First comment!
This was good.
<Comment deleted by user>
Hey Nate! I am wondering if this article is geared toward a certain rating range. I feel like it's very applicable to some but not others.
picture shows only 7 files on board WTF?
Very useful article. Thanks !!!
@TrapAdvisor said in #6:
> picture shows only 7 files on board WTF?
This a 2D picture with perspective, what do you expect? I say nothing beat a real 2D board. Even impressionistic macular degeneration riddled vision (I am preparing for anything... in that direction) would have a hard time crowding files.
> picture shows only 7 files on board WTF?
This a 2D picture with perspective, what do you expect? I say nothing beat a real 2D board. Even impressionistic macular degeneration riddled vision (I am preparing for anything... in that direction) would have a hard time crowding files.
nice. I like openings
Hey Nate (@CheckRaiseMate),
I'm wondering about your statement that it's more important to learn one opening comprehensively than to learn multiple openings. I have learnt a lot about strategy by learning different openings and the plans that arise from their pawn structures (sometimes even trying them in games).
At least at the 2000 lichess level it doesn't seem to be too important to have studied some 15 move deep sideline variation in detail. It's not going to be on the board anyways. On my level, most opponents hardly even know the main lines beyond move 10...
Knowing everything from the Quickstarters about an opening seems already enough to play them quite well and even that doesn't seem too important, even for the sharpest of openings at club level.
I haven't even studied the Grünfeld Quickstarter (though it's on my agenda) and still score 49% in my Rapid games as Black.
I have even had a winning position against a FM in this opening (granted, he had a bigger advantage in the opening than he should've have had, but still - he didn't crush me before I got a winning position..):
That's not to say I haven't faced painful defeats in opening variations that I didn't study well enough, but I think I have had more fun and still good value from learning ideas from other openings, deepening my understanding of chess in general and strategy in particular. How useful it is to study a second opening probably also depends on how sharp the openings are that you play and how important it is to remember each move concretely.
I'm wondering about your statement that it's more important to learn one opening comprehensively than to learn multiple openings. I have learnt a lot about strategy by learning different openings and the plans that arise from their pawn structures (sometimes even trying them in games).
At least at the 2000 lichess level it doesn't seem to be too important to have studied some 15 move deep sideline variation in detail. It's not going to be on the board anyways. On my level, most opponents hardly even know the main lines beyond move 10...
Knowing everything from the Quickstarters about an opening seems already enough to play them quite well and even that doesn't seem too important, even for the sharpest of openings at club level.
I haven't even studied the Grünfeld Quickstarter (though it's on my agenda) and still score 49% in my Rapid games as Black.
I have even had a winning position against a FM in this opening (granted, he had a bigger advantage in the opening than he should've have had, but still - he didn't crush me before I got a winning position..):
That's not to say I haven't faced painful defeats in opening variations that I didn't study well enough, but I think I have had more fun and still good value from learning ideas from other openings, deepening my understanding of chess in general and strategy in particular. How useful it is to study a second opening probably also depends on how sharp the openings are that you play and how important it is to remember each move concretely.