I thought I’d start a thread into which assorted commentary about the glee v. SiXSwordS chess training game can be put. Thus, we can kibbitz, as well as snark, and even drag in irrelevancies without distracting the participants. That way, the game thread will be able to stay more focused.
Mind you, if you are asking glee for advice or information relative to that game itself, feel free to post there, as glee has said that is ok. But we can have a sidebar conversation here about strategies, alternate lines, etc. without SiXSwordS having to have the old thought train derailed.
I’m wondering if SiXSwordS should play c4 at this point - then if glee continues with his stated intention to to play d4, black can capture en passant and be safe from recapture by another pawn!
I didn’t see this description… is there another thread?
I’m not sure if I should feel good about playing a ‘book’ move or not. As I mentioned, when I’m told I’m playing a certain opening I often feel that I’m playing to my opponents strengths because they know my opening better than I do.
I’d say any more, it’s damn near impossible NOT to play a “good” move that is not a “book” move. Unlike the 70s, when I learned the game, or the 80s when I played tournament chess, and bought the semi-annual Chess Informant to update my ECOs, and “book” was not so well developed, these days the “book” has expanded to cover almost all decently playable lines. Gotta love computer databases.
The reason (as DSYoung said) that moves are ‘book’ is because they are tried and tested to be provably ‘good’ moves.
There is usually a choice between ‘book’ moves, depending on what sort of game you want.
Here I spurned 2. Ng1-f3 (the popular ‘book’ move, leading to exciting play) for a quieter ‘book’ move (2. c2-c3).
As for trying moves not in ‘book’ - if your opponent understands the opening, then they will understand why your move is weaker than ‘book’ and take advantage of it.
Chess is a perfect information game - if your opponent knows more than you, then they have an advantage no matter what you do. :eek:
Right. That’s always my failing with chess - to choose a move too rashly based on one particular response, instead of ‘branching out’ the search for other possible responses.
Is there a particular reason why e7-e5 isn’t in the list of book moves in this situation? It would seem to be a stronger move towards the center than e7-e6, and doesn’t lead to any immediate losses that I can see.
However, it doesn’t support a later move of d7-d5 the same way e7-e6 does. Maybe that’s it.
Actually 2. …e7-e5 is close to a ‘book’ move!
It does control the centre and help get pieces out.
The reason it’s not played much is that it leaves a ‘hole’ (technically known as an Outpost) on d5. The definition of this is a square that no Black pawn can now attack.
Outposts are popular with Knights, particularly if supported by a White pawn.
I’m going to try a take at this…
Not only does it not support the advance of the d Pawn, the pawn structure in general is weak. The pawns aren’t working together.
Maybe more to the point, if W moves d4… B takes W recaptures B takes W recaptures (all on d4), all of B development is now on the sidelines and the K is exposed.
ETA: Seeing glee’s post, I’m learning a lot about moves that I know are good or bad, but that I don’t know ‘why’ they’re good or bad.
That’s true (although there is some compensation in that both pawns attack the centre).
Glad to help.
It does take experience to learn why some moves are better than others. All I can say for now if that most moves have good and bad points and it depends on the overall position which points matter more.
Sorry, I meant that it is difficult to play the best moves in chess because there are good and bad points to each move.
And I don’t know of anything (apart from experience and analysis) that can help players find these moves.
I’m putting this here, but it is a link to the game thread:
:eek: indeed!
It does bring up a question about trying play “out of book” or trying to get one’s opponent “out of book.”
I’ve seen that phrase used to mean something like: playing moves that aren’t on the script.
I assume that the same idea would hold in terms of there being + and - aspects as well as there being no point in playing moves just because they’re out-of-book.
But in a game against a superior opponent, where they know the book better than I do, am I better off playing “novel” moves or sticking to the worn path?
If you just want to play chess once a year for 20 minutes against a relative who knows no ‘book’ either, then there’s no point in studying. Just play anything that amuses you (and your opponent).
