actully can u put on scotch gambit please
It's not an irrelevant question, but in my experience: it's a lot less relevant than most chess players, especially beginning players, think. I have piles of books about openings, and I regret buying most of them. I should have invested in end games instead.
Yeah for under 2000 spend your time improving tactics instead of memorizing openings.
@Molurus said in #3:
> It's not an irrelevant question, but in my experience: it's a lot less relevant than most chess players, especially beginning players, think. I have piles of books about openings, and I regret buying most of them. I should have invested in end games instead.
For beginners, the most important thing in the opening is avoiding seemingly sensible moves that end in disaster, or knowing the best replies to early variations. A good example is Cochrane Gambit against the Petroff. It is safe to take the Knight, but only if you know well how to play afterwards.
Other than that, endgame knowledge is a far better investment... obviously if one is able to reach balanced endgames.
> It's not an irrelevant question, but in my experience: it's a lot less relevant than most chess players, especially beginning players, think. I have piles of books about openings, and I regret buying most of them. I should have invested in end games instead.
For beginners, the most important thing in the opening is avoiding seemingly sensible moves that end in disaster, or knowing the best replies to early variations. A good example is Cochrane Gambit against the Petroff. It is safe to take the Knight, but only if you know well how to play afterwards.
Other than that, endgame knowledge is a far better investment... obviously if one is able to reach balanced endgames.
@OctoPinky said in #5:
> For beginners, the most important thing in the opening is avoiding seemingly sensible moves that end in disaster, or knowing the best replies to early variations. A good example is Cochrane Gambit against the Petroff. It is safe to take the Knight, but only if you know well how to play afterwards.
Actually, taking the knight is the only move that makes any sense in that line, all other moves are bad. It's a tricky line, but it's also an extremely rare line. Nearly no one plays it in competition.
In general, it's best to stick to opening principles:
1) control the center
2) develop all pieces
3) bring king to safety.
If you keep that in mind, you naturally stop playing openings like a beginner. (Like playing for fool's mate, which just directly violates these principles.) It's really all you need to know about openings until you reach something like 1800.
> For beginners, the most important thing in the opening is avoiding seemingly sensible moves that end in disaster, or knowing the best replies to early variations. A good example is Cochrane Gambit against the Petroff. It is safe to take the Knight, but only if you know well how to play afterwards.
Actually, taking the knight is the only move that makes any sense in that line, all other moves are bad. It's a tricky line, but it's also an extremely rare line. Nearly no one plays it in competition.
In general, it's best to stick to opening principles:
1) control the center
2) develop all pieces
3) bring king to safety.
If you keep that in mind, you naturally stop playing openings like a beginner. (Like playing for fool's mate, which just directly violates these principles.) It's really all you need to know about openings until you reach something like 1800.
@Molurus said in #6:
> Actually, taking the knight is the only move that makes any sense in that line, all other moves are bad.
I know, and also learned that exposed King can become a big issue if not properly defended. So I had to study it to be sure that taking is OK, and what are the next steps.
There are a few openings moves where general principles have to be put aside for a move or two, or you have to chose between seemingly equal moves (like "do I develop the other Knight or this Bishop?" or "support this threatened pawn or advance it?"). Of course you can do the calculations while playing, but it is better to know the safe replies.
> Actually, taking the knight is the only move that makes any sense in that line, all other moves are bad.
I know, and also learned that exposed King can become a big issue if not properly defended. So I had to study it to be sure that taking is OK, and what are the next steps.
There are a few openings moves where general principles have to be put aside for a move or two, or you have to chose between seemingly equal moves (like "do I develop the other Knight or this Bishop?" or "support this threatened pawn or advance it?"). Of course you can do the calculations while playing, but it is better to know the safe replies.
Funny, I started to get curious and thought: "interesting text, didn't know that about the Petroff, wonder what he will say about the Taimanov, the Saitzev Ruy or the Najdorf, the French and and and", but suddenly the text was abruptly finished. I was very surprised.
Why do you think that no one has understood that you repost your old blogs
@rimac_c2 said in #9:
> Why do you think that no one has understood that you repost your old blogs
not true my friend
> Why do you think that no one has understood that you repost your old blogs
not true my friend