Chess openings

Say I wanted to learn more about how to get better at chess, should I just start playing online or should I start looking up tactics and jump into the nitty gritty stuff right away?

If Black opens with 1...e5, he's letting White decide how the game goes. On the other hand, the Sicilian Defense is a counter-puncher opening where Black decides to seize the initiative.

Moving an early g3 is important in the KID to prevent this from happening.

chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1107398

See here in this Petrosian game. His king's castled position is essentially impenetrable. Black's attack is completely futile while he sneaks his queen and rook around the other side of the board to wreak havoc.

>That last one
That's some Code Geass "if the king doesn't move, his men don't follow" bullshit.

Don't spend time studying openings, it's better to get an idea of what the opening game is trying to accomplish, and how that leads into the mid and late game. youtube.com/watch?v=pOjzvVVrxWw& is a good video for this explanation, and chessnetwork is pretty rockin all over.
Tactic puzzles are great for learning some mid and late game setups, but definitely just start playing online. Organise some sort of analysis program (or online feature) to review your games and always go back over them. Any time you see a big swing in positional advantage that you didn't notice in the game, there's something you've overlooked and can learn about your own dropped tactics or how to better exploit an opponent's mistakes.

That's the fried fox attack and it's the up there with the biggest 'fuck you' bm in the book.

Nicely executed, but your enthusiasm is your undoing. See, this is so overblown it gives itself away. You want about 85% the malice and 70% the feeling of autism here. That way, people actually get mad and reply, or better yet, motivated to do something. As it is, you're just overdoing it.

Either that, or you've just reached the stage in your Veeky Forums career where you've been disillusioned of the fantasy 1d4chan paints and now see the reality, in which case, congratulations! You may now stop thinking of yourself as a summer kid, and instead treat it as a mark of shame whenever someone calls you out for not recognizing dank Veeky Forums memes. May you have an enjoyable career here on Veeky Forums.

8/10, overenthusiasm makes it seem inauthentic, ease up.

Wonderful bait. Have an anime girl as payment.

>fried fox attack
Just checked it out and it's not as stupid as it looks. The idea is baiting the enemy queen and forcing her around the entire field while you develop your own pieces, right?

Makes me want to try it, but I'm pretty sure I'll fuck it up somehow.

Well, sure, but your opponent throwing out his queen and letting you develop against it with tempo isn't the fried fox attack working, it's your opponent being awful

havnt had an actual chess discussion in so long the first part of what you said meant an entirely different thing to me for a good couple seconds. i fucking hate this place.

I hate the Four Knights and the Petrov.

>the old tired claim that FK and Petrov Defense are boring
While elite GMs do tend to use them as drawing weapons, that's not a problem for amateurs like you and me.

This is exactly the direction I was looking for, thank you user

>ded gaem

...

Bobby Fischer opened with e4 in 90% of his games. He said it just werks.

Openings I like:

Double Muzio: If White is crazy enough to open with the King's Gambit, then Black may as well take his gloves off and go all the way.

Albin Countergambit: You want a slow, positional d4 opening? How about not.

Benko Gambit: Weird pawn sacs for positional advantage. Cool.

Openings I don't like:

London System: Unless one side makes a stupid mistake, the LS is a dead draw.

Exchange Ruy Lopez: Another opening that leads to a dead draw. I mean, why even play the Ruy in the first place if you're gonna do this? Just play the fucking Four Knights and be done with it; it takes fewer moves to reach anyway.

Four Knights: Or don't play it. Please don't.

If you don't like the Four Knights, then it can be avoided by simply not playing 3...Nf6. ;)

If Black moves something other than 3...Nf6, he gets the Three Knights Game instead which is more interesting/tactical.

Favourite: the Fried Liver Attack and its even more epic defence, the Traxler Counterattack
Least favourite: the French Defence. How do you attack it!?

>Least favourite: the French Defence. How do you attack it!?

Even Bobby Fischer couldn't crack the French Defense. He had a terrible record against it.

