In a way, their styles are similar. But certainly 90 degrees from Tal or Polgars in their height. Fischer had a bad run against Tal. And Fischer would only ever play Judit at his variant. @Mahith1708
Openings don't really matter.
Your playstyle is probably more positional than aggressive when it comes to setups. You often get into closed positions where you play on one wing and disregard the other and the center. That goes so far that you only play on wings even in open positions. Here you moved the Bishop from the center to the wing:
What does Bb5 do?!?!?!
You are an attacking player that likes to build on one wing. Here you manuver all pieces to one wing:
If i was to suggest you something: Play more in the center and care more for your King!
Here you completely disregarded the King with not defending e6 against the sozin and playing h6 AND f6. Then you ignored your opponents attack with 32...Qb3? and got checkmated on h3.
Your playstyle is probably more positional than aggressive when it comes to setups. You often get into closed positions where you play on one wing and disregard the other and the center. That goes so far that you only play on wings even in open positions. Here you moved the Bishop from the center to the wing:
What does Bb5 do?!?!?!
You are an attacking player that likes to build on one wing. Here you manuver all pieces to one wing:
If i was to suggest you something: Play more in the center and care more for your King!
Here you completely disregarded the King with not defending e6 against the sozin and playing h6 AND f6. Then you ignored your opponents attack with 32...Qb3? and got checkmated on h3.
I disagree. Opening knowledge is very important! Only computers could possibly not care about openings and still manage to pull off a reasonable game. This is why Fischer random can put players on the hot end, I've seen world champions lose Fischer random games in awful ways because it often takes them out if their comfort zones concerning opening theory.
@theTestoftheWest
@theTestoftheWest
I hope I can give u some suggestion but "natural player" like me really "live in the wild"
#12
Fischer had a bad tourney against Tal.
Fischer had a bad tourney against Tal.
@Darth-Sheev
He asked for what openings play in his favor. It doesn't matter. You can get a sharp game out of the exchange french or a positional game out of a dragon. The only things that change are the pawn structures and the piece placement. The trick how you change a position to your likely playstyle lies in your creativity of the piece maneuvering.
Opening theory is useless as long you are under 2200 fide. Good opening moves that don't ruin the positions are the way to go. The opening is only a gateway to the middlegame, where more room to outplay your opponent is given.
,,Only computers could possibly not care about openings and still manage to pull off a reasonable game."
Because they often don't go deep enough to make the ,,perfect move". Good moves that don't ruin the position are still the same concept. Magnus only spends 15 minutes on chess. What do you think? Will he analyse openings those whole 15 minutes? He doesn't! He analyzes games.
,,This is why Fischer random can put players on the hot end." That is not the reason. The reason is the counterintuitive starting placement. The Knights can't control the center as easily. The weak points in the starting positions (f7, c7) are different (Bc4 isn't as strong).
The more you play chess, the more are you used to the starting position.
Try the following: Play an opening you never played (maybe even hate) for about a month without studying. Simply analyze the losing/terrible moves you made.
After a while you will never find yourself in a bad position after the opening (unless you play dubious openings like 1.g4).
He asked for what openings play in his favor. It doesn't matter. You can get a sharp game out of the exchange french or a positional game out of a dragon. The only things that change are the pawn structures and the piece placement. The trick how you change a position to your likely playstyle lies in your creativity of the piece maneuvering.
Opening theory is useless as long you are under 2200 fide. Good opening moves that don't ruin the positions are the way to go. The opening is only a gateway to the middlegame, where more room to outplay your opponent is given.
,,Only computers could possibly not care about openings and still manage to pull off a reasonable game."
Because they often don't go deep enough to make the ,,perfect move". Good moves that don't ruin the position are still the same concept. Magnus only spends 15 minutes on chess. What do you think? Will he analyse openings those whole 15 minutes? He doesn't! He analyzes games.
,,This is why Fischer random can put players on the hot end." That is not the reason. The reason is the counterintuitive starting placement. The Knights can't control the center as easily. The weak points in the starting positions (f7, c7) are different (Bc4 isn't as strong).
The more you play chess, the more are you used to the starting position.
Try the following: Play an opening you never played (maybe even hate) for about a month without studying. Simply analyze the losing/terrible moves you made.
After a while you will never find yourself in a bad position after the opening (unless you play dubious openings like 1.g4).
@theTestoftheWest explain to my why you think opening theory is useless for players below a 2200 rating? I'd say it's just as quintessential as any other aspect to learn when understanding chess.
@Darth-Sheev
Kasparov often stated that theory is useless until you are a Grandmaster, because it has the highest ,,outplay potential at that level".
Mariya Muzychuk first started learning theory at FM level (and also made the (in my opinion) very nice quote: Theory only becomes important around 2200 Fide).
Capablanca never really looked into theory, yet he rarely got into losing positions.
Bent Larsen really liked to play b3 or the scandinavian, to get his opponent out of their comfort zone. He often theory to be useless.
Pavel Blatny played the owen.
Tell me: Is there any serious coach who would give a weaker player the advise to study openings in order to improve? Because if so, my next question would be: Is there any Grandmaster who became a Grandmaster with opening theory exclusively?
Kasparov often stated that theory is useless until you are a Grandmaster, because it has the highest ,,outplay potential at that level".
Mariya Muzychuk first started learning theory at FM level (and also made the (in my opinion) very nice quote: Theory only becomes important around 2200 Fide).
Capablanca never really looked into theory, yet he rarely got into losing positions.
Bent Larsen really liked to play b3 or the scandinavian, to get his opponent out of their comfort zone. He often theory to be useless.
Pavel Blatny played the owen.
Tell me: Is there any serious coach who would give a weaker player the advise to study openings in order to improve? Because if so, my next question would be: Is there any Grandmaster who became a Grandmaster with opening theory exclusively?
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.