Yah. Unless, of course, nobody prepares against it because nobody plays it. I’ve seen the Orang-Utan in club play and I’ve been confronted by the Latvian. Both may be dubious but if people weren’t getting results with them in practice, I presume they wouldn’t be playing them.
I had more in mind the phase of a player’s career where he’s too green to bother learning an opening for a lifetime.
You appear to be directly contradicting the part about learning an opening that will last you a lifetime.
Of course. But then you have to learn to confront 1. …e5, 1. …e6, 1. … d5, 1. … d6, 1. … c5, 1. … c6, 1. … Nf6, etc…
Well, you know, I do have some experience of meeting club players - what Michael Green might have called “Coarse Chess” had he ever written that book. Please don’t mistake me for one of your junior pupils, even if you are the finest chessplayer in all {personal data: name of English county omitted}.
Then stop making the sort of silly assertions that novice players make.
Seriously, glee’s point is that learning a “bad” opening solely so that you can avoid complexity inherent in addressing the multitude of possible responses to something more “standard” is a bad idea. It’s bad for two reasons:
It will lead to losing positions, often for reasons the novice cannot understand, and
It detracts from learning better opening lines and theory, more useful in making oneself a better player, and
Hi Opal!
The reasons you see odd openings in club and even tournament play (to a certain level) have little to do with success. A friend of mine who played in tournaments with me in the Bay Area in the 80s played unusual openings for the kick of seeing what would happen, despite the fact that his success rate was lower with them than with standard openings. Another person I used to play against regularly at the club I used to run at the time played them because he was on a sort of personal travelogue through all the possible openings of note; when he finished with that concept he returned to playing more standard things. A couple others I knew who played unusual openings (though not so foolishly unusual as 1. b4) did so because they shied away from poor results against the Sicilian, or against whatever was the “hot” opening du jour.
Indeed, the only reason I can think of to introduce a relative novice (say, someone with a “D” rating from USCF) is to help them understand exactly WHY bad opening play IS bad opening play.
They aren’t getting results in practice.
See here, where the Orang-Utan (called the Polish Defence at that site) for White gets the following:
White win 38% Black win 39% Draw 23%
So this opening actually weakens White’s position. (And they don’t even use my pet refutation!)
By contrast the Ruy Lopez for White scores:
White win 40% Black win 27% Draw 33%
Meanwhile the Latvian for Black scores a miserable:
White win 50% Black win 33% Draw 17%
I don’t know why people play this opening.
Yes, if you play 1. e4, there are a number of possible replies. But you might as well start understanding them straightaway, because the knowledge will always be useful.
Sorry if I sound like a teacher. :o
But this is my field of expertise - I have decades of experience playing everyone from beginners to Kasparov and teaching all levels from beginners up to Junior World Champions.
Thread’s all yours, dude. I make one little comment about the playability of one or two opening move and nothing will do for you but to beat me to death with quoted lines, statistics and your freakin’ CV. As if I hadn’t reiterated several times the preferability of 1. e4, e5 for the student. Seeyaround.
OK, Malacandra and I are still mates (e.g. in the roleplaying thread), so if Dalej42 or Sitnam want to post a game here, I will happily advise them on how to do better next time.
Indeed we are, and now I’ve had time for mature, sober reflection I have realized the folly of contradicting my betters. I ought not, even as a throwaway, to have described an opening move as “playable” when it can be statistically shown to be inferior to the mighty Ruy Lopez, and the opinions of know-nothings such as Tartakower, Larsen, Korchnoi and even Fischer can be dismissed as mere aberrations, much as you’d ignore accounts of someone playing a known drawing line as White in a must-win encounter against the acknowledged world expert in not losing.
If I presume to express opinions on chess again, you may link to this post and call me a big fat welsher with my leave and blessing. Off now to ponder metre, rhyme, verse structure, imagery, and such topics fitting my station.
It’s the Straight Dope - feel free to present your evidence.
Yes, 1. f4 and 1. b4 are statistically inferior to all of 1. e4, 1. d4, 1. c4 and 1. Nf3.
(I gave the figures proving that earlier.)
Therefore players trying to improve (as per the thread title) should avoid these weaker openings. Don’t handicap yourself in a game of pure skill.
You give a single game by Fischer where he plays 1. f4. (He never played 1. b4.) What ‘opinion’ was he expressing?
He played 1. e4 in 99% of his games. He described it as “Best by test.”
Korchnoi also only played 1. f4 once. He never played 1. b4.
He played thousands of games in an incredibly lengthy career, and again 99% of them started with 1. e4, 1. d4, 1. c4 or 1. Nf3.
That single game counts an ‘aberration’ for me.
Having met both Larsen and Korchnoi, I can assure you their ‘opinions’ were the same as mine on what openings were best.
Larsen certainly liked to try ‘irregular’ openings, but he could come badly unstuck (see his rapid loss with White v Spassky which I gave earlier).
I know the game Lasker-Capablanca. It started 1. e4 (as I recommend). It’s true that Lasker (who needed a win) played the Exchange variation of the Ruy Lopez, considered to be rather drawish. He surprised Capablanca and managed to win.
But what has that got to do with playing openings such as 1. f4 and 1. b4?
Didn’t someone once beat a grandmaster with the following opening: 1. e4 a6 2. d4 b5. IIRC Karpov was involved; don’t remember if he was black and white. Not that I would suggest this opening for anyone.
I don’t play much chess now but was quite keen some years ago. One book that I found really useful was Chess Master versus Chess Amateur. As the name suggests the book goes through a series of games between a stronger and weaker player and shows you how to exploit the mistakes of the weaker player and hopefully avoid such mistakes yourself. As the book progresses the “amateur” becomes stronger and the games more sophisticated. A great way of learning basic chess principles.
