Aye Bullrock

There are traps in a lot of openings. You mention the Ponziani. But of course that only faces you if you play e5 to whites e4. However 1....c5 stops any nonsense. Or 1....Nf6 or 1....Nc6! or 1....d5 or 1....c6. My point is that trying different replies to e4 is better than studying openings to try and learn them by heart. The titled player I mentoned in an earlier post was Keith Ruxton. He has a FIDE rating of 2400. The discussion I had about openings was really instructive. He said he had met weaker players who played openings perfectly up to move 10 or 11. However when it came to actually playing chess and finding strong moves in the middle game they were easily beaten.

So the thing isn't studying openings as such but knowing how the play 'the opening'. Recently I've stopped playing an opening as such in tournament play. There is plenty of time to think so after I play 1....c5 to e4 I don't just bash out my moves because the book says so. I try an look at what my opponent threatens and play accordingly. This is important when you work on an opening like 1....Nf6 to d4. We might think your going to play a Kings Indian or Nimzo or something. Then white plays 2.Nc3 or 2.Bf4 or Bg5. Then you have to start thinking.

I have played games where the opponent plays stuff which you cant recognise as an opening in any book but they play good developing moves. I think it's all about sticking with basic principles. If you take this approach you might find it a little harder work but it will pay off. The Stonewall is pretty sound no? But what I've noticed is that you will say things like 'I'll get a N on e5 and my bishop will go to...etc' All this may happen but your opponent won't just sit there and it depends on how strong they are.

A while ago I played our club president. He had played the Stonewall for years. Didn't play anything else. He did achieve getting his N to e5 and other moves typically Stonewall like. However I destroyed his position and won his Q before chasing his king over the whole board until mate. Meanwhile his magnificet N stayed on e5 for the whole game. He told me recently that he still stings from that game.

An opening doesn't win a game chess does!

[quote="Bullrock"][quote="brucewallace2"]Do openings really matter at anything below say 1800?[/quote]

I would have to say yes to this. The reason is because there are some pretty nasty combinations in some openings that unless you are familiar with, you are likely to fall prey to them. One example is the Ponziani. It contains a line similar to the Halloween gambit and if you make "natural" moves against it, you likely will have a very short, embarrassing game!

Link to a video on the Ponziani opening...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOZLHeKW ... re=related[/quote]

Thx Bullrock. I've seen this video and tried out the Ponziani in blitz. Yeah I did trap the odd player but got crushed by others and as the commentator did say, should black play accurately you get a sharp game early in the opening. So you would be on your chess mettle in the early middle game. In OTB tournament chess with lots of time to think you would be likely to face a tough opponent who will invest time on making a strong reply. Time spent on playing solidly in the opening pays off because with the avoidance of blunders in the opening you will reach a middle game where tactics predominate. If the opening is played well it should lead to an advantage which stretches into the ending. When you play off-beat openings quite often the opponent takes longer over his reply. Sometimes they play a weak move but often they hit you with the best reply.

In every opening if the oponent just plays a normal looking move he may be in trouble. For example I play the Scotch. 1.e4-e5 2.Nf3-Nc6 3.d4-exd 4.Nxd....now a good reply is then ..Nf6. However in blitz I'm amazed how many players go in for the exchange of the d4N. So 4....NxN 5.QxN and a lot then play ...Nf6 5.e5! and black is in some trouble. I've hardly lost a game in this line. Better players wouldn't play this, probably cos they've sufferred before and play 5...c5 instead hitting whites Q. If you think about most positions there usually is a good move to play.

I wholeheartedly agree with Bruce! The openings of course matter to some extent i.e. you must know basic principles etc.
BUT until you are at a level when you are constantly playing against 2300+ then I agree that the openings ALMOST don't matter. So until you reach a very strong level I think tactics/endings/patterns is a much better use of the training time.

Of course nothing wrong with picking an opening and studying it a little bit but just don't spend all your time doing that because it will simply be counter-productive!

[quote="Zibbit"]I wholeheartedly agree with Bruce! The openings of course matter to some extent i.e. you must know basic principles etc.
BUT until you are at a level when you are constantly playing against 2300+ then I agree that the openings ALMOST don't matter. So until you reach a very strong level I think tactics/endings/patterns is a much better use of the training time.

Of course nothing wrong with picking an opening and studying it a little bit but just don't spend all your time doing that because it will simply be counter-productive![/quote]

QED. Thanks Zibbit...the voice of reason!

Well, I can luckily say that I spend my time in both learning my chosen openings better AND in tactics training. So, it appears I may be on the right track? Please don't anyone think that I focus ALL of my time to openings or to tactics. My mission is to get MUCH better at spotting a tactic when one exists. I'm pretty good at seeing them if I'm told there is one...but as mentioned before, in a real game, you just don't have that luxury.

[quote\]
An opening doesn't win a game chess does!
[/quote]

I agree with this, however, common sense seems to imply that some knowledge of openings and common ideas of said openings would be helpful in making good moves. What I mean is in order to have a good position leading into the endgame, it seems you first need a solid middlegame which is set up by a solid opening. I admit, that I could be completely wrong and it isn't as if I can point to my chess rating to prove my point...but it just seems knowing good replies to the moves your opponent is making in the opening is a good way to set yourself up for a good middlegame and a good endgame.

But, I completely agree that no matter how many moves of an opening you know, you still must play chess and therefore knowledge of fundamentals and tactics will end up deciding the game in end.

Hi Bullrock keep up the good work!

[quote="brucewallace2"] I'd recommend trying a tactics server which involves exchanging as part of an attack i.e EXCHANGING WITH A PURPOSE![/quote]

Bruce, do you have any particular site in mind? I use chesstempo.com as well but I'd love to try something new if you think it is better.

BigRed

I think the`re are a few but you could try Chesstempo.com