En Passant » Opening

Buridan’s ass

waxmatbl — Tue, 11 May 2010 15:11:57 +0000

Yesterday the club started a four round G/40 Swiss (two games a day, over two Mondays). I won both games, and as White I stuck with playing 1. e4.

I feel more comfortable playing 1. e4 at the club under faster time controls (especially against lower rated players). The amount of theory needed to play accurately against the Sicilian, French, Caro-Kann…it’s just too much for me to keep track of. Which is why I am looking at (and currently studying) the Reti. But I am not at the point where I feel comfortable with the various Black responses to 1. Nf3, and against players at my level and below the game rarely goes down the mainlines (and when it does neither player knows what to do after the last memorized move is made).

So I feel somewhat torn between my previous intention to pick up and play the Reti, and my success with 1. e4 against players around my level. I could just find a variation for each defense that is fairly easy to remember, with well-developed plans (forget trying to squeeze the first move advantage and just get to a playable middlegame). Or I could get more comfortable with the Reti, try it out at the club, and maybe I’ll have even better results. Or maybe I am trying to chase after an opening that may only make a difference against strong well-booked opponents, and is it a good use of my time to switch from 1. e4 just because in one every 50 games of tournament chess I’ll face a Master? Obsessing over openings is stupid.

We’ll see how I do next week, when I will likely face the top-rated player (and my current nemesis). Hopefully I’ll be White. And I’ll try to get a chess game viewer installed here so I can add something of interest besides the whining about what my first move should be.

Train in vain

waxmatbl — Tue, 04 May 2010 03:18:21 +0000

I won the rated blitz tournament at the club tonight (7.5 out of 10). As White I played 1. e4, as Black I played the French vs. 1. e4 and against 1. d4 I just kind of played what I felt were reasonable moves (I used to play the Dutch as it works well with the French if you start 1…e6, but I am looking at new options, just haven’t researched them enough).

A couple games I felt I played too passively, which is not a good idea in blitz; you spend too much time trying to get your pieces untangled. Should really just open it up, give a pawn if necessary, and go for broke. About the only time I used a specific opening was one game against the French where I played 1. e4 e6 2. b3 d5 3. Bb2 dxe4 4. Nc3, the Reti gambit. I don’t feel comfortable playing it at longer time controls, but in blitz I feel it works well – for the pawn you get quick development, castle queenside and attack. If Black really wants the pawn then let him have it (as I did after 4. …f5 5. f3), and you can end up with a big lead in development. Yes Black should be better with best play, but you are not likely to face best play in a 5 minute game when they haven’t studied this variation.

This doesn’t change my plan to use the Reti (1. Nf3 2. c4) as White in real tournament play. Maybe it should, but I’ve already gone down the 1. e4 route. Blitz is just for fun, but I have rating points I need to save (and hopefully increase upon).

On another subject, if there are any radio DJs reading this, please stop playing that awful Train song. I’d rather listen to Mr. Mister, and they suck too.

Reti or not

waxmatbl — Mon, 03 May 2010 19:43:07 +0000

I recently purchased Starting Out: The Reti, by GM Neil McDonald. I enjoyed some of his other books, Starting out: 1. e4 and How to Play against 1. e4. The latter having a nice section on the Fort Knox and an explanation by the author that being a “lazy” player it was the perfect shortcut in learning to play the French while working his way up as a junior. I can relate to that, except for the part about working my way up.

I do not think I have found an opening to cure my ills, but I am going to try to give it a fair shot. The benefits of the Reti to me are:

Black is not likely to have prepared for it. When I study as Black I worry about 1. e4 and 1. d4. Anything else I just deal with as it comes.
Although it is not common, it is solid. It’s not like I’m trying on the Wing gambit in the Sicilian just to get the game into uncharted waters.
It bypasses all the defenses to e4 that give me fits.

A quick read-through of the book brings up a likely negative:

There are a lot of ways for Black to meet this; dxc4 introduces a much different game than playing symmetrically.

And that means I will have to put in some work. In the dxc4 lines (either right away or delayed a bit), White is giving up a pawn, and it’s important to know how to respond to either get it back or retain compensation.

Tonight the club is having a blitz tournament. It’s too soon to trot out the Reti, and probably not a good choice for that kind of play anyway. I’ll stick to 1. e4 and maybe throw in some interesting gambits, like the Belgrade. It’s just for fun. Well, for fun and Quick rating points, but they don’t really count anyway.

Opening dilemma

waxmatbl — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 02:48:28 +0000

Hi. Let’s talk about openings.

On the White side I have tried pretty much everything. I started with a system common to beginners, the King’s Indian Attack. It’s nice being able to play pretty much the same moves regardless of Black’s responses (within reason), but of course that tends to squander whatever advantage having the first move gives. Thinking I’d be more comfortable in a slow positional game rather than in the tactical minefield prone to the “open” games (1. e4 e5), I started building a repertoire around 1. d4. Once again I began with a system – the Stonewall Attack – and eventually moved to a more mainline repertoire (thanks in large part to Starting Out: 1.d4! by IM John Cox).

At this point I should mention that I do not have a great memory. Except when it comes to song lyrics; maybe they should come out with a Chessbase DVD where Nigel Davies sings the variations to you. In any case, playing mainline positions entails knowing a lot of theory, and I just didn’t have it in me. Certain defenses – the Nimzo-Indian specifically – frustrated me, and I ended up going off the reservation by trying weird sidelines. My White opening became a tangled web that left me dazed and confused.

So a couple years ago I decided to reboot and go with 1. e4. I felt more comfortable with tactics, and I cannot recommend too highly Imagination in Chess, by Paata Gaprindashvili. I think if you were to stick a 1000 rated person on a deserted island with that book and a chess set, after a year they would be 2000 strength. While I do not have an Expert rating, I also don’t live on an island.

Again I felt frustrated with the amount of theory and ventured into the flank openings. After trying on the English for a couple months I switched to 1. Nf3 2. b3 – the Nimzo-Larsen attack. And I made it a point to not try to get bogged down in variations – I would go through the one book on that opening and just play it by ear. This is the attitude I took with me to the 2010 US Amateur Team East, and I did quite well with it – drawing a Master.

So what should I do? It doesn’t feel right to have such a lackadaisical approach to the opening; while I can’t deny that the Nimzo-Larsen seemed to work in legitimate tournament conditions against strong opponents, even if I only had a vague idea of what to do, the sample size is small and I also don’t want to end up in drawish positions against lower rated players. It isn’t a testing opening. In fact when I had White against a lower rated player in the USATE, I decided to play 1. e4 and go for a more open game. I ended up winning, but only after my opponent avoided a draw by repetition and then lost on time.

It’s probably a fool’s quest to find a White opening where development flows cleanly all the time and the resulting positions play themselves. It’s too bad I just can’t begin a game from a random equal position at move 14.

As I’ve been writing this I have been staring at the bookshelves that contain all the chess opening books I own. I honestly don’t know what to do, but I am tired of waffling. Whatever I decide I want it to be the opening (or openings) I stick with for awhile – and as an adult player that probably means for the rest of my tournament chess career. I don’t think I’ve ever tried the Bird….