tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post7762688153076138683..comments2023-12-28T02:11:22.501+00:00Comments on The Streatham & Brixton Chess Blog: The uncertainty principleTom Chivershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09850710685193416732noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-28431262109661037522010-01-31T16:02:27.020+00:002010-01-31T16:02:27.020+00:00I had the same experience where an opponent reache...I had the same experience where an opponent reached the *exact* same theoretical position as our previous encounter. I asked him afterwards why he expended so much clock-time early; he said he remembered it all but he wanted to check everything to make sure.<br /><br />So like Richard he was looking for something different and didn't find it. Unlike Richard though he spent 90 minutes instead of 40. Too bad, I won.<br /><br />I have pretty much given up on trying to be creative in the openings, but I still have three reasons to think in theoretical positions: (1) to warm my brain. Without that warmup, it's a rough transition between the known theoretical position and the totally unknown "just chess" position that might take several moves to develop. (2) to deceive my opponent about how much book I know. Appearing not to know the opening can elicit all kinds of bad play, from attempted traps to overconfidently rushed moves to playing by rote. (3) to not tip off the opponent when they are still in book or that they just left the book.<br /><br />I am not sure if (2) and (3) are worth even one ELO point in a year, but for me (1) is absolutely critical.an ordinary chessplayernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-8131014256349040952010-01-31T08:28:07.458+00:002010-01-31T08:28:07.458+00:00I often take a fair amount of time reaching known ...I often take a fair amount of time reaching known (to me) theoretical positions (and yes it does contribute to future time trouble). <br /><br />Basically my theoretical knowledge is patchy (and mostly old) these days, so I am never happy until i am clearly in original (at least to myself and my opponent) territory. <br /><br />Once both of us are not relying on prior knowledge then we are on even ground.<br /><br />So on every move in every game i am looking for something original to do (at best new, at worst off the beaten track and less known to my opponent). But the consequence is that sometimes nothing convinces and you find yourself in a theoretical position after 40 minutes anyway.<br /><br />RichardRichardnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-55307294714118736412010-01-30T15:18:23.971+00:002010-01-30T15:18:23.971+00:00I don't want to add to the uncertainty but I&#...I don't want to add to the uncertainty but I've recently been considering transposing into Queen's pawn openings via 1. c4 rather than my usual 1. Nf3. I suppose the choice is really then between <b>1. c4 e5</b> and <b>1. Nf3 d5, 2. c4 d4</b> or <b>2. ... dxc4</b><br /><br />I'm currently considering how much I like either variation an factoring in how likely I am to get them rather than be able to transpose into a QGD or a KID or whatever.<br /><br />Life would be a lot easier if I just played 1. d4 I suspect.Jonathan Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00293162543015231439noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-74046548711091101452010-01-29T10:26:44.874+00:002010-01-29T10:26:44.874+00:00Stuart Conquest often has a think before his first...Stuart Conquest often has a think before his first move and I think there is a story that David Bronstein once thought for nearly an hour before making his first move (as white).<br /><br />On Tuesday I was black and my opponent played the London system. I thought: this is boring, nothing is going to happen for a long time and allowed my opponent a positional advantage as early as move 6. It's never too early to start analysing the position (I used to know about 10 moves of theory in several openings but because my opponents usually don't play it, I've forgotten most of it now).Mike Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13237794157491746812noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37675897.post-48430062369845252802010-01-29T10:09:43.545+00:002010-01-29T10:09:43.545+00:00Curiously enough, in my game on Tuesday night I sp...Curiously enough, in my game on Tuesday night I spent several minutes deciding between 1.e4 and 1.d4. I decided at the start of the season to switch to 1.d4 - but my opponent on Tuesday was someone I had beaten easily before with 1.e4. Furthermore, I knew he was a repertoire player and I particularly liked playing 1.e4 against the opening he always chose.<br /><br />But I went with 1.d4, on the basis that I had already decided too, and anyway if I went 1.e4 and he varied early from my previous win it would probably discombobulate me psychologically. We had a short draw.Tom Chivershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09850710685193416732noreply@blogger.com