A Chess forum. ChessBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ChessBanter forum » Chess Newsgroups » rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

A question of style



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 23rd 04, 10:51 AM
kempelen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A question of style

Hello chessfriends:
Yesterday I was talking with a friend about our style of play and
performance. He talk me that I am a player with always get good and
favourable positions after opening, which requiere a lot of
"thecnique" to win. I mean, the openings and position I play usually
are quiet good, but difficult to play for a player of my level (around
+- 2000 FIDE). He advised my that maybe will be more positive for me
to change my opening repertoire to play more "direct" openings (like
sicilians, KID, italian, ....) , where if you get an adventage you win
the game enought fast. I have two options:

1.- Continue playing current openings, which I control quite well, and
concentrate my study on "the technique" I need to improve my results.
My openings are with white reti and english playing for queenside
attacks and strategical games and with black French and Slav (I
sametimes play the Carokann as second weapon, but not very often) and
I always get equal or good positions for me and feel confortable.
Pros I see:
- I can improve my game as I learn more "the middlegame".
Cons I see:
- Quite difficult to achive that goal, as to win a game by technique
requiere a lot of precision along all the moves of the game for not
losing the posible adventage I could get.
- Maybe I will not win so many games.
2.- Change my opening repertoire to arrive positions where I try to
get "static adventages" positions and not dynamic ones, as
materializing static adventages could be easier for me than dynamic.
Pros I see:
- After studyng the repertoire I will get results before case 1, as
change the opening repertoire is faster than improve "the technique"
(I think so). Maybe I would win more games.
Cons I see:
- If I change the openings, they will not fit into my style.
- Maybe after changing the repertoire I will have the same problem.

As reference my style of play is like Karpov or Capablanca. I study
aroung 30/40 minutes/day which 15 min of them are always tactics. I
think I do quite well on tactics and continue improving it. I am 29
years old.

What option do you recommend and why?. Thx in advance to all for your
comments.
  #2  
Old January 23rd 04, 10:31 PM
CCamp81318
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A question of style

In the long run I think you will benefit more from studying your middlegames
than from spending time on a new opening repertoire. Just go through a few
hundred GM games where the opening is similar to what you play.

CT
  #3  
Old January 23rd 04, 10:37 PM
Ron
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A question of style

You're a stronger player than me, so I obviously can't offer specifics,
but it seems to me that you're facing the classic dilmena, and which
answer you choose depends on what's the most important to you:

Long term improvement or short-term results?

This choice crops up for a lot of players. Playing to your strengths
will probably give you some short-term benefits. On the other hand, if
you choose to work on your areas of weakness, you'll benefit in the long
run, but in the immediate future those areas of weakness will be exposed
and will cost you some points.

So I don't think there's a right answer to this question-- it dependson
what your goals are.

-Ron
  #4  
Old January 23rd 04, 11:37 PM
Antonio Torrecillas
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A question of style

En/na kempelen ha escrit:
Hello chessfriends:
(...)
1.- Continue playing current openings, which I control quite well, and
concentrate my study on "the technique" I need to improve my results.
2.- Change my opening repertoire to arrive positions where I try to
get "static adventages" positions and not dynamic ones, as
materializing static adventages could be easier for me than dynamic.

As reference my style of play is like Karpov or Capablanca. I study
aroung 30/40 minutes/day which 15 min of them are always tactics. I
think I do quite well on tactics and continue improving it. I am 29
years old.


I'm not sure to have understand well you:

- Playing your old lines you try to play "quiet" games, but you did not
play well them after obtaining good positions?
If it's the case you need to analize those games and try to play better
this kind of positions.

- Or maybe you feel you must play other different lines to play a
different kind of positions? In that case I think that that can be a
good idea too no matter that first experiences can be not nice (for
example you can see Kramnik games in last Corus: his first two Sicilian
Najdorf have been two loses but maybe this is the way to obtain better
results in round robin tournaments in the future)

The fact I don't understand well is the relationship between "static
adventages positions and dynamic ones" and the lines you played.

Antonio

  #5  
Old January 25th 04, 12:58 PM
Yves Surmont
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A question of style

Hello,
I think you answered the question yourself:
just stick to your openings which you understand and try to assimilate some
of the advice your friend gives you concerning middlegame play. Sometimes
it's good to adopt a different "evaluation function" to your middlegame - to
keep fresh and active in searching the possiblities in the middlegame.
"Test your positional play" is one of the books that you might have a look
at: it gives great insight into what to do after the opening and how to spot
and convert possible advantages.
Well, that's my advice, for what it's worth - I'm also around 2000, so I
think I understand your situation (I keep to my openings I understand and
know how to exploit in the middlegame).
--
http://users.pandora.be/yves.surmont/ccmain.htm
"kempelen" schreef in bericht
om...
Hello chessfriends:
Yesterday I was talking with a friend about our style of play and
performance. He talk me that I am a player with always get good and
favourable positions after opening, which requiere a lot of
"thecnique" to win. I mean, the openings and position I play usually
are quiet good, but difficult to play for a player of my level (around
+- 2000 FIDE). He advised my that maybe will be more positive for me
to change my opening repertoire to play more "direct" openings (like
sicilians, KID, italian, ....) , where if you get an adventage you win
the game enought fast. I have two options:

1.- Continue playing current openings, which I control quite well, and
concentrate my study on "the technique" I need to improve my results.
My openings are with white reti and english playing for queenside
attacks and strategical games and with black French and Slav (I
sametimes play the Carokann as second weapon, but not very often) and
I always get equal or good positions for me and feel confortable.
Pros I see:
- I can improve my game as I learn more "the middlegame".
Cons I see:
- Quite difficult to achive that goal, as to win a game by technique
requiere a lot of precision along all the moves of the game for not
losing the posible adventage I could get.
- Maybe I will not win so many games.
2.- Change my opening repertoire to arrive positions where I try to
get "static adventages" positions and not dynamic ones, as
materializing static adventages could be easier for me than dynamic.
Pros I see:
- After studyng the repertoire I will get results before case 1, as
change the opening repertoire is faster than improve "the technique"
(I think so). Maybe I would win more games.
Cons I see:
- If I change the openings, they will not fit into my style.
- Maybe after changing the repertoire I will have the same problem.

As reference my style of play is like Karpov or Capablanca. I study
aroung 30/40 minutes/day which 15 min of them are always tactics. I
think I do quite well on tactics and continue improving it. I am 29
years old.

What option do you recommend and why?. Thx in advance to all for your
comments.



  #6  
Old January 28th 04, 04:09 PM
kempelen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default A question of style

Thanks all for your answers. I think I will continue studyng
middlegames and inforce my openings.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:15 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2017 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.