I'm a sub-1400 player and am not spending much time studying openings
(I'm working on tactics, as per near-universal advice).

However, I need to have *some* opening repertoire, even if it's only a
few plys deep. It's all well and good to say "play 1. e4!" and I do,
but of course, about 50% of the time I have the black pieces and my
opponent doesn't always cooperate :-)

My overall time to devote to chess is somewhat limited by other things
in life and it seems to me that at my level, trying to work through
"The Ideas Behind the Chess Openings" or something would not be the
best use of my time.

So at the moment, if we play a symmetrical King's pawn game, I feel
I'm OK. I go for the Scotch Game or the Ruy Lopez and have played
with the King's Gambit. I don't really care much about the up-to-date
theoretical status of each subvariation at move thirteen because the
odds are that either I or my opponent will lose material to a tactical
trap before then. I know my way around the Scandanavian and Petroff
at a basic level. I hate people who play the Giuco Piano "old
stodge" ;-) I'm not as good at these openings as Black though it
probably doesn't matter. I run into the Philidor a lot for some
reason.

But what to play against...

....the Sicilian as white? Or perhaps to play as black?
....the Caro-Kann as white?
....1. d4 as black?
....1. c4 as black? (yes, I run into people who play this at my
level...dumb, perhaps, but people do)
....the French as white?

I don't run into the Pirc or Alekhine's very much, though there are
certain players who alway set up with various Indian defenses...I
don't worry about those at this point.

Just looking for a basic first few moves to cover the various
situations. I felt like a retard on ICC the other day when I was
black and the game went 1.d4 d5 2. c4 and I had to sit there and burn
clock trying to figure out what to do next ;-)

If there is a list of "here's a basic opening repertoire for the class
D or E player", I would love to see it.

Thanks.

On Feb 26, 3:53*pm, Aftermath Fan wrote:
I'm a sub-1400 player and am not spending much time studying openings
(I'm working on tactics, as per near-universal advice).

However, I need to have *some* opening repertoire, even if it's only a
few plys deep. *It's all well and good to say "play 1. e4!" and I do,
but of course, about 50% of the time I have the black pieces and my
opponent doesn't always cooperate :-)

My overall time to devote to chess is somewhat limited by other things
in life and it seems to me that at my level, trying to work through
"The Ideas Behind the Chess Openings" or something would not be the
best use of my time.

So at the moment, if we play a symmetrical King's pawn game, I feel
I'm OK. *I go for the Scotch Game or the Ruy Lopez and have played
with the King's Gambit. *I don't really care much about the up-to-date
theoretical status of each subvariation at move thirteen because the
odds are that either I or my opponent will lose material to a tactical
trap before then. *I know my way around the Scandanavian and Petroff
at a basic level. *I hate people who play the Giuco Piano "old
stodge" ;-) *I'm not as good at these openings as Black though it
probably doesn't matter. *I run into the Philidor a lot for some
reason.

But what to play against...

...the Sicilian as white? *Or perhaps to play as black?
...the Caro-Kann as white?
...1. d4 as black?
...1. c4 as black? *(yes, I run into people who play this at my
level...dumb, perhaps, but people do)
...the French as white?

I don't run into the Pirc or Alekhine's very much, though there are
certain players who alway set up with various Indian defenses...I
don't worry about those at this point.

Just looking for a basic first few moves to cover the various
situations. *I felt like a retard on ICC the other day when I was
black and the game went 1.d4 d5 2. c4 and I had to sit there and burn
clock trying to figure out what to do next ;-)

If there is a list of "here's a basic opening repertoire for the class
D or E player", I would love to see it.

Thanks.

When you play against me, I recommend the Irish Gambit as White.

Caro-Kann as black.
Morra Gambit v Sicilian.
Evans Gambit.

dear aftermath

Switch to 1. d4

any exchange black offers, take it. othewise develop each of your pieces by
just moving them once each until all are developed. you do this you are no
longer 1400, but 1600

this seems like it doesn't need saying, but against your fellow 1400s it
does, no?

don't get fancy with tactics until you play enough to do so confidently,
which is 1700 level... any other advice is likely not from 1700+ level
opposition

forget openings, do opening principals - very hard to confuse yourself
thereby - and what I describe is a general Torre set-up, and it hardly
matters what the other guy does - try to win the middle-game and don't study
endings either

try it, and tell us how it goes

Phil

"Aftermath Fan" wrote in message
...
I'm a sub-1400 player and am not spending much time studying openings
(I'm working on tactics, as per near-universal advice).