Confirmed overpowered

...Thas a bree guh rant

Why French Defense and not Caro-Khan? If I'm not mistaken the CK is the same as the FD without locking one of your bishops for the entire game, right?

Supposedly David Bronstein was asked on his deathbed "Who was the greatest interpreter of the King's Indian Defense?" He replied "Petrosian."

Fischer usually always used the KID in response to 1. d4, however he explicitly avoided it when playing Petrosian.

French Defense is 1. e4 e6 usually followed with 2. d4 d5. Caro-Kann is 1. e4 c6.

>he uses anything but Chicago Overcoat, White Tiger or Iron King

What's your excuse?

Can I borrow some money, smart cool and successful user? Also what's a vagina feel like?

FUCK Tachanka defense, how do you even get near?

I hate the Sicilian and will not play it from either side.

>not play it from either side
How does that work? If you're White, you can't prevent Black from playing 1...c5.

If he won't play the Sicilian from either side, it means he doesn't open with 1. e4 or 1...c5.

I only start games with d4. I stopped playing e4 because I got tired of getting c5 in response in 50% of my games.

Playing the English Opening is always fun especially against under 1500 opponents. Most of them have absolutely no clue what to do with it and look dumbfounded when I open the game with 1. c4.

Not exactly related, but I played a guy once whose entire game plan consisted of attacking a king-side castled position. I castled instead on the queen side and he completely fell apart.

Yeah a lot of amateurs insist on playing the Sicilian when it's above their skill level.

>Daily reminder that chess is a "figured out" game since every variation of opening has been tried, and even an absolute beginner with a book of openings can beat at least a normally competent player, and a fucking computer program can beat an expert.

Why haven't you brainlets switched to playing I-go yet?

I play both and am learning xiangqi. The huge amount of literature around chess, and the limited nature of the game as opposed to Go is part of the appeal because it is much easier to apply concepts in game, make a viable strategy, and most importantly analyze how the game progressed by the move and how you should improve your play. It is also a lot easier to find a partner around your skill level.
That isn't to say that Go doesn't have extensive literature, even in English, but it is a much longer game if you want to go the full 19x19, and harder to precisely pinpoint what went wrong in a game. It is harder to analyze because it relies on abstract concepts much more heavily than chess does. Go has a steep learning curve because everyone already plays under 10 kyu online. I am inching around 15 kyu but have yet to play an actual human besides some 25 k weeb who I decimate with handicaps.
Your shitpost additionally doesn't make sense considering Go AI can also beat master-level players.

I'm seeking which board to post about Go

This is not to flame your board, but Veeky Forums never seem to reply those threads so maybe it isn't Veeky Forums related

anyone can help me? i want to make a go general (even if nobody replies at all)

>I want to make a general
stop that

make threads, not """generals"""

Go is Veeky Forums related though

I agree, I'm 3kyu in Go

Go is really hard to make people understand it, it lacks a feedback loop about what the fuck you are doing, that loop only gets better after 8kyu or 6kyu but before that it's really difficult, I always cringe when i try to get people to enjoy the game since 9x9 sucks major ass and you can't just give them examples of different abstract concepts because they won't understand anyway, thus they think it's a stupid game and they drop after that

Meanwhile chess is intense because if you are fucking up you really know it, you start losing pieces and everything goes to shit fast

However, Go has tremendous possibilities and once you understand the value of frameworks and thickness it becomes a completely different game than when you were playing as double digit kyu, i would say that top level Go is much more satisfying that top level chess, which can be really frustrating and disheartening, imho

>Daily reminder that chess is a "figured out" game since every variation of opening has been tried, and even an absolute beginner with a book of openings can beat at least a normally competent player

I bet you can't beat Magnus Carlsen no matter how many opening lines you've memorized.

Is anyone watching the Sinquefield Cup tonight?
youtube.com/watch?v=04wqFxooGHE

i'm watching, but muted
It's too "show"

Go is Veeky Forums related, but Veeky Forums doesn't really give a shit about the classics. You might find more interested people in /jp/, but pretty sure Go is against /jp/'s rules so you're fucked.

