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.

Paul123 wrote on 06/12/07 at 23:50:48:

That really depends on the level. Very few people improve greatly on a diet of just a few openings.
Quote:

That's true, but at a certain point you wont reach these positions.
Quote:

Good point.
Quote:

Yes and no. Usually it is just that he didnt really put any effort in these lines and has to improvise.
Quote:

Also a good point
Quote:

Not sure what you mean here.
Quote:

Which top players played the Colle with any regularity? I know Euwe and Alekhine occasionaly played it, but cant remember any good results against good opposition (one draw in their match iirc)

Paul123 wrote on 06/12/07 at 23:50:48:


I am not sure how strong you are, but this can be a dangerous line of reasoning.  This reminds me of a 2000 player who always played the London.  He was a respectable solid player, but reached a plateau.  He had played the London for many years and liked the opening.  When talking about the opening, he would often mention the pedigree of the opening among top players in the 20's and 30's.  He became a little set in his ways and developed a very stodgy style.  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.  He really wanted to make progress, but had trouble branching out to new things.  He seemed to have a training philosophy similar to yours, but it just wasn't working.  I've seen other people similar to this who would plateau with the Colle.  I don't want to be rude, but I have a strong opinion about this.  I feel that if you stick with a "system" for a long period of time you become an inflexible player.  The comparison made to the players of old can even lead to a form of a mental trap.  ("If it worked for so-and-so in the 1920s, it should certainly work for me.  I just need to stick to this and train harder!")  This can even lead to a form of defensiveness when others criticize their opening choices, which further seals the barrier to progress.  I don't think it is a bad idea to study the masters of old, but you have to keep moving forward.  A lot of the opening problems that were novel in 1930s have known solutions today that are even well known to non-master players.  Players who do not fully realize this are walking in an invisible minefield.  The understanding of chess is an evolving process which is not easily rendered to compartmentalization.  My advice (to anyone to which this would apply) would be not to put too many unnecessary restrictions on your development.  Systems are not a bad idea for a beginner starting out, but around 1600 you start to feel a bit of wear as you play stronger opponents.  Middlegames and endgames do not have to be studied separately from the openings you play.  Don't be afraid to try openings that seem difficult to understand.  If you play too solidly, you may need to force yourself to accept a greater margin of risk, even if it means worse results for a while.

I hope this doesn't come across as offensive.  I am mainly thinking aloud, since I've had people before talk to me about their problems in situations like this.  In the past, I have been restrained in giving my opinion, partly because I usually feel that the person is very set in their ways.  I usually end up feeling that I should probably just keep my mouth shut.

I agree - d-pawn specials do not test Black's position to the limit, far from it. But opening preparation (for me, at least) is all 1) about knowing the typical positions you are going to get in each line, and 2) maximising your chances of getting them. I think its this second point that openings like the London System, Torre, Trompovsky, Veresov really come into their own. Although they will not test Black on a theoretical basis, you can be pretty sure that against most of Black's typical defences you are going to get your favourite opening in.

Its because of this that I keep coming back to wanting to play these openings, even though I force myself not to, at least in serious over the board play. However, many strong players, even GMs make a living playing these openings, so I guess that its true when you say the middlegame/endgame decides most games, not opening preparation.

The funny thing is that I think I would score just as well with these systems, as I would with my current openings - I'm just forcing myself not to be tempted to test this theory.

I had to laugh at preyed upon's list because it discribes my own search for the perfect (and easy) opening for White. Looking for a sort of WIN BY FORCE WITHOUT THINKING opening.  

However, after 35 years of tournament play I've come to realize that my victories are rarely due to the opening I played. It seems like 95% of my wins are because of a tactical error or poor endgame technique by my opponent. Of course at the GM level openings are far more important and at the 2700+ level they're critical.

It's been said a million times and it is indeed true, if you really want to improve your game you must work hard at improving your ability to;
1.Anayze positions accurately and come up with the correct plan.
2.Calculate variations deeply and accurately.
3.Play endgames flawlessly.

What they don't mention is that as you improve and move up, you are then going to compete against players that have also improved and moved up. And this continues all the way to the super GM level. In other words, it never gets any easier than it already is right now!

Chess is not about being easy, someone might say. If it was easy it wouldn't be any fun.

True, but the appeal of d-pawn specials is that they are easier to learn than mainline openings like the Sicilian and KID. I believe that the farther you go down from the GM level the less important opening preparation is and the more important it is to spend your time working on the other parts of the game. With the exception being for those that have reached their comfort level and have no desire to improve their game.

And if you go down far enough you can even play the BDG!  

The point seems to be that he thinks the trade-off (between quality of middle-game position reached and time invested in opening study) is bad. 
Clearly he underestimates the amounts of time and energy it takes to create an opening repertoire of best lines without any holes in it. Even getting to know such a repertoire is impossible when holding a regular job. How many pages does 'Opening for White according to Kramnik' or 'Anand' comprise ?

As someone who played these openings for many years, I think I understand the appeal of them, both to a d4 newbie, and to those looking for an "easy" White opening.  

I started with the Colle, and went into the Stonewall, Torre, London sys., maybe some Tromp., and then the BDG.  It becomes a quest hunting for that one elusive opening that will:  

1.  be easy to understand
2.  buy time on the clock with little thinking needed
3.  appear to give a winning advantage since your opening is so solid, and no defense will be any 
    match for it

In addition:

4.  GM (insert name) plays it, or has played it, so it must be good!
5.  not as much preparation needed, as with other openings-- you can play the opening almost  
    automatically, then spend your time and energy on the middlegame         
6.  there is so much greatness in this one opening that it has to be the way to play -- you have found 
    paradise with White, and will defeat everyone with it!  (delusions of grandeur)


I went down this road more than once, telling myself reasons 5 & 6 will be my path to victory and superiority with White over everyone else.  And after awhile, you discover it just isn't true!!

The Colle and Stonewall run into the KID; in the Torre I would end up with a blocked pawn center and no real way to make progress-- almost a passive position for the middlegame;  the BDG-- tactically complex and difficult to play against good defenders-- there was always some roadblock  interfering with my supposed victories and huge rating jump!

I will admit I still use the London System, but as a SECONDARY opening-- you need to have something better than these as a primary opening.  Using them for awhile and learning 1. d4 2. c4 ( or some other major opening) is ok, but you have to break away at some point, if for nothing else, you don't want to become predictable in your White set-ups.  The same with the KIA-- good starting point, but eventually move on to something better.

These d pawn openings won't win just because someone plays them-- there are a  seemingly infinite number of replies and set-ups black can employ, and you must know how to exploit them, both positionally and tactically-- which is tough when the clock is running, especially if your opponent deviates from book lines and plays an "original" defense.

The queen's pawn games are a temporary staging area until you determine your true path with the White pieces.