Quote:

Last Sunday I was on the black side of a Reti (1.Nf3 d5!? (I usually play Nf6) 2.c4)...

... I played the Kings Indian for about 20 years but two years ago I decided that I need to expand my repertoire - NI/QI (I lost all my games until now ) and Slav/Semi-Slav (no losses until now).

Back to Sunday: playing 1...d5 I it took me about 1 hour to reproduce the Reti mainline whereas my opponent just had used 2 minutes. After 17 moves he offered me a draw in a "dead" position. It was very hard work for me to get there (17 moves mainline!), cause I never played this line before and just had some look here on chesspub on it.

But I really learned a lot about the variation - if you think over the board you see a lot more than at studying variations. I saw some side variations which are not so good (my opponent was so kind to tell me afterwards as I asked him), but fortunately bypassed them.

You need to take some risk to improve - training alone doesnt help to understand chess!

Quote:


I know exactly what you mean. Studying an opening is theoretical knowledge and is, of course, useful in itself, however, it isn't until you play it in a proper game that the experience really hits home. By playing your new variation you consolidate all that you have been studying and, for the first time, you discover exactly how much you understand. This gives you a reference point for future study. In his excellent book 'The Road to Chess Improvement', Yermolinsky says that when attempting to incorporate a new line into his repertoire he simply bites the bullet and plays it. However, he also implies that he invariably does this against weaker opposition so any mistakes will not be so severely punished.

Personally, for me, this would not work. Not because I am incapable of playing openings that are not part of my active repertoire, but rather because I value the result above any 'learning' I may do during the game. Like I said 'Improve your chess understanding in your free time, not at the board'. A competitive chess game is difficult enough without having to rediscover the wheel in a tournament situation, especially when this is something that you could do in your own time. As the saying goes 'The harder the preparation, the easier the battle'.

This is my procedure for trying something new. Rather than biting the bullet and playing a new line in a rated game, I instead practice it on ICC. As its possible to play a large number of (admittedly poor) games in a short space of time I very quickly get a feel for how much I understand. This is how I use internet blitz - as a training tool. Your online rating doesn't matter (which, in my case, is just as well) and the final result of the game is of no importance. This is how I learn a new opening, I prefer to make my mistakes this way, rather than endure a baptism of fire in a FIDE rated tournament.

Quote:


Yes, this is true.

Antillian wrote on 02/02/09 at 17:55:04:



And now I have re-edited that quote so that the continuity between our posts is skewered a bit!  I did not know you would respond so soon (!), or at all.... , and I am a notorious editor-on-the-fly often going back in several times before the server catches it as an "edit.!"

So much for an accurate recording of history, eh?  

FWIW: To counter your Rumsfeld mention, I offer this more positive aspect of America Culture:  The best ad from the Stupor Bowl. On several levels.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T_IpCVf3cA

Change is good.  Now if I can only recapture some of that youth I had a while back....

The Best of the best:  Snark at its finest.
http://www.hulu.com/superbowl/55719/super-bowl-xliii-ads-hulu-alec-in-huluwood

I now return this thread to its regularly scheduled posting.

dfan wrote on 02/02/09 at 16:41:46:


I am not so sure ratings in the 400 gap that lies between 1600-2000 are as far apart as those sitting in the 400 point gap between 2300-2700.  Certainly it seems easier (as evidenced by the numbers that do it) to jump the former gap than it is the latter (yes, I know about K factor)!

What I think I mean is that below 2000, ratings are not as accurate an indicator of outcome as they are at the highest levels.  Therefore, ratings below 2000 do not fully serve the functions they are supposed to serve.

The next step in the sequence is a logical one.  


Antillian wrote on 02/02/09 at 15:06:13:



I think it funny that your post looks like I actually composed that and that the military sentiments expressed are part and parcel of my way of thinking!

No comment!


Actually, I feel certain that some of the Iraqi and Afghani "insurgents" (emphasis mine) do!  And I do mean certain!