Chess is kind of a shit game to be honest. Any game where you have to spend the first several turns going through a canned "opening" invented 300 years ago before you can even begin to do make decisions of your own is boring.

Chess is almost a solved game. The best human players are no longer able to beat the best AIs, so what's the point? What's the point of playing a game that an emotionless machine will play better than you?

wow dis shit sound rlly gay tbqqhwyf
like some harry potter sorceror stone shit

You are small children to me.

This looks cool, what is it?

mental stimulation

if you don't get your blood pumping while playing blitz chess then you just don't get it

>What's the point of playing a game that an emotionless machine will play better than you?
I've run games through Stockfish and it often missed important moves, so no I wouldn't say computers are "perfect".

>Any game where you have to spend the first several turns going through a canned "opening"

Amateurs (ie. everyone here) aren't generally the people who play 20 move scripted variations like the Nadjorf Sicilian. That's only for elite GMs.

Stupid

Chess can never be "solved" simply because people are imperfect and will make mistakes.

Seriously. If you're an amateur, you'll go off the book very fast. Elite GMs are much less free as players, they can't play stuff like the Latvian Gambit, they have to limit themselves to "serious" openings like the Nimzo-Indian Defense because any opening that doesn't allow you the chance to draw is unacceptable.

Under 1600 players can use pretty much any opening they want and win with it.

You are silly, all perfect information games can be solved, what won't happen is that there will be a human capable of memorizing all of the answers required to win it

in a few years there will be a chess AI that will be able to beat any player out there

I still don't know why chess hasn't made the change to bigger boards with more pieces, that would open the game a lot, it's getting stall already in top level

Back in the 1920s, Capablanca suggested adding additional pieces because there were way too many Queen's Gambits ending in dead draws at the time. Mostly because players forgot how to do Morphy-style tactical chess.

Because there are more possible chess games than there are atoms in the universe, and you get novelties at the top level pretty frequently.

>in a few years there will be a chess AI that will be able to beat any player out there
ANd how much of that is because of the effort that's been put into making invincible chess AIs? You really think that something like Go would be any different if it had the same cultural prominence in the western world and the same effort put into it?

>it's getting stall already in top level
???

Go will get solved too in a few years, alphago already fucked up in the ass pro players and this year a commercial AI is getting better than alpha go with less resources

Adding new rules to Go is stupid though, there isn't any rules to add to begin, only to make the board bigger but that would be pointless

Chess in the other hand has still more potential by adding bigger boards, and chess has a history of adding new rules so it wouldn't be that big of a deal desu

Actually the basic openings/strategies used in chess have not changed appreciably since the modern rules came into existence in the 1500s. Although it's common to say that players of Morphy's era played romantic tactical chess, in truth positional games and d4 openings were not as rare as you'd think. All those dashing games like Morphy's opera house game were usually casual ones played against scrub opponents. If you look at "serious" chess games like the London 1851 tournament, there were quite a few d4/positional games and a distinct lack of King's Gambits. Morphy was considered less exciting of a player than McDonnell and Labourdonnais a generation earlier.

If anything, Morphy may have retarded the development of hypermodern chess by a few decades since it started (in a sense) with the Bannerjee/Cochrane matches in the 1850s.

>Because there are more possible chess games than there are atoms in the universe, and you get novelties at the top level pretty frequently.
For example, Kasparov blew everyone's mind by playing the Scotch Game in the 1990 WC with Karpov. That opening had been dead outside the club level since the 1920s. The Four Knights and Bishop's Opening also saw 90s revivals, followed by the Berlin Defense which now is so common at the GM level that it's becoming as tiresome as the Nadjorf Sicilian in the 1960s.

>in a few years there will be a chess AI that will be able to beat any player out there
It's been 20 years since Deep Blue beat Kasparov, the point is that in normal tournaments, humans play humans and they aren't able to memorize all the computer lines
>players forgot how to do Morphy-style tactical chess
It was more about players getting better at defending against such attacks.