However, I need to have *some* opening repertoire, even if it's only a
few plys deep. It's all well and good to say "play 1. e4!" and I do,
but of course, about 50% of the time I have the black pieces and my
opponent doesn't always cooperate :-)

My overall time to devote to chess is somewhat limited by other things
in life and it seems to me that at my level, trying to work through
"The Ideas Behind the Chess Openings" or something would not be the
best use of my time.

So at the moment, if we play a symmetrical King's pawn game, I feel
I'm OK. I go for the Scotch Game or the Ruy Lopez and have played
with the King's Gambit. I don't really care much about the up-to-date
theoretical status of each subvariation at move thirteen because the
odds are that either I or my opponent will lose material to a tactical
trap before then. I know my way around the Scandanavian and Petroff
at a basic level. I hate people who play the Giuco Piano "old
stodge" ;-) I'm not as good at these openings as Black though it
probably doesn't matter. I run into the Philidor a lot for some
reason.

But what to play against...

...the Sicilian as white? Or perhaps to play as black?
...the Caro-Kann as white?
...1. d4 as black?
...1. c4 as black? (yes, I run into people who play this at my
level...dumb, perhaps, but people do)
...the French as white?

I don't run into the Pirc or Alekhine's very much, though there are
certain players who alway set up with various Indian defenses...I
don't worry about those at this point.

Just looking for a basic first few moves to cover the various
situations. I felt like a retard on ICC the other day when I was
black and the game went 1.d4 d5 2. c4 and I had to sit there and burn
clock trying to figure out what to do next ;-)

If there is a list of "here's a basic opening repertoire for the class
D or E player", I would love to see it.

Thanks.

On Feb 26, 7:16 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

dear aftermath

Switch to 1. d4

any exchange black offers, take it. othewise develop each of your pieces by
just moving them once each until all are developed. you do this you are no
longer 1400, but 1600

Egads! What rubbish. The thing to do is look
at the position, and make useful moves, not play
like a mindless automaton. Playing mindlessly
will likely cause your rating to *drop* well below
1400.


don't get fancy with tactics until you play enough to do so confidently,
which is 1700 level... any other advice is likely not from 1700+ level
opposition

Moron. Mindless by-rote "one-movement" of the
pieces will get you nowhere. You simply cannot
avoid *thinking* about the position, and yes,
calculating tactics, no matter what your level.


forget openings, do opening principals - very hard to confuse yourself
thereby - and what I describe is a general Torre set-up, and it hardly
matters what the other guy does

Let this moron, nearly-IMnes, serve as your
guide in what *not* to do. How *not* to play
chess. His advice is a classic case of the
beginner's mistakes to *avoid* making.


- try to win the middle-game and don't study
endings either

At the lower levels, a deep study of the
endgame is almost useless, because so many
of your games will be decided earlier by tactics.

However, you still need to know how to force
checkmate with K & Q vs. K, with K & R vs. K,
and so forth. And it is helpful if you know the
basics like "opposition" in simple King and
pawn endings. If you already know all that,
then gradually add more; remember that many
games are won by a player transposing into
what they know to be a winnable ending, by
making exchanges in the middle game. If you
don't know a win from a loss from a draw, you
are playing with a serious handicap.

One more piece of advice: suppose that you
knew absolutely nothing in terms of by-rote
opening moves; I mean *nothing*. You could
still get decent results if you were a strong
tactician. Take a chess program like Fritz,
and turn off the openings book: it will still win
most of the time, on tactics alone. And while
a human cannot be that good (and fast) at
tactics, it is very possible to be better than
most other humans (which is all it takes).

If you are limited, and cannot devote much
time to study, then study *tactics*. (But if
you do, please don't enter any tournaments
in which I'm playing! I only want to play
mindless dregs who aimlessly shift wood.)

Generally speaking, you will learn tactics
more rapidly if you play open games, and
thus you will improve more quickly-- even if
you do so by losing. Do you wonder why
your opponent sacrificed a pawn-- left it
where you could simply capture it? then
take it and find the answer. Next time, you
won't *still* be in the dark (like you would
be if you just chickened out).

