Chess Club Life/Openings

[Peter Webber]

You were right; you told me it wasn't going to be easy. I won a couple of games in my first two weeks of joining a club. That was 5 months ago, and I haven't won a game since. In fact, the harder I try, the worse the defeat I get. Perhaps Mr Silman is correct in his books when he says it is down to psychology?

I'm completely amazed that at least 3 of the regular members that I play against haven't got a clue about openings. When I attempt to discuss where I went wrong after the game and I say things like 'which version of the Scotch was that you played' I get a totally blank expression in return. In fact, these competition hardened individuals know how to win, but they can't seem to explain what they are doing to get a result, no matter which opening sequences they adopt. And, I can't exactly look up the opening on Fritz or Chessbase whilst I'm playing.

I'm beginning to regret the amount of time I spent when I was working (and therefore didn't have time for playing chess) going through my 70+ books trying to learn the game, and solve tactics, mates in 3 etc and promising myself that when I retired I would at least have a fairly decent standard of play to look forward to. I would have been better off going to college to study accountancy, languages or whatever; at least I would have had a tutored course to help me reach my goal. Now that I have the time available to put in the study, I find that no such avenues of opportunity exist in chess.

[Nick Burrows]

Why not find yourself a coach? There will likely be one within travelling distance, otherwise there is the option of having sessions online.

Where do you live?

[Matthew Turner]

Almost all chess players at whatever level have a plan. The battle hardened veterans that you are up against will have developed their strategy over many years, often decades. As their opponent your job is to figure out what their strategy is. For example it may be that they like fianchettoing their Bishops, so they will be used to the game developing slowly and have some feel for whether it is good to challenge for the centre with c4 d4 or e4. Come up with a plan to counter this, for example you might try pushing your centre pawns crazily forward at the start. If this work then just keep doing it, if it doesn't try something else. i.e. very quickly play Be6 Qd7 Bh3 exchange the Bishop on g2 and then throw your h-pawn at them. These are not necessarily good moves but they form a strategy that will begin to increase your understanding of the position.

It will take some time but if you know a few openings then as get experience at developing and refining plans you'll suddenly realise that you understand in the Scotch move 4, not only what the best move is, but crucially why it is the best move!

Keep going and best of luck.

[Roger de Coverly]

And, I can't exactly look up the opening on Fritz or Chessbase whilst I'm playing.

You can record the game and look up their lines of play after you finish. Even better, if the programs indicate that there's something bad about what they habitually play, when you next play them, you will be well armed.

you'll suddenly realise that you understand in the Scotch move 4, not only what the best move is, but crucially why it is the best move!

It can be difficult to avoid losing a pawn as White in the Scotch. 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Nxd4 Qh4 . The position can get quite mad, quite quickly, so it's a case where you probably have to know the apparently strange next moves that both players need to adopt.

[Matthew Turner]

Roger,
I understand what you are saying, but you are coming at this from the perspective of a strong player. Peter Would have to go off and learn a lot of theory then his opponent would deviate early on in the line and in the medium term the work he had undertaken would have been wasted. What I am saying is that Peter should go away and think "That Qh4 move was a pain", lets get a plan to deal with that eg. I know I'll play Nc3 on move 3 so we have

e4 e5
Nf3 Nc6
Nc3 Nf6
d4 exd4
Nxd4

and I have got you because your Queen cannot get to h4.

Then another problem will emerge perhaps Black will play Bb4 on move 4. Now we understand why it was 'better' to play d4 on move 3. Back to the drawing board.
I know is bad to bring a queen out early so lets try

e4 e5
Nf3 Nc6
d4 exd4
Nxd4 Qh4
Be3 Qxe4
Nd2

and so on.

[David Shepherd]

I think you should try and record your games and input them in to a database if you are not already doing so. You can then analyse them on a computer and see where you went wrong.

What I think is important is to understand why you lost, if for example you just get slightly worse each move, then maybe you need to work on understanding the game more so for example outposts, open files, half open files, improving your worst piece, rooks on the 7th etc.

If you typically blunder at a certain point then maybe it as a time issue or concentration issue,maybe such things as getting up and having a walk round could improve your game or make it worse.

If you lose at the end study end games, make sure you understand about having active pieces.

Are you considering the right number of candidate moves, do you consider your opponents move, do you look at all checks and captures, do you understand the relationship between the pieces and concepts such as overloading.

Maybe your play is too passive or maybe too attacking, I suspect too passive given the history of losses, even bad attacking players get lucky sometimes. The fact that you won a couple of games at first and then had a string of losses may also have resulted in you playing more defensively than is sensible. Often if you just let your opponent attack the pressure becomes to great and there is too much to consider that in the end you just blunder.