And now I am off to find more places to overuse exclamation marks!!

drkodos wrote on 02/02/09 at 14:53:40:


I guess the Iraqi insurgents and the Afghan Taliban don't read Wikipedia.

When I first made a comeback to chess after a ten year absence, I fell in the theory phobic trap and tried to play lesser known lines. After initially getting very good results, after a while my results declined. White there were other reasons for this, I felt  a large part of the reason was that especially with White, I simply did not cause enough problems for my opponents. Thus, I am evolving now more and more to playing mainlines. That does not mean playing the most fashionable lines necessarily. One can opt for mainlines that pose genuine problems for Black without picking the neccesarily playing what all the big boys are playing.

What I am realizing more and more is that my fear of theory was misfounded for three reasons:

(1) Below FM level, most people simply do not know as much theory I feared. Persons generally know the major mainlines or just have an idea.
(2) Learning theory is not as hard and daunting as it first seemed. When you look at it the major tabiyas of most openings occurs in the mid  teens of move number. Reeling off say 10 to 15 moves of theory in a mainline is not as big  a deal as I once thought. Once you have studied any opening, it is easy to do.
(3) The great task of keeping up to date with theory is greatly exagerated. Yes, theory moves on, but the changes are not as fast or as critical as I imagined

Thus I now play predominately mainlines and classical mainlines. One big benefit of this, is that you see you see the ideas of mainlines, reinforced over and over in grandmaster games, both new and old.  Especially if you play classical openings, you will reap additional benefit in your understanding as you study older games.

I've always had mixed thoughts on this. However, a recent change in my opening repertoire has helped me come to a conclusion regarding the main line vs system opening debate. I've always been of the view that you should always play something that you understand, and as long as you understand it well, it is good enough to win with. This is true, but not as clear cut as I had thought.

Before I go on, forget all this rubbish about mainline openings having 'richer middlegames' and certain openings being 'good for your chess understanding'. Improve your chess understanding in your free time, not at the board. Winning is the most important thing, everything else is secondary. Therefore, if you are ambitious you will need to choose openings that maximise your chances of making this happen.

For example, as White, I have recently been playing the Torre Attack as a way of keeping my repertoire uniform, as I play the Slav/French/Caro-Kann as Black. Initially, results were good. I feel comfortable in a Slav setup (d4/c3 or d5/c6) with either colour. Or indeed in any position where I can maintain a pawn on d4/d5 with c3/e3 or ...c6/...e6 but have the queen's bishop outside of the pawn chain.

However, I have found that when playing 2200+ opponents (I am in the 2200-2300 range) I have found that the Torre simply isn't enough. Its a simple opening that works well against lower rated opponents, as simply playing solid positional moves you can (more often than not) outplay weaker opposition.

However, when you are up against someone of your own size you will need something else to break the equilibrium. Against a player who can do everything that you can, it is unlikely that playing simple Torre (or in your case Colle) moves will be enough to induce an error. By playing main line openings you test your opponent (and yourself) by raising the stakes, both positionally and tactically.

This is what top GMs do - its all relative, a 2700 wont beat another 2700 (very often) with a simple opening and the same is true for two 2200s or 1700s playing each other.

When playing against a stronger opposition, things get even worse. In these situations you are not pressuring your opponent at all. When playing Black, for instance, I (internally) jump for joy when an 1800 plays the Colle/London etc against me. I know that I will not face any tough decisions in the opening and will get a safe passage to the middlegame where I nearly always win. So by playing such an opening myself against a higher rated opponent, it is exactly the same situation, only in reverse.

This is the conclusion I have come to. I want to break the 2300 barrier and to do this will need to take points off of 2300/2400+ players more often. Every game I have won against 2300+ opposition has been in an unbalanced game and never in a strategically simple position, such as that reached through d-pawn specials. I still love the Torre, though, and will continue to play it - I just need to be a bit more selective.