"LeModernCaveman" wrote in message
...
Ever wonder why we don't compete well internationally?

Our kids grow up thinking that the most ridiculous openings are "sound,"
"creative," or "interesting" when in fact they just SUCK. Where they
might see
the Center Counter 15 percent of the time in their play, at the GM level
you
might see it 0.0015 percent, etc. Now this is a "playable" opening, but
not
exactly good for teaching the basics. Same goes for crap like the English
Defence, Nimzo's defense, and the pseudo-gambits that get you "equality"
if
your opponent doesn't find the one move that blasts your position to hell.

These openings are chosen because American players are too LAZY to digest
the
complexity of the lines they should be playing.

Speaking as a "weakie," I wholeheartedly agree with this. For my own play,
I found that though unsound lines sometimes opened up some quick and dashing
attacks against my opponents, just as often (and perhaps oftener :-) ) I
found myself on the receiving end of the bitter fruit of my unsound labors.

To me it seems (and someone stronger than I can confirm, deny, or ignore)
that it's better to learn a repetoire of very sound, well-practiced main
lines that will give you a solid position to build on, rather than playing
for tricks. I think that a lot of the lines that are "better for black" or
"better for white" depend on near-perfect GM play to carry out. Therefore,
for class players, a "better for" statement is meaningless until the game's
over.

Just my opinion. I'm playing several correspondence games. Two of them my
opponents have struck out at me with a couple of wild lines... Will my
theory hold? Who knows. I don't play well enough to make any guarantees
:-)

--
Looney
----------------------------------------------------
http://www.patzersprogress.com

Ever wonder why we don't compete well internationally?

Our kids grow up thinking that the most ridiculous openings are "sound,"
"creative," or "interesting" when in fact they just SUCK. Where they
might see
the Center Counter 15 percent of the time in their play, at the GM level
you
might see it 0.0015 percent, etc. Now this is a "playable" opening, but
not
exactly good for teaching the basics. Same goes for crap like the English
Defence, Nimzo's defense, and the pseudo-gambits that get you "equality"
if
your opponent doesn't find the one move that blasts your position to hell.

These openings are chosen because American players are too LAZY to digest
the
complexity of the lines they should be playing.

Speaking as a "weakie," I wholeheartedly agree with this. For my own play,
I found that though unsound lines sometimes opened up some quick and dashing
attacks against my opponents, just as often (and perhaps oftener :-) ) I
found myself on the receiving end of the bitter fruit of my unsound labors.

What's most annoying is hearing them justify this play when they win a game, as
if they've done something theoretically important.

In the short-term, these openings are useful for getting victories, but when we
hit the grandmaster level, the junk openings take their toll, as we're less
prepared for the lines that will be played for the big prizes.

There are less-trodden paths that are theoretically sound, but you won't find
them at move three.

Subject: Sick of players who INSIST on playing crappy openings
From: (LeModernCaveman)
Date: 7/11/2003 2:54 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

Ever wonder why we don't compete well internationally?

Our kids grow up thinking that the most ridiculous openings are "sound,"
"creative," or "interesting" when in fact they just SUCK. Where they
might see
the Center Counter 15 percent of the time in their play, at the GM level
you
might see it 0.0015 percent, etc. Now this is a "playable" opening, but
not
exactly good for teaching the basics. Same goes for crap like the English
Defence, Nimzo's defense, and the pseudo-gambits that get you "equality"
if
your opponent doesn't find the one move that blasts your position to hell.

These openings are chosen because American players are too LAZY to digest
the
complexity of the lines they should be playing.

Speaking as a "weakie," I wholeheartedly agree with this. For my own play,
I found that though unsound lines sometimes opened up some quick and dashing
attacks against my opponents, just as often (and perhaps oftener :-) ) I
found myself on the receiving end of the bitter fruit of my unsound labors.

What's most annoying is hearing them justify this play when they win a game,
as
if they've done something theoretically important.

In the short-term, these openings are useful for getting victories, but when
we

WE WHO?

hit the grandmaster level, the junk openings take their toll, as we're less
prepared for the lines that will be played for the big prizes.

There are less-trodden paths that are theoretically sound, but you won't find
them at move three.


I play crappy openings all the time. I have little time for study. By playing
unusual lines, I know that I am not going tobe ground down by someone who has
got hours and hours to "book up." Since players below master level generally
make plenty of tactical blunders, I can count on my opponent giving me a chance
to win. I am competing for fun, not in the expectation that I will become a GM.

Joe

I play crappy openings all the time. I have little time for study. By playing
unusual lines, I know that I am not going tobe ground down by someone who
has
got hours and hours to "book up." Since players below master level generally
make plenty of tactical blunders, I can count on my opponent giving me a
chance
to win. I am competing for fun, not in the expectation that I will become a
GM.