Until you reach the 2000 level, your first
name is Tactics, your middle name is
Tactics, and your last name is Tactics.
You don't need to have a memorized
openings repertoire unless you are trying
to save time on the clock; just pretend
that you are already in mid-game, and
use your noggin!


-- help bot

Aftermath Fan wrote:
I'm a sub-1400 player and am not spending much time studying openings
(I'm working on tactics, as per near-universal advice).

However, I need to have *some* opening repertoire, even if it's only a
few plys deep. It's all well and good to say "play 1. e4!" and I do,
but of course, about 50% of the time I have the black pieces and my
opponent doesn't always cooperate :-)

The answer you hate: play whatever you're comfortable with. At the
sub-1400 level, your games are being decided by tactical mistakes that
drop pieces, not slightly inferior positions coming out studied
opening variations.

Develop your pieces quickly, with threats if possible. Centralize.
Avoid playing things like Alekhine's defence, the Pirc/modern, the
King's Indian and so on, where Black gives White a significant space
advantage. I'd advise against the black side of the Sicilian as it
seems to be quite a fragile defence -- Black seems to have to play
more accurately than White.

Does this contradict my assertion that slightly inferior positions out
of the opening won't make much difference? Well, to some extent,
yes. But you're more likely to find the tactical opportunities going
against you if your opponent has a space or development advantage.

So at the moment, if we play a symmetrical King's pawn game, I feel
I'm OK. I go for the Scotch Game or the Ruy Lopez and have played
with the King's Gambit. I don't really care much about the
up-to-date theoretical status of each subvariation at move thirteen
because the odds are that either I or my opponent will lose material
to a tactical trap before then.

Sir, you are wise beyond your rating. :-)

But what to play against...

...the Sicilian as white? Or perhaps to play as black?

Anything that develops sensibly. The setups with 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3
d6/e6/Nc6/whatever 3.Bb5(+) are sound and sensible and let you get
your pieces out early and castle while Black's king is still stuck in
the centre. I wouldn't recommend you play the Sicilian as black but
by all means give it a go if you want to. If it goes well for you,
stick with it; if it doesn't, try something else.

...the Caro-Kann as white?

*shrug* Anything, really -- the Caro-Kann isn't the sort of opening
where Black's aiming to kill you if you make a slight mistake.
There's no reason not to play 2.d4, since Black isn't immediately
contesting the centre. Black will probably play 2... d5 and then you
can go for whichever of 3.e5, 3.exd5 and 3.Nc3 seems most to your
liking.

...1. d4 as black?

1... d5 is probably the simplest.


...1. c4 as black? (yes, I run into people who play this at my
level...dumb, perhaps, but people do)

*shrug* Anything, really. Play symmetrically with ...c5, aim for a
reversed Sicilian-type setup with ...e5 or aim for an Indian-type
defence with ...Nf6.

...the French as white?

As the with the Caro-Kann, it doesn't make much difference and there's
no reason not to play 2.d4.

Just looking for a basic first few moves to cover the various
situations. I felt like a retard on ICC the other day when I was
black and the game went 1.d4 d5 2. c4 and I had to sit there and burn
clock trying to figure out what to do next ;-)

Hehe. You have three options: take the pawn, defend it with ...e6 or
defend it with ...c6. Don't play 2... Nf6 because of 3.cxd5 and
either 3... Nxd5 4.e4 kicking the knight or 3... Qxd5 4.Nc3 kicking
the queen. If you take the pawn, don't try too hard to hang on to
your material advantage -- it's only temporary, really.

Hope that helps.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Disgusting Dish (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ fine ceramic dish but it'll turn
your stomach!

"help bot" wrote in message
...
On Feb 26, 7:16 pm, "Chess One" wrote:

dear aftermath

Switch to 1. d4

any exchange black offers, take it. othewise develop each of your pieces
by
just moving them once each until all are developed. you do this you are
no
longer 1400, but 1600

Egads! What rubbish. The thing to do is look
at the position, and make useful moves, not play
like a mindless automaton. Playing mindlessly
will likely cause your rating to *drop* well below
1400.

The "I cudda bin a B player!" offers advice to ensure that the questioner
will also never be a B player. ROFL!

