Fromper's new 2008 improvement thread

[Fromper]

Bjphillips, I think you hit the nail on the head when it comes to my openings. I've been playing the gambits to learn how to attack, but when I don't get an attack right away, I end up feeling like I'm just a pawn down with nothing to show for it. So I've been thinking of trying non-gambit openings that still tend to be tactical and sometimes allow attacks. Also, I want to learn some openings that I'll still be able to play when I reach the 1800+ level without getting clobbered for playing something that's too unsound.

That's why I'm thinking of switching back to 1. e4 e5 as both black and white. But there are a lot of different openings there, so I'd have to learn something about most of them to survive.

The other option I'm considering as white is the Colle, which wouldn't require much opening preparation.

As black against 1. e4, I guess I have to decide if I want to settle for the relatively less tactical French that I've been playing, study a variety of openings I might face if I go back to 1. ... e5, or study a variety of lines if I try the Sicilian. Thinking of it that way, the opening study of the Sicilian doesn't sound that bad, since there's just as much opening study involved in preparing for all the double king's pawn openings that my opponent might throw at me. I'm really not comfortable playing against most of them.

Against 1. d4, I keep wanting to abandon the Englund Gambit and find something sounder, but my tournament record with it is 4 wins, 1 draw, no losses. I can't think of any other opening I've tried more than twice without losing at least once. I've lost with it a couple of times in practice games, but I still win with it a higher percentage of the time than anything else. It's odd that such an unsound gambit is the one opening in the game that I'm really comfortable with.

--Fromper

[JacksonWShowalter]

I would not set up a regular formation against the Dutch because I’m not very familiar with the opening. I’m not familiar with it because I avoid playing over Dutch games. Why? Because I don’t like the looks of them. Why? I don’t know. I just don’t. Gambits? Never played one. When they are played against me I always decline.

[JacksonWShowalter]

Originally Posted by Fromper

Bjphillips, I think you hit the nail on the head when it comes to my openings. I've been playing the gambits to learn how to attack, but when I don't get an attack right away, I end up feeling like I'm just a pawn down with nothing to show for it. So I've been thinking of trying non-gambit openings that still tend to be tactical and sometimes allow attacks. Also, I want to learn some openings that I'll still be able to play when I reach the 1800+ level without getting clobbered for playing something that's too unsound.

That's why I'm thinking of switching back to 1. e4 e5 as both black and white. But there are a lot of different openings there, so I'd have to learn something about most of them to survive.

The other option I'm considering as white is the Colle, which wouldn't require much opening preparation.

As black against 1. e4, I guess I have to decide if I want to settle for the relatively less tactical French that I've been playing, study a variety of openings I might face if I go back to 1. ... e5, or study a variety of lines if I try the Sicilian. Thinking of it that way, the opening study of the Sicilian doesn't sound that bad, since there's just as much opening study involved in preparing for all the double king's pawn openings that my opponent might throw at me. I'm really not comfortable playing against most of them.

Against 1. d4, I keep wanting to abandon the Englund Gambit and find something sounder, but my tournament record with it is 4 wins, 1 draw, no losses. I can't think of any other opening I've tried more than twice without losing at least once. I've lost with it a couple of times in practice games, but I still win with it a higher percentage of the time than anything else. It's odd that such an unsound gambit is the one opening in the game that I'm really comfortable with.

--Fromper

The Colle’s good and it’s easy to learn. I’ve played it a few times. Drawbacks: If Black fianchettoes his KB your dreams of a flashy K-side attack are pretty much gone. Also when you get to 1800 and start playing 1800-2000 rated opponents their errors are more subtle and the Colle, at least for me hasn’t given the results I would have liked. Hence I play the Torre. Drawback: There’s more theory. You have to know the correct strategy to use against different Black replies because each one requires a different strategy from White.

[Perseus]

Originally Posted by JacksonWShowalter

I would not set up a regular formation against the Dutch because I’m not very familiar with the opening. I’m not familiar with it because I avoid playing over Dutch games. Why? Because I don’t like the looks of them. Why? I don’t know. I just don’t. Gambits? Never played one. When they are played against me I always decline.