That was GM Tony Miles, playing Black against Karpov (I think in the European Team Championship).
[url=http://www.amazon.co.uk/Chess-Master-vs-Amateur/dp/0486279472/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240569313&sr=1-2Certainly a good book (one author was former World Champion Euwe), but you probably need a certain amount of experience to fully benefit from the ideas.
(That’s why I offered to look at a couple of games in this thread before making suggestions.)
I think you mean the Fried Liver Attack (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Nxd5 6. Nxf7?! Kxf7 7. Qf3+ Ke6 8. Nc3 Ncb4).
That leads to a draw by repetition with best play, so I don’t recommend it for White.
If you want funny opening names, how about the Monkey’s Bum (1. e4 g6 2. Bc4 Bg7 3. Qf3 e6 4. d4!?).
I heard from the inventor of this remarkable sacrificial opening how the name came about. Apparently he showed it to a club mate who replied “If that’s playable, then I’m a Monkey’s Bum!”
I’m no master but here’s some stuff that works for me.
My personal strategy, for what it’s worth, is to concentrate more on tactics than strategy. I try to focus on what the next move should be rather than trying to plot out the entire game. I find that if keep making good moves I usually end up being in a winning position.
There’s seven moves you generally want to do early: advance your king and queen’s pawns, develop your bishops and knights, and castle.
Forks are good. If you can make a move that has two threats in it, your opponent can only avoid one of them.
If you’re ahead, start exchanging. A one piece advantage with thirty-one pieces on the board isn’t as decisive as a one piece advantage with five pieces on the board.
Don’t sweat it too much. It’s only a game. The worst thing that can happen is you lose.
This is all good stuff, but perhaps difficult to achieve. :eek:
Tactics don’t just ‘happen’ - a good strategy makes them possible.
Nobody ever plots out an entire game. (As an international, I usually look 2-3 moves ahead. But I see almost everything within that range.)
Yes, a series of good moves does win. But how do you know which moves are good?
If you ‘advance your king pawn’ (play 1.e4) and your opponent does the same (plays 1. … e5), then if you ‘advance your queen pawn’ (2. d4), they can take it (2. … exd4). Where is your plan for this?
Forks certainly are good. So are pins, skewers, overloads, discovered attacks and zwischenzugs. But where do they come from?
A piece ahead is decisive against Kasparov. Did you mean a pawn?
I agree with what you’re saying. But I know I used to think that playing chess well did require deep planning. I thought that you always had to have a plan that was leading to a checkmate. The result was that I tried to overplot the game beyond my capabilities and got brainlocked.
But then at some point, I backed off. I no longer tried to plan out the entire course of the game. I just planned my next couple of moves. I played “in the now” and found that by doing so usually in the course of the game an opportunity, which I had not foreseen, developed on its own and I was able to use it to win.
I don’t know the terminology. A pawn’s a piece as far as I’m concerned.
One more piece of advice I forgot earlier: learn the endgames. Sure, everybody knows that in theory a rook and a king will always beat a bishop and a king. But the checkmate doesn’t just happen; you have to know the specific moves to force it. It’s incredibly frustrated to know that you have a winning advantage but don’t know the details of how to apply it.
Nah, it’s a joke- it’s an opening you learn from a talking venus flytrap in the PC game Fallout 2 so that you can beat an genetically engineered hyperintelligent scorpion.
This is interesting - thanks for explaining.
It’s not possible to ‘have a plan that was leading to a checkmate’, unless you have a winning attack, or have reached an book ending (an ending which has been completely analysed).
The idea of a chess strategy is that you know what you want to achieve, but not exactly how to do it.
Typical strategies could be (based on the position):
advance in the centre (usually you have an extra pawn there)
exchange to reach a good ending (you are ahead on material; your opponent has a bishop blocked by his own pawns)
attack the enemy King (it’s poorly defended)
Once you have a strategy, likely moves suggest themselves (which is a big help in chess where you have so many possibilities at each turn). Then you start analysing these moves. Sometimes tactics (surprising or particularly strong moves) appear - if you already have a good position, or your opponent has missed something!
True, they are technically all ‘pieces’. But a piece ahead (unless there is compensation) is a winning advantage - and you can probably win by direct attack. A pawn ahead is pretty strong, but (as you say) best exploited by exchanging so the advantage is magnified.
‘Learn endings first’ has been mentioned in posts 7, 8, 9, 40!
And the ending of King and Rook v King and Bishop (no pawns) is always drawn! (unless the attacker can force the defender’s King into a corner square the same colour as the bishop).
Even with a couple of pawns, a few positions are still drawn…
Well that’s presumably where they got the name from.
(Um, if you’re going to post a joke in a serious thread seeking advice, please could you add a smilie?! :p)
Really? It seems to me that you ought to be able to play it more-or-less like King and Rook vs. King, and just keep your king and rook off of the bishop’s color. Eventually, your opponent might be able to use the bishop to block, but then it seems like you ought to be able to force a capture of the bishop, at which point it’s the textbook ending.
One other point, by the way: Forking a couple of high-value pieces (King and Rook, say) is very sexy, but doesn’t come up all that often (practically speaking, never more than once per game, because if you can force something like that, you’ve pretty much won). But the same principle can apply to more prosaic gains. If you can make a move that both threatens something valuable and improves your position, you’ve gained that improvement in position essentially for free, since your opponent is forced to waste es move responding to your threat. Gaining a slightly better position isn’t as decisive as gaining a material advantage, but jockeying for position makes up most of the game.