A serious point is that the "Russian Method" of chess training [Blokh, eg],
which is largely to do with combinative motifs, is to simply go through
progressively deeper ply-levels on a certain theme. There is no great
emphasis on opening play at all. Not only does Kasparov think it is a great
and distracting waste of time, but the simple instruction to develop all
your pieces to useful squares, not leaving any behind or undeveloped is the
MASSIVELY well received sense of what to do from STRONG players.

don't get fancy with tactics until you play enough to do so confidently,
which is 1700 level... any other advice is likely not from 1700+ level
opposition

Moron. Mindless by-rote "one-movement" of the
pieces will get you nowhere. You simply cannot
avoid *thinking* about the position, and yes,
calculating tactics, no matter what your level.

And here is the evidence of why this person is not, and never will be a 1700
player. He prefers thinking as if he were a computer, rather than to develop
his pattern perception and insight, which at minimum, would give him
something to 'think' about, or to sequence.

This attitude is IMO the greatest culprit in why players do /not/ progress
in chess. )

forget openings, do opening principals - very hard to confuse yourself
thereby - and what I describe is a general Torre set-up, and it hardly
matters what the other guy does

Let this moron, nearly-IMnes, serve as your
guide in what *not* to do. How *not* to play
chess. His advice is a classic case of the
beginner's mistakes to *avoid* making.

Laugh - well, when you make up the 700 point gap between us, then maybe
shout your mouth off? You see, there is a connection between your attitude
to playing and your rating.


- try to win the middle-game and don't study
endings either

At the lower levels, a deep study of the
endgame is almost useless, because so many
of your games will be decided earlier by tactics.

However, you still need to know how to force
checkmate with K & Q vs. K, with K & R vs. K,
and so forth. And it is helpful if you know the
basics like "opposition" in simple King and
pawn endings.

10 minutes of instruction? Sure. I can't argue with what's below since the
writer seems to be talking about something he himself has not achieved. Of
course TACTICS are important, but they are the RESULTS of insight. And you
cannot calculate insight - tactics are to do with processing your insights
into sequences of moves. I'll leave it there, anything else is very hard
work to limited reward.

Phil Innes

If you already know all that,
then gradually add more; remember that many
games are won by a player transposing into
what they know to be a winnable ending, by
making exchanges in the middle game. If you
don't know a win from a loss from a draw, you
are playing with a serious handicap.

One more piece of advice: suppose that you
knew absolutely nothing in terms of by-rote
opening moves; I mean *nothing*. You could
still get decent results if you were a strong
tactician. Take a chess program like Fritz,
and turn off the openings book: it will still win
most of the time, on tactics alone. And while
a human cannot be that good (and fast) at
tactics, it is very possible to be better than
most other humans (which is all it takes).

If you are limited, and cannot devote much
time to study, then study *tactics*. (But if
you do, please don't enter any tournaments
in which I'm playing! I only want to play
mindless dregs who aimlessly shift wood.)

Generally speaking, you will learn tactics
more rapidly if you play open games, and
thus you will improve more quickly-- even if
you do so by losing. Do you wonder why
your opponent sacrificed a pawn-- left it
where you could simply capture it? then
take it and find the answer. Next time, you
won't *still* be in the dark (like you would
be if you just chickened out).

Until you reach the 2000 level, your first
name is Tactics, your middle name is
Tactics, and your last name is Tactics.
You don't need to have a memorized
openings repertoire unless you are trying
to save time on the clock; just pretend
that you are already in mid-game, and
use your noggin!


-- help bot

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.

wrote in message
...
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.

Yep! CT-Art is 'Russian Method', and starting titles are drawn from a couple
of primary authors, M. Blokh and Sergei Ivashchenko. I have book formats of
each, the Ivashchenko material is formed in to volumes, "Chess School 1a &
1b and 2", Chess School 3 is by IM Alexander Mazja, and Chess School 4
[endings] by GM Sarhan Guliev.

I see that there is another book offering by Convekta, a pocket edition of
Brilliant Chess Studies [4 languages] containing 150 games 1837-1997,
copyrights Murad Amannazarov and "Retorika-A" 1998, and written by Anatoly
Kuznetsov.

What is particularly good about this little title is that the original game
is offered with the puzzle position, but then, two similar positions on the
same theme are offered.

And, bless them!~ Publisher has provided an index of players/games, and each
game cites a source, as well as providing annotation marks per Informant
format.

Phil Innes

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.

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