BPaulsen wrote on 03/17/11 at 09:58:01:


That's a great quote, and though I only did martial arts briefly as a young kid, I feel like I understand what he means.  I used to think that many openings were quite different, but now I think more that in all openings you're just "playing chess," if that makes sense.   

Anyway it also reminds me of a great quote from Kasparov (I don't remember where I heard this): "When I was young, I attacked because it's all I knew how to do.  Now that I'm older, I attack because I know it's best!" (paraphrased)

HoemberChess wrote on 03/17/11 at 08:29:23:

One of the problems of posting on a site whose members play war games!

I think I am going to work on a sicilian system.  I have gotten what I would call rough equality out of the Scandinavian on ocassion, but the only fun Scandinavian games are opposite side castling.  As such I think I am going to pick up a Sicilian system.  what I have been playing has not really worked all that well for me.  The tempo differences are sometimes important--I have been playing Kosten's Dynamic English as White and his system basically reversed as Black.  Sometimes it works out but sometimes really good players exploit the hole on d6 and I have found that they can do this whether or not Black plays a quick d3/d4.  If I get a book for Black, it would address this weakness or at least it should.  I want Greet's SO: Accelerated, but I keep waiting hoping that it will be converted to ebook, but I have also considered picking up one of Quality Chess's offering because I have been impressed by the 1.d4 series.

When you're just starting to learn martial arts a punch is just a punch, and a kick is just a kick. Once you've been learning martial arts for awhile a punch is no longer just a punch, and a kick is no longer just a kick. When you've mastered martial arts a punch is just a punch, and a kick is just a kick. - Bruce Lee (paraphrased)

When you first start studying the two openings, or seeing them you'll immediately think they're very similar in that black tends to play the same moves/use the same freeing breaks quite often. That tends to lead people to adopt both of them into a sort of 1...c6 universal repretoire.

Once you thoroughly immerse yourself into the openings, suddenly they seem like they have nothing in common with eachother. In the C-K black has usually "killed" white's central majority, whereas in the Slav white quite often has a central majority. This feature suddenly changes everything - in the former white netting the Bf5 for a N isn't a very big deal, in the latter it can easily be the difference between equalizing and white obtaining an edge. There's obviously other differences, but that is one example.

Then when you've got a complete grasp of both you recognize them for what they are - both try to snuff out white's advantage of the first move by not creating any weaknesses/defects in your own position. Their similarity is more abstract than anything initially conceived when you begin learning them.

HoemberChess wrote on 03/16/11 at 13:02:51:


Are there any statistics that show the relative success of each opening at different grading bands? Does it bear out that the Caro-kann scores lower for black amongst say 1900 players than amongst 2700 players?

I would play those openings the same way you do the scandinavian (studying little theory, play them mainly in short games).

Anyway, definately keep on studying tactics. It will benefit you more than studying openings. Also can you save your internet games? If so, I would make it a habit of registering them properly in a database and run an engine check on them. That way you will spot quickly (tactical) mistakes. Then analyse them with those notes form the engine. After some games you will notice that you make more mistakes than you were aware off and you can look at way of improving them. Ie it may be that you miss knight tactices a lot or miss defences of your opponent.

It's usually better to stick with what you know, rather than to flit from opening to opening, so if you know the Sicilian and intend to keep on playing it, it probably makes more sense to work on honing a Sicilian system into your 1.e4 defense.

If you are unhappy with the Sicilian and looking to switch, then the Scandinavian or Caro is perfectly fine, and goes nicely with the Slav.  Beg, borrow, or steal a copy of Andy Soltis's classic book "Pawn Structure Chess" and read the first chapter on the Caro/Slav family.  It gives a good explanation of what each side is trying to do in these positions.