Way back in the day, during the last Kasparov/Deep Blue match, I remember reading that Kasparov/DB were using certain opening sequences, evidently so damn cool that they had their own names.
So, two part question.
If you’re the first one to publish a unique chess opening, you get to have it named after yourself.
Most of the good ones are already taken.
An opening is typically named for (or by) the first player who uses it effectively in a FIDE rated tournament or match.
An opening is effective if it leads to advantages in either space, mobility, development, initiative, material, or structure.
Yes, but Ruy Lopez came a couple centuries before FIDE, didn’t he?
I’m no chess expert, but my impression is that, sure, anyone can memorize a series of opening moves however, they would have to have the expertise to follow-up with the strategic advantage that the opening moves set up. Also, I’m not sure, but I think the sequence of moves also relies on the opponent being a skilled chess player too. If a newbie brings the queen out in the second move, it may disrupt a planned series of opening moves that are designed for a long-term strategy. Just my impression.
Speaking as an average player…
They wouldn’t do you that much good. I went to the trouble of memorizing the first 20-30 moves of Ruy Lopez. Very intersting. Part of that is anticipating your opponents move. My problem was that, if the opponent did something different, I could say “Aha! I can now seize the advantage, they have responded in a non-optimal way!”, but I still had to figure what my actual reponse would be. Figuring that out required a more sophisticated understanding of my position that to simply memorize moves. I eventually gave up, and have stuck to my own peculiar openings more or less.
Many openings are not named after players, but places where the opening first gained prominence: Budapest, Latvian, Sicilian, etc. The Ruy Lopez is also called the Spanish Opening. Others are named for features of the game or opening moves: Hedgehog Defense, 4 Knights Game, the Elephant Game, King’s Indian, Queen’s Indian, etc.
Exactly. Named openings, for the most part, are sound. They’ve been tested in numerous games and extensively analyzed. A few are unsound at the BM level, but playable at a lower level. An example is the Smith-Morra Gambit (named for two players), an offshoot of the Sicilian for White which I play. Although probably unsound at the highest level, it leads to an aggressive game for White which is fun to play. The Budapest and Latvian fall into this category. Those openings have been well analyzed and refutations have been found. However, the opponent must know them thoroughly to wend his way around all the complications. They’re rarely seen at the highest levels, but occasionally do make an appearance. Sometimes a new move will be discovered, which again an opponent must find a new refutation, if any.
If you’re playing a standard opening, esp. with Black, against any decent player, he or she probably knows it better than you. Would you really want to play in to the Fried Liver Attack? For years, it was considered unsound, but what Black player dare venture into it. A few years ago, new moves were found for White, making the opening not only completely sound but a sure winner, unless Black gambits a pawn. So, if you’re playing Black in this opening, you must try to find a defense not widely known. That’s what I do.
Any good game shop will have chess books, some of which are devoted mostly or entirely to opening moves.
My favorite for use on new players is the Fool’s Mate.
When a new player tries to echo your every move, the trap is sprung and they are mated in about 7 moves total.
There’s very little difference between a mediocre strategist who knows his openings and one who doesn’t, but there’s a world of difference between a good strategist who knows them and one who doesn’t. If all you know are the openings and the standard responses to them, then somebody can beat you just but making a nonstandard move. Now, the reason that that move isn’t standard is probably that it’s not a very good move. A good strategist will see that it’s not a very good move, and why, and jump all over it, so you can’t escape easily from a good strategist who knows his openings.
The “why” of chess openings should be obvious: at the very beginning of the game, there really aren’t that many moves (20 possible for each color before the first move). If you have a planned opening and planned responses to your opponent’s moves, you save valuable thinking time for the midgame and endgame when the situations get complex and the options multiply. Plus, if you know something about your opponent’s strengths and weaknesses (and believe me, these grandmaster types play one another over and over and OVER), you can use an opening that’s likely to exploit those weaknesses and have it in mind before the game even begins.
The most common openings I see in friendly everyday chess are the King’s Gambit and the Queen’s Gambit. The Queen’s Gambit is very simple and quick, has a bit of sneaky subtlety, and puts your opponent in “defense mode” right off the bat. I still use it quite a bit.
Back in high school, my friend E.J. and I created our own chess openings. His was “E.J.'s Option” and mine was “Pawnzai”. Mine wasn’t very subtle, but it sure did wreck my opponents’ pawn structure…
Whenever you play a chess game, you should have some stragegy in mind. This is known as a chess opening. If some one makes a non-standard move, it probably is a weak move, but not necessarily. I once played a tournament game where my opponent made a non-book move. I actually did not know the book, but when I got home, I looked up the opening and found that I made all the right moves, and the move my opponent made what was considered a mistake. However, I was not up on the recent innovations. There are chess journals that carry all the recent games. Although the move he played was considered a mistake, he obviously had found that it wasn’t due to new analysis. Anyway, he got the better game and won.
However, if the non-standard move is weak, the refutation generally is not strategic, but tactical. You should not necessarily change your strategy. If it is a weak move, there is a tactical refutation which you must find.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Snooooopy *
**
Yeah, but Lopez wrote a book about chess (It might have been the first book about chess, but I’m not sure) where he included the opening. Of course, I’ve always liked his other piece of advice. “When playing, sit so that the sun is in your opponent’s eyes.”
Not having watched a high level chess match, do they fly through the first dozen-or-so moves using standard openings and counter-moves? At what point do they hit the wall when they have to slow down and stare at the board for minutes/hours on end?
A lot of times, that’s exactly how it pans out. For those of you who don’t play tournament chess, rmember that games often are timed, so the faster you can get through the basics, the more time you have for figuring out the end game.
My father, who had a master’s ranking, taught me how to attack and defend opening after opening. The only problem was, his skills were so far ahead of mine that he would crush me quickly as soon as the board opened up. As a result, I could never play a mid-game (that’s when the standard moves have pretty well been exhausted and you start staring at the board) worth a damn. On the other hand, he also told me the story of playing an exhibition with a college chess team where he beat the faculty, only to have the students play unconventional openings and beat him.
Man, times like this I’m glad my friends and I are all pretty square in the middle of the “damn newbie” rank. Thanks for all the info, guys.