The Black Vault

humphreys wrote:Obviously you develop and protect your pieces. You can't protect a piece that isn't developed anyway, so it's clear development is primary.

Most openings develop pieces and protect them.

No great point having a protected piece that cannot move and has no part in your plan.

That's why it's such a great game. Depends on what one calls developed. Hard to move lost pieces...LOL
Ever play anyone ranked above 1500.....? being honest..actual 1500 ranked players never worry much about opening strategy they tend to counter punch. Developed pieces tend to be sacrificed by novice players, which in the end always proves fatal.

Obviously developed pieces are protected by pawns, yet pawns tend to hinder attack.

Most usually end with pawns and possible promotion. Better players with crush you quickly in any end game scenario such as that one.

Maybe we can dust off the rust and have a go.

Cole

You have some strange ideas about the game, to me.

My rating is just over 1800, so yeah, I always play players above 1500.

My real rating is probably around 1650 though it goes up and down, usually depending on what's going on around me. Over the board in a quiet setting, I would give any 1700 player a run for their money and probably win 2 out of 5.

Players ranked above 1500 typically have a very strict opening philosophy. I'm not a counterpuncher. I prefer aggressive play. I occasionally lose from over-agression but it's still more fun to play that way to me. As it turns out I am an excellent defender but I find defensive play boring. Rather than play defensive and wait for the opponent to make a mistake, I'd rather force the issue by attacking.

Cole I think we have a different definition of "developed pieces".

You seem to think developing pieces is not a good thing, but if you don't develop pieces on the opening you're only left with pawn moves?

There is no well-known opening that does not involve the development of pieces. I'm not sure what you mean by the term, but I believe I am using it in the standard fashion. As soon as a piece is moved from it's initial spot, it is essentially developed.

The only other options are limiting the entire opening to pawn moves, or jumping around the board with the same piece all other the place, both obviously terrible strategies.

As far as sacrifices go, novices are capable of making sound piece sacrifices, I'm sure frrosted has made a ton in his time, as have I.

What was your rating when you played?

I'd like to give you a game. If you have an account on RedHotPawn.com we can play there, or we can just post moves to a thread on this forum if you like too. Getting a few BV games going sounds like a nice idea, actually.

Obviously developed pieces are protected by pawns, yet pawns tend to hinder attack.

Only some of the time. The bishops are commonly developed where they are protected by a knight, not pawns, and pawns can be hugely useful in attack, as in the King's Indian Defense.

frrostedman wrote:My real rating is probably around 1650 though it goes up and down, usually depending on what's going on around me. Over the board in a quiet setting, I would give any 1700 player a run for their money and probably win 2 out of 5.

I would agree with this, we were fairly closely matched when we played live on ChessCube. I'm the opposite, the more time I have, the higher my rating is.

RHP is my strongest format, blitz my weakest.

I think this is because I am stronger strategically than I am tactically, and you are the opposite, stronger with tactics, and attacking, in my opinion.

frrostedman wrote:Players ranked above 1500 typically have a very strict opening philosophy. I'm not a counterpuncher. I prefer aggressive play. I occasionally lose from over-agression but it's still more fun to play that way to me. As it turns out I am an excellent defender but I find defensive play boring. Rather than play defensive and wait for the opponent to make a mistake, I'd rather force the issue by attacking.

In my experience against you it's not so much attacking too aggressively that causes you to lose games, it's some sloppy, avoidable mistakes, probably because you play so many games at once.

If you could tighten up on the blunders, your rating would be well into the 1700s.

Both of you are a bit better than I am, that wouldn't stop me from getting to a good end game result. It would take much polishing to be more competitive.
My only real point is that too much thought goes into the few obvious openings, which result in the usual gambits. There isn't an opening that I've not seen, and yes I've seen the usual thought process that goes into your idea of developed pieces, I tend to agree with your reason. My contention is that all good players usually tend to allow their opponent to move Bishops, and Knights into kill zones before mounting any real attack.

I'm sure that you've seen really strong players play before. I've played a few in the past and it's always the same, same counter attacks, same basic moves, same level of patience. It's their end games that decide the match.

I once played a 2,000 rank and fought to two straight draws...........a felt like I had won outright, he felt like he had been defeated. It was without doubt the best I'd ever played. Each move both games was simply basic fundamental chess. He had the option to use a different tact, only refused..................that told me that he had one opening and resulting gambit pretty much memorized, right down to the last pawns left standing. So I suppose that example pretty much sums up my idea in regard to opening.

Cole

I agree with what you're saying. A lot of amateurs get a couple of pieces out and think they're ready to launch an attack and make sacrifices, and it nearly always fails.

You need all your pieces out and in good positions, you often need control of the center, and have the initiative, before you can launch a successful attack, especially where sacrifices are concerned.

I think that's what you're getting at and I agree if so.

Premature attacks often result in losses. You have to earn the right to attack, and you earn the right by being in a better position strategically where your pieces have more space and freedom, and you get more space by dominating the center. There are no set in stone principles in chess but these are good guidelines to play by, in my opinion.

I don't agree so much with the importance you put on the endgame at lower levels, though, under 1800 in my experience the vast majority of games are essentially decided in the middle game. The further you move up in ranks, the more the endgame is important, with the grandmaster's games it is certainly the deciding factor in a high percentage of games. Again, I agree with what you're saying but not so much at the lower levels.

Cole, you actually sound like you play a lot like my Dad does. He is rated a lot lower than me but I always find it really difficult to beat him. Often he frustrates me and I make mistakes and he beats me in the endgame.

Trouble is, with his safe style, he also gets a ton of draws and struggles to beat the lower rated players, hence his poor rating overall. It's certainly not a bad way to play, but I think if he improved his tactics and opened up his game a little he'd be in the 1800s instead of the 1600s.

The best players in the world have photographic memories. They study thousands of openings, mid game strategies, etc. and memorize everything. This kind of thing takes dedication... like 24x7x365 kind of dedication. AND a photographic memory is essential if you want to be the tops in the world.

I just never had it in me. Not the passion, not the sharp memory, not the willingness to dedicate all of my free time toward it.

humphreys wrote:Cole, you actually sound like you play a lot like my Dad does. He is rated a lot lower than me but I always find it really difficult to beat him. Often he frustrates me and I make mistakes and he beats me in the endgame.

Trouble is, with his safe style, he also gets a ton of draws and struggles to beat the lower rated players, hence his poor rating overall. It's certainly not a bad way to play, but I think if he improved his tactics and opened up his game a little he'd be in the 1800s instead of the 1600s.

Yes! I've noticed that when I play inferior players.. if I overestimate them and try to play really super-sound, fundamental, safe chess, I often give them opportunities to develop nicely and even get a draw or a win out of me if I blunder. Since learning that lession, I have changed my tune and if someone is rated 1400 or less, I generally play a lot more loosely and get consistent wins.