of studying older masters--
Tarrasch, Capablanca, Alekhine. They don't play today's "book" moves and
neither do their opponents, so from very early int he game you see them
battling in a much more middlegame oriented way.