Understanding Chess Openings How To Play Any Opening Well High Quality Free Download

[Keva Rendel]

<div>JS: I feel for you since players want to know what in the world this or that opening is all about, but they rarely know these (apparent) mysteries. So they memorize a few lines, play some games (blitz or long time controls), and try to figure it all out for themselves.</div><div></div><div></div><div>If you have the cash, and if you want to solve this problem right away, hire a very strong player (IM or GM) to give you all the ins and out of your opening repertoire. Even better, have him look at your games and then create a repertoire for you based on your strengths and tastes.</div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div>understanding chess openings how to play any opening well free download</div><div></div><div>DOWNLOAD: https://t.co/wDyoqKCQge </div><div></div><div></div><div>Get Fundamental Chess Openings by Van der Sterren, pick up the tidbits he offers, fashion a repertoire based on the lines that intrigue you, buy books on your openings, and then play a zillion blitz games with it.</div><div></div><div></div><div>The two greatest challenges for beginning chess players are not only to survive the openings phase, but also to choose appropriate attack and defence formations in the process. Winning Chess Openings shows players how to do both. In Yasser Seirawan's entertaining, easy-to-follow style, they are shown formations that can be used with other White or Black pieces.</div><div></div><div></div><div>Throughout this book I will present, along with the opening theory, examples which illustrate the good and the bad points of the QGA. The examples from middlegame and endgame play will give a more complete picture of the QGA than just showing opening moves. They will show recurring and common themes and how to deal with them. The situations where Black gets a hard time of it are not meant to serve as a deterrent from playing the QGA; they are merely examples of how White should play if Black gets it wrong and how not to play with Black. We shall now look at some typical positions and break the rest of this first chapter into five sections:</div><div></div><div></div><div>By now I think you can see how useful these books can be, and there are a lot of them on just about every opening. In fact, various publishers have created a series of books for those that want prose and understanding.</div><div></div><div></div><div>I think you're looking at the wrong category of book. FCO is about the best around at explaining openings, but you are right; it doesn't explain the why behind every move. Oh you could try Reuben Fine's old warhorse The Ideas Behind The Chess Openings (available in algebraic) or one of the multi volume opening series like Chess Opening Essentials 1-4 but I don't think you'd be much happier.</div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div>Back on topic, you are on the right track. Chess is not a game of memorization but a game of understanding. The basics of opening play you have already heard. Development of pieces (ususally knights before bishops, bishops before rooks, Castle to connect the rooks and get the King away from the center, avoid traps (Noah's Ark, etc.), don't get your queen out there too early because the strength of the queen is also the weakness and there is no greater waste of time than having your queen pushed all over the board. Also, when teaching chess, I tell the player you have to be able to count to at least 4 when attacking or defending a piece or square. Another trait of beginners is: see a capture and make it...if you are going into a closed game with lots of pawns on the board, that knight might serve you better than the bishop you just took. Here is the biggest tip: learn chess from the endgame to the opening, not the other way around. That is the reason for 5334. Bobby Fischer teaches chess is also excellent for learning basic mating patterns and seeing them in the middle game. GOOD LUCK AND HAVE FUN!</div><div></div><div></div><div>In many games I play the middle or end game is one sided. Rarely I see an even battle, especially in the end game. </div><div></div><div>If I look at my losing games, I notice that this is because I am behind during or shortly after opening and the opponent keeps a tight grips on me.</div><div></div><div></div><div>Maybe you could reason that it's because of lack of knowledge about middle and endgame that I cannot get back in the game. That might be true but when understanding opening theory, and my openings become better than my middle and endgame get better as well.</div><div></div><div></div><div>I have just brought Understanding the chess openings-Sam Collins-which seems pretty good explaining openings-otherwise i sometimes look in wikipedia or see if a group exists for opening and see what's posted in their forum about opening your interested in.</div><div></div><div></div><div>If you really insist on learning the openings first, I strongly recommend you learn ONE opening for White and ONE defense for Black thoroughly. Don't hop around from King's pawn, to Queen's pawn, to English, to Bird's, etc. you wil get become more and more confused and frustrated and you will not acquire the kind of deep understanding necessary. I further suggest that the opening you select to "know" starts with 1. e4 for White and with Blacks answer to 1. e4 e5. if White does the normal 2. Nf3 try something really boring like Philodor's. You have to walk before you run with sissors in your hand.