@Itsmidnight
Only if you want to keep the pawn.
rnbq1rk1/ppp1bppp/3p1n2/8/3PPB2/2NB1N2/PPP3PP/R2QK2R b KQ - 2 7
May be a bit passive, but it's not sharp and you survived the opening.
And don't tell me you can't find this except you know theory!! It's literally just developing moves!
Only if you want to keep the pawn.
rnbq1rk1/ppp1bppp/3p1n2/8/3PPB2/2NB1N2/PPP3PP/R2QK2R b KQ - 2 7
May be a bit passive, but it's not sharp and you survived the opening.
And don't tell me you can't find this except you know theory!! It's literally just developing moves!
@theTestoftheWest Seems like a big advantage for a mediocre white that didn't play the best moves. What is your rating exactly?
In what way is it a big advantage? Because the computer tells you?
Omg Black stands so bad here: rnbqkb1r/pp2pp1p/3p1np1/8/3NP3/2N5/PPP2PPP/R1BQKB1R w KQkq - 0 6
Omg Black stands so bad here: rnbqkb1r/pp2pp1p/3p1np1/8/3NP3/2N5/PPP2PPP/R1BQKB1R w KQkq - 0 6
My rating is around 2000 fide. Why does it matter?
Oh and about the ,,White didn't do the best moves":
1.e4 (terrible move by white right?)
e5
2.f4 (terrible move)
ef
3.Nf3 d6 4.d4 (best move)
Nf6 (developing)
4.Nc3 (would you prefer Qe2!?!?)
Be7 (developing)
5.Bxf4 (your dear computer says: best move)
0-0 (developing)
6.Bd3 (Would you prefer Be2?)
And now Nc6 is just slighty better for white, yet Black has no apperent weaknesses and he can later even attack the e-pawn.
@Itsmidnight
1.e4 (terrible move by white right?)
e5
2.f4 (terrible move)
ef
3.Nf3 d6 4.d4 (best move)
Nf6 (developing)
4.Nc3 (would you prefer Qe2!?!?)
Be7 (developing)
5.Bxf4 (your dear computer says: best move)
0-0 (developing)
6.Bd3 (Would you prefer Be2?)
And now Nc6 is just slighty better for white, yet Black has no apperent weaknesses and he can later even attack the e-pawn.
@Itsmidnight
@theTestoftheWest If you remember we were talking about how it is important to know some book moves against the KG or you would get involved into tactical lines. So, best moves in the context are just about that. You can't just say "oh the Fischer defense is the best if you play that- that's a normal developing move" when the main line goes 3. ... g5. If you play the main line you get into tactical troubles right away after 3. ... g5 h4 4. Ne4 or even 4. Ng4 going Nxf7. Or you might run into the knight sac after 3. ... g5. All these lines you need to book up against.
You are basically saying that if you would play with your years of study against a patzer you would have no problem playing "normal developing moves" and end up in a borderline losing position while the patzer and even good players like myself lose to the KG 80-90 % of the time in some lines like the Muzio gambit, the Kieseritzky gambit or the Bishop's gambit where you do play normal lines and you still end up in positions the computer evaluates to -3 that forces perfect play for several moves or it's like +8. if you do explore some of the critical lines you will see so many points like this.
You are basically a billionaire telling people to "just start make money, use your brains". It's ridiculous. You need to book up vs certain lines or you're toast, that's the point of the lines. Just check out Max Dlugy losing to a 1500? on youtube for a good laugh.
"Literally just developing moves" he says like it's the most normal thing in the world to question nothing and just go into some passive opening. You feel like one of the proponents of the KIA, KID or London where it's just "don't care about the other players moves bro, just develop normally" where you just fail to understand that your way of thinking doesn't apply to others and it's not what other players want out of their chess.
You are basically saying that if you would play with your years of study against a patzer you would have no problem playing "normal developing moves" and end up in a borderline losing position while the patzer and even good players like myself lose to the KG 80-90 % of the time in some lines like the Muzio gambit, the Kieseritzky gambit or the Bishop's gambit where you do play normal lines and you still end up in positions the computer evaluates to -3 that forces perfect play for several moves or it's like +8. if you do explore some of the critical lines you will see so many points like this.
You are basically a billionaire telling people to "just start make money, use your brains". It's ridiculous. You need to book up vs certain lines or you're toast, that's the point of the lines. Just check out Max Dlugy losing to a 1500? on youtube for a good laugh.
"Literally just developing moves" he says like it's the most normal thing in the world to question nothing and just go into some passive opening. You feel like one of the proponents of the KIA, KID or London where it's just "don't care about the other players moves bro, just develop normally" where you just fail to understand that your way of thinking doesn't apply to others and it's not what other players want out of their chess.
ah.
It is a huge difference between manner and style. So, you wanna play, you wanna win, but it's long hard road.... to the style.
Any chance of improving your rating first? LOL
Any chance of improving your rating first? LOL
@Itsmidnight
1. You don't have to play g5 against the King's gambit. Especially if you want to AVOID sharp lines.
2. Tell me any opening where simple development isn't possible.
3. You lose in those lines, BECAUSE you go for the sharp lines.
4. Every thread your opponent creates while moving a piece twice is a later loss of another tempo, so you don't have to regard your opponent's moves that highly.
5. You are basically a billionaire telling people to "just start make money, use your brains".
I'm suggesting that the opening fundamentals are enough. Guess what positional chess is build on (I think you might actually not know that: It's positional fundamentals such as: ,,put the pawns on the opposite site of your Bishop").
6. Literally just developing moves. What's wrong with that? The KID works a bit like that. You develope your King's side faster (White wastes time taking the center) and you are much faster when it comes to attacking. London system is literally a developing system. What's wrong with developing?
At this point i feel like i'm just repeating myself.
Btw: Passive does not mean losing. It means less space.
1. You don't have to play g5 against the King's gambit. Especially if you want to AVOID sharp lines.
2. Tell me any opening where simple development isn't possible.
3. You lose in those lines, BECAUSE you go for the sharp lines.
4. Every thread your opponent creates while moving a piece twice is a later loss of another tempo, so you don't have to regard your opponent's moves that highly.
5. You are basically a billionaire telling people to "just start make money, use your brains".
I'm suggesting that the opening fundamentals are enough. Guess what positional chess is build on (I think you might actually not know that: It's positional fundamentals such as: ,,put the pawns on the opposite site of your Bishop").
6. Literally just developing moves. What's wrong with that? The KID works a bit like that. You develope your King's side faster (White wastes time taking the center) and you are much faster when it comes to attacking. London system is literally a developing system. What's wrong with developing?
At this point i feel like i'm just repeating myself.
Btw: Passive does not mean losing. It means less space.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.