Joe

Hear hear. For the vast majority it's about fun and not about becoming a GM.


"Ever since I lost a lung to cancer, I've cut my smoking in half"

Tony D.

"LeModernCaveman" wrote:
These openings are chosen because American players are too LAZY to digest
the
complexity of the lines they should be playing.

Not for me. They're chosen because chess is supposed to be FUN.

I regard chess as an extension of my personality, a way to express myself.
Accordingly, I play weird openings in order to force interesting positions.
Then, halfway through these games, I look at the games on adjacent boards,
which are invariably standard, boring early-middlegame positions, with seven
pawns each, knights on the 3rd rank, bishops on the 4th or 5th, rooks trying
to gain access to open files, etc. Yawn.

Then I look back at my own position, and delight in my discovery that chess
really can be fun.

And sometimes I win, too -- occasionally even against masters (I am a low A
player).

Bill Smythe

I play crappy openings all the time. I have little time for study. By playing
unusual lines, I know that I am not going tobe ground down by someone who
has
got hours and hours to "book up." Since players below master level generally
make plenty of tactical blunders, I can count on my opponent giving me a
chance
to win. I am competing for fun, not in the expectation that I will become a
GM.

Which is fine for those who aren't competing internationally.

I said that the flood of weak opening play in this country hurts THEM.

"LeModernCaveman" wrote:
Which is fine for those who aren't competing internationally.

Which is 99.997 percent of us, I'd guess.

Bill Smythe

(LeModernCaveman) wrote in message ...
Ever wonder why we don't compete well internationally?

Our kids grow up thinking that the most ridiculous openings are "sound,"
"creative," or "interesting" when in fact they just SUCK. Where they might see
the Center Counter 15 percent of the time in their play, at the GM level you
might see it 0.0015 percent, etc. Now this is a "playable" opening, but not
exactly good for teaching the basics.

Why not?

And your figures are way off. A quick glance at the ChessLab database
reveals that in the last year alone, the Center Counter has been tried
by at least a couple of dozen GMs, including Karpov, Speelman,
Kurajica, Adianto and current World Junior Champion Mamedyarov.

LT

Same goes for crap like the English
Defence, Nimzo's defense, and the pseudo-gambits that get you "equality" if
your opponent doesn't find the one move that blasts your position to hell.

These openings are chosen because American players are too LAZY to digest the
complexity of the lines they should be playing.

Which is fine for those who aren't competing internationally.

I said that the flood of weak opening play in this country hurts THEM.

Yeah, but the players that never understand their openings are holding them
back are never going to be good anyway. It's not like you have loads of people
that would be GM material if they gave up the BDG. Sure, it costs them a couple
hundred points probably, but ignorance is bliss. They think they're playing
aggressive openings but they aren't.

By the way, this is NOT just an American concept. There's loads of A and B
players all over the world like this. They make good cannon fodder for the rest
of us.

John Fernandez

Which is fine for those who aren't competing internationally.

I said that the flood of weak opening play in this country hurts THEM.

Yeah, but the players that never understand their openings are holding them
back are never going to be good anyway.

And those players clog up our wallcharts.

I'm not going to pay $50.00 to enter a tournament so I can leave the book at
move two unless I'm sure I can win the prize.

If I'm paired against an IM or GM, I'd rather see how he deals with a main line
than get some prank opening played that doesn't add to the development of my
repertoire.

That said, I once had a 2500+ rated player toss a weak line of the Pirc/Modern
defense at me, and he thought he had won a pawn until about eight moves later
when he realized it had been sacrificed, and his opening was rejected like a
weak NBA shot into the second row.

Still, the game meant little in terms of theory because the move wasn't one
that I'd see much of at the higher levels of play.


It's not like you have loads of
people
that would be GM material if they gave up the BDG. Sure, it costs them a
couple
hundred points probably, but ignorance is bliss. They think they're playing
aggressive openings but they aren't.

They're playing UNSOUND openings, "aggressive" or not. The game becomes a
one-move exam that the opponent either passes or fails, like a mere chess
problem.

That turns tournament chess into park hustling, and I can do that for a lot
less money in Washington Square Park than at the Marshall.

By the way, this is NOT just an American concept. There's loads of A and B
players all over the world like this. They make good cannon fodder for the
rest
of us.

The only concession I make to these people is that they force their opponents
to play the opening with more than book memorization.

I had a friend who used to play e6, Nf6, and Bb4 against the Sicilian. I
couldn't do crap against it until I "sacrificed" the king pawn with Nb5,
followed by Qg4 if he grabbed the pawn, and once I found the antidote, I beat
him in 14 moves.

A much more efficient way of training, however, is to concede knowledge to the
top GMs early in one's career, play what they say is best, figure out why in
the post-mortems, and learn the basic principles of chess that eventually lead
to finding busts of the gimmick openings naturally.