Interestingly, Kasparov said that of all e4 openings, the Ruy Lopez and Scotch give White the best chances. He has no use for the King's Gambit though, he thinks it's garbage that nobody over 1500 should be playing.

>the point is that in normal tournaments, humans play humans and they aren't able to memorize all the computer lines
Humans will also of course make mistakes. With perfect play by both sides, every game would just end in a draw.

>Back in the 1920s, Capablanca suggested adding additional pieces because there were way too many Queen's Gambits ending in dead draws at the time
I somehow think Capablanca was part of the problem rather than the solution. I mean, just look at the 1927 World Championship match against Alekhine. 33 out of 35 fucking games used the QGD.

I think the Ponziani Opening is underrated and should be used more.

It's Enochian chess

Deleuze on chess and go

“Let us take a limited example and compare the war machine and the state apparatus in the context of the theory of games. Let us take chess and Go, from the standpoint of game pieces, the relations between the pieces and the space involved. Chess is a game of the State, or of the court: the emperor of China played it. Chess pieces are coded; they have an internal nature and intrinsic properties from which their movements, situations, and confrontations derive. They have qualities; a knight remains a knight, a pawn a pawn, a bishop a bishop. Each is like a subject of the statement endowed with relative power, and these relative powers combine in a subject of enunciation, that is, the chess player or the game’s form of interiority. Go pieces, I contrast, are pellets, disks, simple arithmetic units, and have only an anonymous, collective, or third-person function: “It” makes a move. “It” could be a man, a woman, a louse, an elephant. Go pieces are elements of a nonsubjectified machine assemblage with no intrinsic properties, only situational ones. Thus the relations are very different in the two cases.

1/2

Within their milieu of interiority, chess pieces entertain biunivocal relations with one another, and with the adversary’s pieces: their functioning is structural. One the other hand, a Go piece has only a milieu of exteriority, or extrinsic relations with nebulas or constellations, according to which it fulfills functions of insertion or situation, such as bordering, encircling, shattering. All by itself, a Go piece can destroy an entire constellation synchronically; a chess piece cannot (or can do so diachronically only). Chess is indeed a war, but an institutionalized, regulated, coded war with a front, a rear, battles. But what is proper to Go is war without battle lines, with neither confrontation nor retreat, without battles even: pure strategy, whereas chess is a semiology. Finally, the space is not at all the same: in chess, it is a question of arranging a closed space for oneself, thus going from one point to another, of occupying the maximum number of squares with the minimum number of pieces. In Go, it is a question of arraying oneself in an open space, of holding space, of maintaining the possibility of springing up at any point: the movement is not from one point to another, but becomes perpetual, without aim or destination, without departure or arrival. The “smooth” space of Go, as against the “striated” space of chess. The nomos of Go against the State of chess, nomos against polis. The difference is that chess codes and decodes space, whereas Go proceeds altogether differently, territorializing and deterritorializing it (make the outside a territory in space; consolidate that territory by the construction of a second, adjacent territory; deterritorialize the enemy by shattering his territory from within; deterritorialize oneself by renouncing, by going elsewhere…) Another justice, another movement, another space-time.”

2/2

I like to fuck with people when I'm White. I specifically open in a way that I trick them into being the attacker.

1. e2 e5
2. e3 ...

Suddenly, it's King's Gambit, and I'm the defending. Now, Black has to play a White game in but all the pieces are on the opposite side of the middle. This really fucks with the autistic kids on ladder as they can't use their in-brain lookup table to win the early game.

How do I get into chess?

I'm an IM and I've opened with e4 nearly every game I've played in the last several years.

Find someone who's into chess already and lose to them a lot. Eventually, you'll build up a repertoire of terrible mistakes that you shouldn't make. Then, you have a good idea of how things work. Then, you just need to study some board states, things like forks, discoveries, etc. Then, you just need to git gud.

see