If you’re playing in the Mtel Masters 2009, which consists of the players ranked 1, 3, 12, 13, 14 and 22 in the World and where a single game can take up to 7 hours, then you are:
already using computer databases of millions of games
spending hours preparing for each game (using the database)
ready with new moves in most of your openings (that take your opponents out of ‘book’)
The rest of us fall somewhere in between.
It is true that many inexperienced players will be unsettled by a new move (even if it isn’t very good). It’s also true that you can probably beat these players with ‘book’ moves (and good play thereafter).
And by playing ‘book’, you are learning good habits and preparing to play stronger players.
Perhaps a reasonable analogy is tennis. If you learn an unorthodox serve, it will get you a few easy points against inexperienced players. But that’s all - and it will make learning a decent serve harder to do.
So I’m sorry, but I can only say (like much in chess) that it ‘depends on’:
how good you are
how good your opponent is
how much time you want to spend on chess
I think also that there are many ‘book’ choices and you can choose one to suit your style.
You can of course play a reasonable move (just not the best). For example, suppose you like to play 1. d2-d4 (a top 4 opening move!). Your opponents replies 1. … Ng8-f6. Now probably the best move is to play 2. c2-c4. However there is a dodgy, but tricky reply to this: 2. … e7-e5 (the Budapest Gambit).
So if you know your opponent likes this Gambit (or even just that he’s the sort to play it), you can play 2. Ng1-f3 instead.
Not as aggressive as 2. c2-c4, but you have completely avoided your opponent’s favourite.
In looking at the game (I think kibitzing commentary not player developed should go here), it seems to me the question before the house of delegates is how invested black wants to be in forcing white to accept the isolated queen pawn. Black can develop with moves like Nc6 and even Bf6 preparatory to c:d4. Then Black can plan on outposting his f knight on d5, and if White exchanges knights, that leaves the queen able to retake at d5, with little black can do to dislodge her from that critical diagonal. After putting the white bishop at b7, the diagonal attack on the castled king starts to gain some steam. Downsides to this plan are the delay in development of the white bishop (always a pesky problem when there is a pawn at e6, and the fact that white can always try for some different development, forcing black to accept a different pawn structure. Plus, of course, White is starting to position a very massive assault upon the king-side pawns of Black, and Black isn’t exactly positioned to defend that well at the moment.
Seems to me I recall that Black can accept essentially this same position in an Exchange French and it isn’t all that great a result… do I mis-remember this (it’s been a LONG time since I looked at this stuff seriously)?
You are right in that the game is most likely to become an ‘isolated Queen pawn’, which means a pawn formation where White has pawns on a3, b2, d4, f2, g2 and h2 and Black has pawns on a7, b6, e6, f7, g7 and h7.
This is an important setup, because it can arise from many openings.
I’ll say more if it does happen, but although Black should indeed post a Knight on d5, White doesn’t have to take it…
I mentioned this chess variant recently and already I’ve got a player (Meeko) interested!
If you want to play, then let me know (preferably in the new ‘report’ thread).
Here’s my offer - I’ll referee the game (rules in the next post here) on the SDMB. The players will need:
to know how to play chess
a sense of humour
to be honest (because it will be a lot of fun for spectators if I show everything, but the players mustn’t look)
to post regularly (otherwise it drags on)
Kriegspiel is a chess variant for two players and a referee. The players can only see their own moves and rely on limited information given by the referee (who knows all).
In the proposed SDMB game, I will referee and post the moves in a ‘game’ thread. The players are not allowed to look at this ‘game’ thread!! :smack:
Spectators are welcome to post there (although please have some sympathy for the players!)
The players will PM or e-mail me their moves. I will post the moves in the ‘game’ thread.
There will be a separate ‘report’ thread, which will contain all the information for both players. They both know everything I report and are welcome to read it! They can ask me questions there.
No spectators should post in the ‘report thread’.
:smack: