Mystery Game: Lost, but I'm Noticing a Positive Trend
My opponent turned out to be the wizened, solid Class B player (USCF 1747) with LOTS of experience. He won fairly and squarely, but I can say that it wasn't the tactics that lost the game for me. It was, again, a poorly played opening.
My opp is a 1. d4 player, and I've only recently taken up the King's Indian to play against that type of opening. So, I made some strategic errors like moving my king's rook from f8 and developing my queen's knight to the wrong square.
So, I'm beginning to actually see the need to begin studying the opening. I've avoided it for so long, because there were so many other areas of my game that needed my attention (especially tactics). I've spent much of my time on strategy and endgames, but no real opening study.
Therefore, I have to conclude that although I still lose some games, it's beginning to appear that (judging from my last 2 OTB losses, at least) that I'm losing them for strategic reasons that go back to lack of opening knowledge. If I can work on that area a little bit, then my results should improve.
My opp is a 1. d4 player, and I've only recently taken up the King's Indian to play against that type of opening. So, I made some strategic errors like moving my king's rook from f8 and developing my queen's knight to the wrong square.
So, I'm beginning to actually see the need to begin studying the opening. I've avoided it for so long, because there were so many other areas of my game that needed my attention (especially tactics). I've spent much of my time on strategy and endgames, but no real opening study.
Therefore, I have to conclude that although I still lose some games, it's beginning to appear that (judging from my last 2 OTB losses, at least) that I'm losing them for strategic reasons that go back to lack of opening knowledge. If I can work on that area a little bit, then my results should improve.
posted by CelticDeath at 8:16 AM
13 Comments:
So any ideas on how you're going to study openings? Book, cd, blitz games, review GM games with your chosen opening...?
I think I'll need to approach this holistically. For my study of the King's Indian, I've started with learning the tabiya for the classical variation (which I encountered last night and which I've read is the most commonly encountered). Next, I plan to study several of Kasparov's games (he was a big proponent of the black side of the KID). I should probably also add some Korchnoi games so I learn the white side of the game as well (for learning about white's strategies). I just ordered a book on the KID (5 stars on Amazon.com), so I'll read that one as well. I'll continue to play this as my sole response to 1. d4 (and 1. c4, too).
What about the "Read and Play Method" book on the Kings' Indian?
It's a cool book. Ideas only, no variations. Then again, I never
learned enough of it to become
a KID player.
( But then again, I've never had
the discipline to stick with any
particular defense to d4. )
I already placed the order, but I ordered Gallagher's Play the King's Indian. It's gotten some pretty good reviews on Amazon.com.
I'm slightly skeptical that you, a solid middlegame and endgame player could foul up the opening so badly that it actually cost you the game.
( We're not talking about sucker traps in weird openings, right?)
I'd be curious to see an example
where you actually concluded that a weak opening blew it despite a stellar middlegame.
Reason I say this is that Dan Heisman told me that most people exaggerate the importance of the opening at sub-master level.
I was actually lost before the opening ended. You can see from my previous loss that I posted here that I got into a positionally lost situation before I got into tactical troubles. Sort of the same thing in this situation. The moves I made in the opening at first appeared to be innocuous. However, he knew the proper way to play the opening I was trying to play, and he knew why I needed my pieces in certain locations. So, for him, it was a simple matter of taking positional advantage of my errors. Then, when he was completely dominating me positionally, he was able to generate some good tactical possibilities. In this case, he threatened a knight fork on my rooks, forcing me to move a rook. That move allowed him to capture a pawn with his knight. Then, he traded in such a way as to open up a discovery against my king. I was ending up a piece down. I resigned at that point (perhaps early), because I had such a lousy position that I didn't want to even finish the game. I thrive on open, highly tactical games, but I still have to do some work on my position play and strategy.
I also want to add that I do not intend on making opening study my primary focus, but I have a glaring gap in my knowledge of playing the black pieces against 1. d4, so I sorely need to shore that up. Once I feel more comfortable playing the KID, I will put my opening study on hold again.
Every time I come out of the opening with a less than desirable position I concider studying the openings again but I'm trying to restrain myself and stick to middle/endgame study.
The trouble with opening study is you get into so much rote memorization and then usually it all ends up meaningless when your opponent leaves book at move 6 and you "know" that your position is += or =+ but not enough to gaurantee victory.
Opening study can be a slippery slope. There is an old book out there by Reuben Fine, called "Understanding the Opening." Some rave about it, some hate it. But it might be worth checking out.
I am in the same position as you when it comes to 1. d4. While I have the Budapest under my belt (sort of), no one ever plays 2. c4 (argh!). I just don't have a plan for this one.
I almost always play 2. c4.
I don't know llrzall, I moved my rook from f8 where it was supposed to stay, and developed my queen knight to d7 instead of c6. My opponent didn't initiate any tactics early, but slowly built up a bind on my position that eventually yielded him some tactics that won a pawn and a minor piece. So, knowing where the pieces need to be and the roles they play in the position, at the very least, is important.
Event "TCCC"]
[Site "Normal, IL"]
[Date "2005.12.20"]
[Round "?"]
[White "NN"]
[Black "CelticDeath"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "1747"]
[BlackElo "1536"]
[PlyCount "42"]
[TimeControl "2700"]
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. Nf3 O-O 6. Be2 e5 7. O-O Re8 8. d5 Nbd7 9. Ne1 Nc5 10. f3 Nh5 11. Be3 f5 12. b4 Na6 13. Qb3 b6 14. Nd3 f4 15. Bf2 Qe7 16. c5 Nb8 17. Rac1 Nd7 18. cxd6 cxd6 19. Nb5 Rb8 20. Nxa7 Bb7 21. Nc6 Bxc6 1-0
I appreciate the analysis. Thank you.
Post a Comment
<< Home