I think it more important to understand what is going wrong in general rather than whether for example f4 is a good or bad move in a specific situation, or learning specific openings.

[Joey Stewart]

I imagine is quite a daunting experience, first starting out at a chess club, as even the lower level guys are going to seem quite tough to beat but that is because strong clubs can easily drive beginners away if everybody keeps beating them. As seen in this thread, there will be conflicting information given (not that any of it is wrong, mind you, just a difference of opinion of how to teach) which can seem overwhelming.

Best thing really is just playing as much as possible and trying not to get too frustrated, positive play is going to be more likely to garner results - the wins will start coming again if you believe in yourself

[Matt Mackenzie]

Its also not that uncommon for new players at a club to win a few games originally then "hit a wall" as opponents take them more seriously, and the truth dawns that playing at a consistent level is actually pretty hard - and only comes with experience.

The OP is clearly prepared to put in some effort towards improving. That in itself is a promising sign.

[David Blower]

I'm completely amazed that at least 3 of the regular members that I play against haven't got a clue about openings. When I attempt to discuss where I went wrong after the game and I say things like 'which version of the Scotch was that you played' I get a totally blank expression in return.

To be fair, I don't think I would know each variation of the Scotch, and I play regularly for the team. If you want that specific information, it really is best to record your moves, and then look it up on a computer afterwards. Granted, that can not help you during the game though.

In the opening, I really don't think at the level of play I play at, knowing a specific opening is important. In fact, I have come across opponents who have played an opening I am not familiar with, and as soon as I have made an out of book (but still reasonable) move, it has thrown them, and I have gone on to win the game easily.

Opponent: "That move of yours threw me. How come didn't you play that move, which is the usual book move for the opening."
Me: "Because I didn't know it!"

Instead following the main opening points, (moving minor pieces (knights and bishops) towards the centre,) castling early, connecting rooks, not moving a piece twice, and not moving the queen out too early,) is what you should perhaps aim for in the opening.
[Date "????.??.??"] [Result "*"] [FEN "rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/2BPPB2/2N2N2/PPP1QPPP/3RR1K1 w kq - 0 11"] *


This is the sort of position you should be aiming for, ideally. Note, this position is important, not because you are likely to achieve it, but it shows what you are aiming for. Note as well that your opponent is also aiming for this type of position, and knows that you are aiming for it.

[David Blower]

Will not miss the opportunity to say that if anyone lives in or around Brewood and likes chess, they would be welcome to join our club. Yes, we do have ECF graded matches, the skill range of players range from children learning the game, to those graded in the 160s. However, there is also the opportunity to play socially, without the need to wish to play in the clubs teams, if you don't want to, and usually at least one committee member is on hand to welcome new members to the club. Common tournament openings, technical chess endgames, and common middlegame tactics such as pins, forks and skewers are discussed, as well as the opportunity to go over any previous games. Tea and coffee is also available.

Over the board chess clubs in my view should take the opportunity to integrate new members into the club. I like to think we do at Brewood.

[Peter Webber]

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?

[MartinCarpenter]

No worries - your opponents won't be that good at calculating either

The idea is to basically force yourself into open positions, calculate, make mistakes and learn.

[Brian Towers]

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?

Certainly not! It would be spot on. "They don't like it up 'em!" as Corporal Jones would say, and with the King's Gambit you get the chance to "stick it up 'em" PDQ. The main idea is very simple - fast development and then checkmate!

[Roger de Coverly]

but I'm guessing this would be a bit too ambitious given my present level?

Players below the level of a 100 grade are liable to collapse quite rapidly when faced with a Kings Gambit. It's one of those openings where Black has to know or find some accurate moves to fend off early disaster.

I think I've seen this at least once at club level.

1. e4 e5 2. f4 d6 3. Nf3 Bg4 4. Bc4 Nf6 5. fxe5 dxe5 6. Bxf7+ Kxf7 7. Nxe5 Ke8 8. Nxg4

The next one is a win by Fischer in a simul. Players accustomed to meeting 1. d4 with 1. .. d5 and 2. c4 with 2. .. c6 will sometimes try the same idea when confronted with 1. e4 and 2. f4

1. e4 e5 2. f4 f6 3. fxe5 Nc6 4. d4 Be7 5. exf6 gxf6 6. Qh5 Kf8 7. Bc4 Qe8 8. Bh6

[Matt Mackenzie]

And there are several lines not quite as spectacular as those, but where White gets a gigantic centre for nothing (not even a material minus)