I  live to play e4 e5. I'd like never to play any other opening ever if I could! Sadly I'm not a an e4 player myself because e5 is not a guaranteed response so I play 1.d4

I do end up doing alot of prep work on mainline openings in e4 e5 but I don't bother with silly stuff like the Halloween Gambit (which is easily refuted otb!) So why waste time on that? The opponent is hoping against hope not only that you havent' studied his obscure garbage but that you'll wander into to a rather rare trap. I recently played a Scotch line where I wandered into such a trap. He played an opening that was utterly refuted (but the refutation was far from obvious sometimes taking 17 moves!) And I wasn't able to figure it out. I lost this game but you know losing one game out of a 1000 to obscure lines is not going to make me stand random off shoots.

Willempie wrote on 04/29/08 at 11:46:58:


When you said "judging a position alone" I automatically thought of the end position of a calculated line, where you don't look at any further moves (either because the end position is calm and clarified, or because you are unable to visualize any further), and instead stop and make a judgement. "How you think you could proceed" in that position would be very vague and intuitive, because the conscious mind has stopped calculating.

Rowson had an interesting comment (in "The 7 Deadly Chess Sins", I think) that during a game, your mind looks at many more lines than you are actually conscious of, and these subconscious lines influence your judgement, but I don't know... I feel more comfortable with lines I can remember thinking of!

Willempie wrote on 04/29/08 at 11:26:05:


Not really useful? The context was an imagined situation of trying to decide whether (or when) to open the position. Surely if I evaluate the arising position as better for me, that is a good reason to go for it, even if I'm not yet sure how to continue once I get there. My judgement may turn out to be wrong, but during a game I have only myself to trust (and in OTB chess, indecisiveness can be just as big a problem as trusting one's intuition too much).

Willempie wrote on 04/29/08 at 09:51:49:


I'm not sure I understand your argument. A judgement that a position is favorable usually presupposes some idea of how to continue, even if it's a very rough or intuitive idea. If that was your point, I agree. But intuition is a slippery thing, and sometimes a feeling that there is "something" in a position can be vindicated only afterwards by Fritz or Rybka, while we didn't find the right idea at the board with the clock ticking.

Willempie wrote on 04/29/08 at 09:51:49:


"I am winning" is a judgement per definition, isn't it? The calculation starts if you know (roughly) the right winning procedure. (Btw. 2 bishops vs lone king is not a particularly good example; every strong player should be able to work out the win even if he never read or thought about it before.)

I should clarify that I agree with Markovich that it's impossible to play chess if you cannot judge when an opening of the position is favorable, and I can do so most of the time. But such a judgement, even if correct, is no guarantee against oversights 5 or 10 moves down the line (and particularly in my games). Thankfully, my opponents also err sometimes!

Markovich wrote on 04/28/08 at 12:48:21:
 
My interest in this question is purely related to OTB where the clock is a major issue. I grant that playing wide-open positions is a weak point in my game, relative to similarly-rated players. I might be able to play an open position competently, but I have to play much more slowly to make sure I don't overlook some tactic, and time-trouble is likely. I think this is a general point: Someone who has difficulty understanding endgames (i.e. me again!) might still be able to match his peers IF he has/takes a lot more time on the clock. The clock makes it imperative to steer the game towards one's preferred position types most of the time. When I play semi-open positions, those time-consuming open positions will be limited to a shorter portion of the game, and I can concentrate my calculation efforts there. Besides I often have a say in when the position opens up, and if the opening-up is to my advantage.

Markovich wrote on 04/28/08 at 12:48:21:

To know whether any given opening of the position is favorable or unfavorable is not at all the same thing as playing that open position well once it arrives. It is entirely possible (and happens sometimes in my games) to judge correctly that an open position should be favorable, to play into it, only to miscalculate and/or get into time trouble. Judgement and calculation are very different things.

Markovich wrote on 04/28/08 at 12:48:21:

Yes. Logically, there are reasons why I'm not a title holder, and a dislike of open positions is probably one reason. But the choice to sacrifice short-term results for long-term gains is a difficult one to make, particularly when every tournament is a fight for money-prize finish (sometimes I make it, but often I narrowly miss it). Do I really want to put myself out of contention for a year or more with a change of playing style? Tough choice, but at some point maybe it will be the only way forward.

To quote me
-Lines with c3 and d4 (Eg the Giuoco). Target the e4 pawn with d5 and if possible Nxe4 (rule of the thumb is to play Nxe4 whenever it is not directly wrong or when you can follow up with d5).

Btw I used to have a similar if reversed problem against 1.d4, I avoided closed positions like the plague and ended playing the Budapest, only to get more frustrated later. It took me a heavy diet of Nimzo's and QGD to get over it

4...d6 5. d4 puts me in mind of another quote:  "It's more than you [White] deserve" (Meat Loaf).

smrex13 wrote on 04/29/08 at 03:55:34:


Now that's weird (4. Bb5), right there.  I would hope you took the pawn ("it feels right and looks good" -- Larry Evans, albeit in another context).