Yeah, I feel 30 min would be great too but it's not really so practical on most internet sites. Many people just fool around and play blitz online (even 1 0 or garbage like that). 15 minutes is probably the best balance I can go for (most of the time) unless I want to wait incessantly. 

Anyway, I've already taken your recommendations in blitz and I think I'm improving. Although, many people play the Giuoco Piano and I wonder if you consider this educational enough. The Two Knights seems more tactical and open but I don't really want to delve too deeply into critical theory. Also, what about the Ruy Lopez? That's pretty closed but I  feel a lot can be learned. I was considering the Archangel. What do you recommend as the most educational variation, if any in particular? Finally, do you think I can try the QGA instead of the Tarrasch and get the same benefits? It seems more solid. Thanks again.

exigentsky wrote on 11/01/08 at 22:15:22:


I can't recommend a time control on the internet since I don't play much chess this way.  But in general I think that game-30 is about the fastest time limit for good general training games.  Anything less is mainly tactics training, I opine.

Of course you get some experience playing open systems with the White pieces, but you get twice as much if you also play them with the Black pieces!  I don't think that anyone who, as I said, can't sometimes knock of masters playing open chess should be doing anything other than trying to improve his play in open positions.  I was happy to obtain the second of Toppy, a much stronger player than I, on that point.  Of course, you're not always going to get an open position even playing 1...e5, but at least it's a reasonable way to strive for that type of play.

?

Markovich, I'd appreciate if you'd consider my previous questions. Thanks in advance.

thank you all for the advice.

Nietzsche wrote on 11/03/08 at 21:07:51:


Not if you intend to play it in the spirit of Frank Marshall.

Btw 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bc4 Nxe4 4.Nc3 Nc6 and 4...Nxc3) are demonstrably superior to 3...Nc6. In my overview I have hinted at the right way(s) to play for Black; one line you can learn within 5 minutes, the other in 10.
I don't know how long that game Conquest-Van der Sterren will take, the expression reams of theory is a big exaggeration.

So imo your point is somewhat .... pointless.

Markovich:  "If you play the Petroff, you don't have to play the Two Knights or the Scotch."

Oh really? 
Were you thinking I just threw them in there for fun?

1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.Nf3 ...
And now 3... Nc6 transposes into the Scotch while ...Bb4 is an Anti-Scotch.  I wrote about this exact issue in another thread. 
 I don't think the anti-scotch 3...Bb4 is nearly as good, so I played 3...Nc6 and dealt with the Scotch mainlines. 

1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.Nf3 Nc6 is a Two Knights.  Black can, of course, play something else on move 3 (like 3...Nxe4 4.Nc3). 
But I don't believe in it.  So, I'm stuck with the Two Knights.  

So, while a Petroff player doesn't have to deal with them, I don't think he has anything better than transposing.

Therefore, I do have to play against them;  unfortunately

RE:  "And the Vienna, since when did that require reams of notes?"

I guess since players like Shirov, Anand, and Morozevich started making the case for 3.g3!? 
I think its actually a much better opening than its reputation. 
White often gets a slight pull without weakening himself very much.  I don't think Black gets an easy ride at all.
In order to try to find a precise route to equality, I looked at 3...d5 and ended up with lots of notes.  
BTW, I think black is doing OK in these lines, but I couldn't find a means of equalizing by force.

As for meeting the King's Gambit, I'm sure there are several "adequate" ways of meeting it that avoid a lot of theory, but I wanted something more than that. Hence the 'pages and pages' which I don't think is so odd.  Marin, for example, has a rather sizable chapter on it because, let's be honest, 2.f4 is not all that easy to meet.  Particularly since the White side still has several "heroes" defending its honor and making our life more complicated.


Hopefully that clarifies my post a bit,
Nietzsche

p.s. - If "all the good openings are theoretical", then don't you need 'pages' of notes to combat such openings?  You therefore seem to think the Vienna, the Kings Gambit, and the Danish are all not good openings; since such effort isn't required.   Is this true?

That has been my firm opinion since 25 years or so!

W: Pekin, Tolgay (2201) (Anatolian Sun )
B: MNb (2015) (CHESSPUBLISHING.COM)
CL/2007/FT1 board 4
Start date 1 September 2007

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.exd5 b5 6.Bf1 Nd4 7.c3 Nxd5 8.Ne4 Ne6 9.Bxb5+ Bd7 10.Bxd7+ Qxd7 11.O-O Be7 12.d4 exd4 13.cxd4 O-O 14.Nbc3 Rad8 15.Re1 Nxc3 16.bxc3 c5 17.d5 Qxd5 18.Qxd5 Rxd5 19.Rb1 Rfd8 20.g4 g6 21.Rb7 R5d7 22.Rxd7 Rxd7 23.Kg2 c4 24.Ba3 Kf8 25.Bxe7+ Kxe7 26.g5 Rd3 27.f3 Nf4+ 28.Kg3 Nd5 29.Nd2+ Kd6 30.Nxc4+ Kc5 31.Ne5 Rxc3 32.Nxf7 Ra3 33.Ne5 Rxa2 34.Nd7+ Kd6 35.Nf8 draw.