Willempie

I'd thought I put into writing some factors I thought I missed...Nothing special... 



I guess the main theme I was addressing is that D pawn specials are not necessarily simple. Yet it's the lack of variance in the positions that result that can pigeon hole  them..and this can be a factor at events where your opponent can look your games up.

For not knowing what I was saying, I think you hit the points I was trying to address quite nicely....

Playing a system:  Is like: always leading with the left before throwing the right hook.  It’s a dangerous combo if done correctly, yes the opponent has to respond to the seriousness of the attack… but if he’s seen it before…he is less likely to fall for it, leaving the fight to be settled in the Middle and the End rounds. If the guy using the system is a better chess boxer…he’ll catch his opponent in the later rounds…. If not.... the opponent catches him.

That’s the crux of playing a system 

However.....Show me a line in any main opening ( 1. e4 or 1.d4 ) that gives White an undisputed advantage …I.e. where Black is forced to accept that disadvantage.     There is always an equalization…of some sort in all openings.  At best with correct play, White will get a slight +=  from moving first. 

   

So what is the real difference?  A few more +=?  whoopdy doooooooo! lol....

IMO  

 It’s not that main line openings offer more complex position or offer better fighting chances than most “systems.”  Cite me the Semi Slave Botvinnik var as a main line that is more complex and offers better fighting chances, and …I’ll cite you the Mestel Var of the From’s   I think I can go tit for tat…putting a system var up against a main line.....
 
 IMO   Main line openings offer more varied positions and strategies…NOT  deeper positional complexities or fighting chances!!!!…which some of you try to argue when you use the premise “Systems only work at the amateur level”….  Given this…I fail to see how D Pawn systems (or other systems) are that "less superior" in conditions where your opponent has no clue what your opening prep is going to be. (e.g. Most events where the participants are below 2200 USCF)

In my opinion……. The only real legit premise to argue that D pawn specials are inferior is.....  D pawn specials are seen with a greater frequency at the amateur level, thus making them easier to deal with due to their encounter rate (i.e. the familiarity factor) that's is the only legit argument in my eyes!  Off course that arguement can and does apply to some main lines too....

I don't buy that  playing D Pawn systems exemplify weak play…
  

 
   
Lastly  : what’s funny is I don’t even play systems. . I open with 1.Nf3, gor for a Reti or English, defend with the French and the Tarrasch (sometimes the classical Dutch) . It’s just that I’ve been beaten by some solid players who played a system against me…(and on occasion I have to have played a few with the Colle and have won a few) ….It hard to remember the correct lines  at a weekend event against someone who specializes with a system. Once you have lost…your usually out of the running for the prize money….  There is a certain practicality about a system that deserves respect.

Paul123 wrote on 06/27/07 at 02:44:45:


Yes!  But these grandmasters have the flexibility and overall chess understanding to play these openings to their full potential.  (Also these players have other openings in their arsenal, and may use a d-pawn special strategically in accordance with their tournament situation.  Hodgson may have exclusively played the Trompowski at some points in his career, but he had a lot of new ideas up his sleeve in an evolving opening.)  Amateurs often lack these qualities and get caught in a rut, partly because they do not step outside their comfort zone.  One does not have to play the absolute main lines to do this.  Palliser's repertoire in Play 1d4 is a good example of this.  Although not cutting edge today, a lot of these openings lead to classical middlegames that have a long history.  These openings are solid, fruitful for study, and offer good chances to play for a win (at least at amateur level).

Let me give an example.  Eric Prie has been covering several games of his with an early a3 in the opening.  He is very successful with this line, due to his long experience with ...a6 Slav positions as Black.  An amateur adopting this opening without any experience in the Slav would probably have difficulty understanding these lines if he suddenly decided to play these a3 systems as White.  He would have very few games to refer to and would probably have great difficultly following the middlegames if did not make a concerted effort to study the Slav.  If such a player has a mysterious aversion to main line theory, the Slav would be off-limits.  Sadly, I think there a lot of amateur d-pawn specials players that do not even realize they are playing reversed versions of main line openings.  I think that players who limit themselves to such a restricted group of openings are doing a great disservice to themselves.

How in the world can a solid d-pawn specials opening, which results in equality, hold you back if you are under 2400?  Below that level there are so many areas of your game that needs improvement, to blame your lack of progress on your opening is ridiculous! Do you really think Kamsky would have trouble beating a 2200 with the London? It's not the opening, it's how well you analyze positions and calculate variations that determines your playing level.

Hate to say it but isn't this just another "d-spawn special openings suck, don't play them"  thread? I really don't understand why this forum gets so many of these sorts of posts. Why do folks feel it's necessary to come into this forum and tear it down? You don't like d-pawn specials, fine, don't play them. But for gosh sakes, stop talking down to the people who enjoy them.

Willempie wrote on 06/13/07 at 14:43:25:


I believe Lassie played the Collie with great regularity. 

(Sorry, I couldn't resist).

In other words, amateurs and patzers always have to make compromises. In the end the decisive factor always will be: what offers most fun?
X' acquaintance simply should have gradually replaced the London by other systems. Eg he could have begun with 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.c4, while sticking (temporarily?) to 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bf4 and 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.Bf4.
This is just an example. The motivation must be, that the opening does not work anymore like it did before, so it is time to move on. The critical remark of course is:

"More than once he would have straight draws in tournaments.  I talked to him after one of these tournaments (six games!) and he was not so happy."

At the other hand, if he still were happy, there would have been no reasons to bother about the London.
Speaking for myself, I don't want to limit myself by playing the same openings my whole life. At the other hand, a good friend of my already plays the Dragon with ...Qa5 and the KID for more than 25 years and still enjoys it.
The nice thing of being an amateur is, that objective truth matters less.