The problem is that the Dutch isn't really an opening, it's a collection of systems (some themed to other defenses).
Various ways of getting about it based on the pawn chain and minor piece placement. For me, f5,e6,Nf6,Be7,O-O is pretty much always my starting point. Alternatively, there is a Nimzo-Dutch line with Bb4 instead of Be7, which I never went for. From there, d5,c6,Nbd7 is a Stonewall setup (didn't care for it), d5,c5,Nc6 is one of the aggressive ones I've used, or just d5,Nc6 as I used to play it when I started. I don't play c5 or d5 anymore, but d6 followed by either Nbd7,b6,Bb7 or Nc6,Bd7.
That's half of it. Then there's the Leningrad system(s), which means a f5,g6,Bg7,Nf6,O-O frame. It's significantly different and has its own ideas and lines (some of which can be copied pasted from the Classical).

Just what are we looking at though? Ideas from the Nimzo-Indian, from the Queen's Indian, from the King's Indian and any other opening that's feeling generous..
When I look at some of the games I play in the QID and NID, I can see moves that I picked up playing the Dutch while they're supposedly native to the former defenses (ie. the Qe8-Qg6 idea).

That said, if you understand main line black defenses to 1. d4, the Dutch is just another move order trick.

[lanced]

Never played gambits? Always decline them? You are missing out, playing openings like that at least once in a while makes chess funer. I am thinking about trying the torre, I heard that it is better than the colle and that you don't have to learn much theory.

Frompter: Maybe you feel comfortable playing the Enguland more than anything else because you know that it is bad. If you played a highly respected opening like the Nimzo-Indian and lost a lot you might not feel like you were very good. But when you play the Enguland you might feel like it is unsound so if you loose than it is not your falt it is because you had a bad position to begin with. On top of that if you win than you have shown that even from a bad position you can outplay your opponent. I remember a painfull loss in an OTB game where I was black. Truth is before the game I was already afraid of loosing to him so I played not like I normally would. I played the phillidor counter gambit and I did loose but I told myself that I would have won if I would have played something good. It made me feel a little better.

[JacksonWShowalter]

[quote=lanced;10019]Never played gambits? Always decline them? You are missing out, playing openings like that at least once in a while makes chess funer. I am thinking about trying the torre, I heard that it is better than the colle and that you don't have to learn much theory.
QUOTE]

I think White has somewhat more options for gaining an advantage in the Torre. In fact I’ve beaten a few masters with it. The only thing is Black has 6 or 8 different set up options and you have to know the basic White strategy against each. But they are easily learned. My style is to try to play as solid as I can and wait for an opponent’s error. It works well enough but when opponent’s ratings approach 2000 they don’t make a lot of serious errors or they are too subtle for me to detect. The result is a high percentage of draws against players over 2000. After 3 draws with one master he commented that I was hard to beat…I’ll take that!

[Fromper]

Originally Posted by lanced

Never played gambits? Always decline them? You are missing out, playing openings like that at least once in a while makes chess funer. I am thinking about trying the torre, I heard that it is better than the colle and that you don't have to learn much theory.

Frompter: Maybe you feel comfortable playing the Enguland more than anything else because you know that it is bad. If you played a highly respected opening like the Nimzo-Indian and lost a lot you might not feel like you were very good. But when you play the Enguland you might feel like it is unsound so if you loose than it is not your falt it is because you had a bad position to begin with. On top of that if you win than you have shown that even from a bad position you can outplay your opponent. I remember a painfull loss in an OTB game where I was black. Truth is before the game I was already afraid of loosing to him so I played not like I normally would. I played the phillidor counter gambit and I did loose but I told myself that I would have won if I would have played something good. It made me feel a little better.

That's not it at all. I know that at my level, even unsound openings are playable, as long as you know how to play them properly and your opponents haven't studied them. My opponents tend not to improvise well against the Englund, and I know what I'm doing, so I do well. On the other hand, I play the slightly-sounder-but-not-quite-sound Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, and even though I know a good amount of theory there, too, I don't win nearly as often with it. I'm not sure if my opponents just improvise better against it, or if I'm just more comfortable with the middle game positions that come from the Englund.

