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

Sick of players who INSIST on playing *BOOK* openings



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 16th 03, 01:19 AM
Scott
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Sick of players who INSIST on playing *BOOK* openings

I have found a lot of players (at least online) - only play book
openings from memory - and when things deviate drastically from what
they are used to (especially in a 5-min game) - they can be easily
defeated. As a test I have gone on to various chess playing sites and
opened my game with 1. e4 * 2. ke2 * 3. ke3 * etc. and won the games
90% of the time. After my silly moves they tend to overextend and I
then play in a more traditional and aggressive fashion.

-Scott
  #2  
Old July 16th 03, 08:30 AM
MinnesotaKid
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Sick of players who INSIST on playing *BOOK* openings

I agree. So many players spend an incredible amount of time drilling
openings into their head. But then when the game gets out of book and
they actually have to start thinking, they often crumble. While a
general knowledge of opening theory is invaluable, originality and
creativity can sometimes suffer when playing by rote. That's why
computers will never totally conquer humans players. It's the
capabilty of humans to think "outside the box" that gives us the edge.
But then, I'm a fan of the artistry of chess, not as much the
scientific and mathematical aspect of the game.

I hate speed chess, blitz, lightning or whatever they call it. It's
akin to doing a paint-by-number as opposed to the Sistine Chapel.


(Scott) wrote in message om...
I have found a lot of players (at least online) - only play book
openings from memory - and when things deviate drastically from what
they are used to (especially in a 5-min game) - they can be easily
defeated. As a test I have gone on to various chess playing sites and
opened my game with 1. e4 * 2. ke2 * 3. ke3 * etc. and won the games
90% of the time. After my silly moves they tend to overextend and I
then play in a more traditional and aggressive fashion.

-Scott

  #4  
Old July 16th 03, 08:52 PM
Dan Yobry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Sick of players who INSIST on playing *BOOK* openings

1) Don't computers already conquer at chess??? They can beat almost anyone
except the best of the best... however, those days are few. I know I get my
ass handed to me by my lowly Palm Pilot Chess Tiger program.

2) I hate blitz, too. I've tried to like it, but I just can't. I don't get
excited about a bltiz game like I do an OTB one. When you make a serious
blunder in blitz, the thought is basically "well ****." When you blunder
OTB, it gets in your head and eats at you for a couple of days. You feel
like a dumb-ass and it affects the next few games. It's great!

-Dan

--
|| http://www.digital204.com (a Yobry production)
|| drop me a line at danyobry(at)comcast.net



"MinnesotaKid" wrote:
That's why computers will never totally conquer humans players.


I hate speed chess, blitz, lightning or whatever they call it. It's
akin to doing a paint-by-number as opposed to the Sistine Chapel.



  #7  
Old July 16th 03, 03:12 PM
Joshua B. Lilly
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Sick of players who INSIST on playing *BOOK* openings

You memorise the openings, then you become familiar with them (beyond rote
memorisation), then you grow capable of handling deviations "out of book"
because your foundation and general positional familiarity is so strong. If
you try that stuff with someone truly familiar with the opening being played
(built on the foundation of initially beginning with memorising the
opening), you will get inferior or losing positions.




"Scott" wrote in message
m...
I have found a lot of players (at least online) - only play book
openings from memory - and when things deviate drastically from what
they are used to (especially in a 5-min game) - they can be easily
defeated. As a test I have gone on to various chess playing sites and
opened my game with 1. e4 * 2. ke2 * 3. ke3 * etc. and won the games
90% of the time. After my silly moves they tend to overextend and I
then play in a more traditional and aggressive fashion.

-Scott



  #8  
Old July 17th 03, 02:14 AM
eleaticus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Sick of players who INSIST on playing *BOOK* openings


"Joshua B. Lilly" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
You memorise the openings, then you become familiar with them (beyond rote
memorisation), then you grow capable of handling deviations "out of book"
because your foundation and general positional familiarity is so strong.

If
you try that stuff with someone truly familiar with the opening being

played
(built on the foundation of initially beginning with memorising the
opening), you will get inferior or losing positions.


Just what is the ECO or other name of 1. e4, 2. ke2, 3. ke3 with which
there is someone truly familiar with the opening?



  #9  
Old July 17th 03, 12:28 PM
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Sick of players who INSIST on playing *BOOK* openings

(Scott) wrote in message om...
I have found a lot of players (at least online) - only play book
openings from memory - and when things deviate drastically from what
they are used to (especially in a 5-min game) - they can be easily
defeated. As a test I have gone on to various chess playing sites and
opened my game with 1. e4 * 2. ke2 * 3. ke3 * etc. and won the games
90% of the time. After my silly moves they tend to overextend and I
then play in a more traditional and aggressive fashion.

-Scott


It's refreshing to play something irregular.
In the following 5m ICC game I didn't play
too well but well enough to win on this
occasion. My opponent was got lost, possibly
nervous, in a position which didn't look
familiar, which was different.

I am actually perfectly happy to play the main
lines. I just don't know them :-)

Regards,

Wlod

Rated 5-minute match, initial time: 5 minutes,
increment: 0 seconds

1. d4 (0:02) Nf6 (0:03)
2. Nf3 (0:01) b6 (0:07)
3. Bf4 (0:02) Bb7 (0:02)
4. e3 (0:00) d6 (0:03)
5. Be2 (0:01) Nbd7 (0:02)
6. h3 (0:01) Ne4 (0:01)
7. O-O (0:07) e6 (0:06)
8. Nbd2 (0:02) g5 (0:05)
9. Bh2 (0:02) Ndf6 (0:07)
10. Rc1 (0:12) h5 (0:02)
11. Nxe4 (0:05) Nxe4 (0:02)
12. Nd2 (0:01) g4 (0:04)
13. hxg4 (0:02) hxg4 (0:03)
14. Bxg4 (0:10) Qh4 (0:03)
15. Bh3 (0:36) Nxd2 (0:24)
16. Qxd2 (0:08) Bxg2 (0:02)
17. Qe2 (0:17) Qxh3 (0:08)
{White resigns} 0-1
 




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 10:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright ©2004-2018 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.