|
|
|
Author
| Message |
|---|
|
|
Anyone play the modern? I've taken it up and think it's a great opening to play, theres alot of possibilities and black can get a good game if white overextends himself :)
|
|
|
I'm always happy when my opponent plays this kind of opening against me. Below master level, it's usually easier to exploit a space advantage than accurately defend a cramped position.
|
|
|
Below master level they probably have insufficient knowledge to fight against it as there so used to fighting Sicilians, Ruy Lopez's, and French defences that there plan would fall pretty easily, and knowing what they know is from MCO (which is a rip-off, don't go into any real detail's or plans, better with positional and tactical study so if you don't know an opening can naturally make good moves anyway, and perhaps play a very sound novelty, of great value if part of preparation, but if they play the novelty you can effectively plan against it with knowledge, if only study the openings and very little endgame and tactics then you will be thumped) and having analysed games where Petrosian, Karpov, and Larsen made mistakes it should give you a boost of confidence in playing against class players. Don't play the opponent and ALLWAY'S compete against the position regardless of opponent, a position is good or bad regardless of who is on the other side, but that is a subject for another post "I don't believe in psychology, I believe in good moves"- Bobby Fischer, he played a Nimzo-Larsen attack once with emmaculate accuracy, sad he didnt keep with the opening.
|
|
|
| Philidor wrote: Below master level they probably have insufficient knowledge to fight against it as there so used to fighting Sicilians, Ruy Lopez's, and French defences that there plan would fall pretty easily |
I'm not convinced by this argument. Sure, against very week players, the Pirc/Modern will have some novelty value but the resulting positions are not drastically different from the King's Indian, which is a reasonably common sight. There's a huge gap between ``surprised by the novelty of the Modern'' and ``master level.''
| [MCO] is a rip-off, don't go into any real detail's or plans |
Plans and detail aren't the purpose of MCO. MCO is just a list of what people have played in different position. The use of MCO is to check that you're not doing something stupid or, alternatively, to look back at your game and see where you deviated from the masters. Once you know where you deviated, then you can start to look for why their move was good and why (if) your move was bad.
| better with positional and tactical study so if you don't know an opening can naturally make good moves anyway [...] if only study the openings and very little endgame and tactics then you will be thumped) |
I completely agree.
|
|
|
I play the modern. It saves you from having to derive an opening plan. The rat is one of my favorites
|
|
|
btw, John Nunn has writton some outstanding stuff on Hypermodern systems. Think like a GM is one of his best books
|
| 1 2 3 Next |
|
|
|