I can't imagine myself trying the Dutch. While it's sound, I've always thought it was more of a quiet, positional opening. That's why I'm considering the Albin CounterGambit, with the Baltic as my backup in case of 2. Nf3. The Albin is playable even at the grandmaster level, but it's more of a counterattack than just a quiet defense. And the Baltic apparently isn't quite good enough for the grandmaster level, but the line where white plays Nf3 isn't white's best against it, so that line might just be sound enough for masters, if not grandmasters.

For now, I'm more worried about the rest of my repertoire, though. Replacing the Englund can wait, as long as I keep winning with it.

--Fromper

[Perseus]

Originally Posted by Fromper

That's not it at all. I know that at my level, even unsound openings are playable, as long as you know how to play them properly and your opponents haven't studied them. My opponents tend not to improvise well against the Englund, and I know what I'm doing, so I do well. On the other hand, I play the slightly-sounder-but-not-quite-sound Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, and even though I know a good amount of theory there, too, I don't win nearly as often with it. I'm not sure if my opponents just improvise better against it, or if I'm just more comfortable with the middle game positions that come from the Englund.

I can't imagine myself trying the Dutch. While it's sound, I've always thought it was more of a quiet, positional opening. That's why I'm considering the Albin CounterGambit, with the Baltic as my backup in case of 2. Nf3. The Albin is playable even at the grandmaster level, but it's more of a counterattack than just a quiet defense. And the Baltic apparently isn't quite good enough for the grandmaster level, but the line where white plays Nf3 isn't white's best against it, so that line might just be sound enough for masters, if not grandmasters.

For now, I'm more worried about the rest of my repertoire, though. Replacing the Englund can wait, as long as I keep winning with it.

--Fromper

That's a good final thought. Don't fix what works well before fixing what needs fixing. The Dutch, a quiet, positional opening. Hmm, here I was thinking it was a counter-attacking throat-grabber, I suppose it depends on how it's played.

[Fromper]

Remember, I play unsound gambits right now. In most Dutch lines, no center pawns disappear in the first two moves, so that makes it a quiet, positional opening by my standards. Not coincidentally, I've looked at the Staunton Gambit as the line I'd probably play if I ever get caught on the white side of the Dutch.

Anyhow, I already own a book on unusual QGD lines, including the Albin and Baltic, so I'm more likely to just go with that when I'm ready to find a substitute for the Englund in my repertoire.

As for the other openings, I tried the Sicilian as black for the first time tonight in a blitz game on the internet. Total disaster. I remembered enough to know what the defining moves of my chosen line (the Dragon) are, but I had no idea where I was going after that. I should probably look over a few master games in the opening before I try it again. Or maybe I should just stick to e5 as my backup plan for when I don't want to play the French.

I'm still not sure if I should even be worrying about changing the opening repertoire. My repertoire has some unsound openings that I'll need to abandon when I hit 1700 and start playing 1800+ players regularly, but that'll probably be another year. I might be better off just sticking with the repertoire I've got until I really have to change. These unsound gambits work well enough against players below 1700, which is the majority of my opponents. On the other hand, I play at a small club on Saturdays, so everyone will know what openings I play soon, if they don't already. So having backup openings is a good idea.

--Fromper

[bjphillips]

Hi Fromper,

Why do you need backup openings? Boredom, or just because you are playing in a club where players will learn your repetoire?

If its boredom don't forget you have only got a limited time to study. Life, work, relationships, speed chess, and everything else are competing for the time that you need to be studying if you want to be a better player. If backup openings are added to that list you can see why some players never get better. If you get distracted by the non-essential you'll never have time for the important stuff.

If you think you may get found out - so what? If I understood you correctly you are playing offbeat stuff which means one of two things. Either your opponent won't know it or they will (they may even book up for you!). If the opponent doesn't know your opening you're okay. If they do prepare for you then two things are likely. First, you will still likely know the opening better than your opponent since you play it all the time and this is likely one of their first encounters with it. Second, if they do manage to play it well you are likely to gain valuable experience making it even more likely that you will know the opening better than your opponent the next time someone books up for you. This is win win for you. The losing scenario is spending any more than the bare minimum time on openings when you're still a Class player.

Finally, you might want to rethink your opening standards. By your definition the Najdorf Sicilian is a quiet positional opening. So is the Dragon for that matter. You might want to rephrase that one.

Brian