|
|
|
Topic: Building an opening repertoire
| |
|
|
Author
| Message |
|---|
|
|
One of the books I read suggested choosing three openings; one you play as white, one against 1. e4 and one against 1. d4 as black. The hard part is choosing the openings that fit your style the best. Then learn those openings the best you can.
You already use databases, so if you choose an opening that is played a lot by really good players you could always sort through those games for those openings with games from the best players in the database.
I'm not at a stage where I really will benefit a lot by opening study but I have a few openings I'm trying to stick with to learn really well (and working on the rest of my games too)
One piece of software I have used in the past is Chess Position Trainer (http://www.chesspositiontrainer.com). It is free software that you can download some opening training repertoires for. Once you have a good set of repertoires, and you can create your own, then you can use that program to play through them. It goes from beginning training, shows all the moves and then has you try to remember the sequence, to more advanced where it just begins and you have to know what to do.
I haven't used it extensively, but when I do get into deeper opening preparation, I plan on using it, or the newer version when it is out. Though, I'll be using book resources and databases to build the repertoire and make sure I understand the why's of each opening variation. Learning it and hopefully not just memorizing it.
|
|
|
You mean the type of scams where you have to be the first to reply to someone in order to get your free secret prize and then the conditions change and you don't receive it, uh Andy?  |
Precisely.*
Also, I agree that one ought to understand an opening rather than merely memorize it.
* [Hidden]
|
|
|
Well,
The way I've been doing it is to spend 6 months with various openings (as white, since I'm comfortable as black). For me it is a long enough time to get a feel for the positions I like, and to make some tweaks. I'd suggest before deciding which openings to try that you first figure out your style, and choose openings to support that. And don't neccessarily judge the opening by what your rating does (e.g. switching to e4 has seen my rating plummet 250 points here)
|
|
|
Hi again,
The section on openings in my book is ok, but the openings themselves quite often end with a comment like: 'with a slight advantage for white, due to controlling a larger part of the board / having kept the advantage of the first move." Fat lot of good that does you, especially against stronger players...
Basic databases are everywhere, including the commentless Opening Browser right here. That's a useful one too: first think of two or three possibilities in an opening you're playing, then check if they occur at all and what they're called. If your option turns out to be, say, the Glabitulowitz Counterattack Declined, it might be wise to think again! If Alekhine's name is part of the opening, also steer well clear until you are very confident of yourself!!
Best bet is to read up on chess theory, centralisation theory in particular. The *why* of the moves is what makes them the best options in any opening position. Understand the *why* better, and you're much more versatile than somebody overspecialised in one or two lines. And opening theory suddenly begins to make more sense! Oh, and reading up on the Spanish (Ruy Lopez)takes in most chess theory, as learning the RL itself, fully, is near impossible.
Chess openings are also entries in Wikipedia, and what I've read seems to cover most angles: the first moves, their intent and the basic strategy behind the line as a whole. With diagrams. And just a tab away from QA. As good a start as any...
F.
|
|
|
| ...but the openings themselves quite often end with a comment like: 'with a slight advantage for white, due to controlling a larger part of the board / having kept the advantage of the first move." Fat lot of good that does you... |
What would you expect? 'And Black mates in 63 moves'?
They're openings. Which means they're theory concerning best play from both sides part way into a game.
|
| Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next |
|
|
|
