Chess Club Life/Openings

[Niall Doran]

To be honest, 'knowing openings' isn't very important for beginners. A guy who started in my club this season was playing a game this weekend, and chatting to him about it afterwards, he said to me "I lost in the opening, I didn't know what to do and that was it". So I asked him to show me the game, and it went as follows (my club-mate has white):

1. d4 c5

and this was the point at which my club-mate felt he lost the game, because he didn't know the opening and wasn't sure he'd played the right follow-up. I think he followed up with 2. Nf3, which is not the best move but is quite ok. He showed me the rest of the game and in fact he got a decent position well into the middle-game, all the while bemoaning the fact that he knew so little about the opening. And then he played a move where he put a knight on a square that was defended once but attacked twice. So I said to him 'Look, that's where you lost, never mind the opening'. It was a basic tactical error that made the difference, not the opening. In the vast majority of beginners' games, tactics will decide. I'm not sure my club-mate took that on board, I'm sure he still thinks the opening was the problem.

Having said that, psychology does play a big part in chess, so not 'knowing openings' can often put a player at a disadvantage, but mostly because the player feels defeated before the game has really begun.

So my advice to you Peter is this. Once you've got your basic development sorted i.e. have castled, you'll be fine. And if you've worked hard on tactics, this will pay off in the end. Sometimes it just takes a lot of games before you get good at managing your time, stress, knowing how to win won games, how to fight in lost positions etc. Keep showing your games to your club-mates, and try to be as open and accepting of their advice as possible.

[Roger de Coverly]

1. d4 c5

and this was the point at which my club-mate felt he lost the game, because he didn't know the opening and wasn't sure he'd played the right follow-up.

Is that a question of general chess erudition? If he knew the Modern Benoni to 3 moves, 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5, he could consider 2. d5 at the very least as a candidate move. If he was familiar with the Smith-Morra Gambit, he could transpose directly, 1. d4 c5 2. e4 .

Particularly with the White pieces, a wide choice of opening moves is almost always possible, even if not absolutely the best.

[Mark Ashley]

Thanks everyone for your input; re your thoughts, David, I HAVE been told my play is too passive, and I've always had a hankering to learn the Kings Gambit, but I'm guessing this would be a bit too ambitious given my present level?

Give it a go! It might be worth trying to find a copy of Gallaghers excellent book on it to just play through.

I began playing it completely by accident when i first started putting together my first deliberate repertoire at University and had really good results. Despite there being plenty of theoretical lines for black to choose and get equality, people dont usually know more than the first couple of moves at the lower levels of chess (I dont recall too many problems in the opening against opponents under 150). I even had one game where my opponent played 2...f6!

[Matt Mackenzie]

And I have seen even fairly competent players come out with stuff like 1 e4 e5 2 f4 ef4 3 Nf3 Bc5?! which gives the aforementioned free centre after 4 d4. And even more will defend with the solid but passive 2....d6 and get a cramped game (some will again give up the centre with a quick ....ef4, very possibly allowing d4, soon after)

[Roger de Coverly]

And even more will defend with the solid but passive 2....d6 and get a cramped game (some will again give up the centre with a quick ....ef4, very possibly allowing d4, soon after)

At a more sophisticated level, you might play 2. .. d6 so as to encourage 3. Nf3. You then follow up with 3. .. exf4 to reach Fischer's Defence whilst avoiding the King's Bishop's Gambit of 3. Bc4 .

Aside of a few specialists, you see very few King's Gambits at moderately higher levels. Black only really has to know a couple of lines, whilst White needs methods of combating all the potential tries. But "having a clue against the King's Gambit" and higher grades are correlated.

Gallagher's now "old" book has good coverage and there's a mighty tome published recently by John Shaw.

[Matt Mackenzie]

I've got quite a few Kings Gambit books, but neither of those

(the Estrin/Glazkov tomes published over three decades ago are still good value IMO, even if obviously outdated now)