</div><div></div><div></div><div>It's true that the opening doesn't win the game. The purpose of the opening is to reach a playable middle game, hopefully with some kind of advantage. The advantage might only be your familiarity with the sorts of positions which arise in your chosen opening. So if you learn one opening thoroughly, then you will be able to focus more on tactics and other elements of the game. You might also save time on the clock if you are already familiar with the responses to a certain position or line.</div><div></div><div></div><div>A lot of book writers will mention in the introduction that they played a certain opening almost exclusively for several years. Some even say their knowledge of a specific opening was responsible for a title or tournament win.</div><div></div><div></div><div>Personally I believe a person will do better if they play an opening that feels good, and natural, and makes sense to them. Most likely you will become aware of openings which are related to your primary weapon and thereby build a repertoire, providing you with versatility.</div><div></div><div></div><div>I think you should be able to play 6 openings relatively easy, two against e4, two against d5 and two as white. Think of the two openings for each as a back up, and to pice things up a bit. Opening theory is not too important.</div><div></div><div></div><div>"... Overall, I would advise most players to stick to a fairly limited range of openings, and not to worry about learning too much by heart. ... Just learn enough to get by, and spend more of your chess study time improving your tactical ability. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2008)</div><div></div><div></div><div>I play only 1 opening with white and one with black and I'm an expert level player, and I don't consider openings to be a huge deal until master level. Until you're a FM or higher, it isn't needed and your time would be better spent on other things.</div><div></div><div></div><div>I know people who are probably around 1900 level and they tell me they don't know much about openings they just follow general opening principles and apply the tactical patterns that they know. I'm not really that good so I can't really tell you when you should start studying openings.</div><div></div><div></div><div>I play the London as white too. I also don't think opening knowledge should be heavily emphasized outside of the opening principles and rather focus on the many other aspects of chess that will make up the lion's share of chess play and improvement in chess.</div><div></div><div></div><div>I've never met a London player who ever argued he plays the London to get an objective advantage- some will argue that being more familiar with the opening positions generally will give them a subjective advantage at times but most utilize the opening so they can mostly ignore the opening studies and focus on other areas of their chess (or even their black openings).</div><div></div><div></div><div>I'm pretty booked up on the london. I can play it for an advantage against anything, however slight. If the london were a simple opening used by club level players to avoid opening theory, then players such as Kamsky wouldn't play it. Some weak club players play the set-up with not much more knowledge than a few basic ideas, and for them, that'd be true, but for me, and for many others, especially stronger player, I know a lot more about the london than that and I'm deeply booked up on every major line. I deeply disagree with the notion that the london only gets white an even position. White's position is always easier to play, and he always holds a slight advantage, so long as he doesn't mess up the opening.</div><div></div><div></div><div>Well that's good for you! However I'd suspect you're being a bit generous on your views with the opening as if an objective advantage could be had with the London and/or easier to play in all positions then we'd see it in the mainstream GM play often instead of infrequently as we do. I think a less biased view of the opening is rather that white gets a comfortable position with chances for both sides without much effort and probably are easier to play for white often. The advantages White obtains from that opening are mostly seen in their familiarity with the positions and more likely accurate play in the resulting middle game positions. I believe it was Carlsen who said he played the London recently this year "just for a game" signalling he played it to avoid a battle of theory and just wanted a playable middle game with his opponent. I'm sure you have booked up on the London and may know the optimal moves for many lines which will give you an advantage against many. I'd be doubtful that it'd be proven to be objectively (best play) an advantage for White in all lines. What do you think is the most challenging response to the London? Do you play Bf4 on move two or three?</div><div></div><div> 7c6cff6d22</div>