A few posts ago, I mentioned about the value of utilizing opening books/databases to improve one's performance in chess. Understanding opening theory is a necessary part of growing in chess because whether we like it or not, the initial position of any standard chess game will always be the same, and it would be a good idea to learn early on the basic principles of chess.
The ideal scenario is that you and the person on the other side of the board goes through the opening theory in completion (which has been pretty much explored extensively, annotated, and published). For somebody new to opening theory, it provides a good lesson, while at the same time giving you some chance to get at least to the start of the middlegame (and even recognize you are already there).
Now, there are times when your opponent veers away from the "expected" set of moves. It can be that he has chosen to take a less "orthodox", otherwise called the "main" line of play, and adopted one of the other alternative openings or transpositions to another opening. In this case he is still following the opening theory, and the reference you are using should at least point out to you such situations, and show you at least two or three of the alternative opening lines.
Now, there are times when your opponent veers away from the "expected" set of moves. It can be that he has chosen to take a less "orthodox", otherwise called the "main" line of play, and adopted one of the other alternative openings or transpositions to another opening. In this case he is still following the opening theory, and the reference you are using should at least point out to you such situations, and show you at least two or three of the alternative opening lines.
The real dilemma is when it is very likely that your opponent has veered away from the opening lines, whether main or alternative. Your game has been ushered into "free" territory already. Theoretically, your opponent made an inferior move, and have probably opened himself up for a weakness that you can exploit. Or he is at least good enough to have a plan several moves ahead. Here are some things you may want to consider in making your next move (coming from one who is learning the ropes himself):
1. Is the move he just made part of the opening theory, but he made it much earlier than as prescribed? You can find out by checking your reference for the supposed succeeding moves. If that's the case, you must be able to recognize in what way his position has weakened due to that early move. Otherwise he can be back on even terms soon enough, or worse, you may end up replying incorrectly (most probably, you won't be able to reply with an opening move anymore in this case).
2. If he did made a departure already from the opening lines, consider the situation before and after his moves. What was the main idea of the opening? What squares or pieces are currently being contested prior to his move? Did his move made a significant difference on those things? Did his move weakened any particular line of defense?
3. I keep emphasizing that your opponent made an "inferior" move, because the "correct" move would usually have been analyzed already. However, it is also true that his move is inferior only if he doesn't know what he is doing. You should at least try to get on his shoes and figure out what he is trying to accomplish. What I am saying here sounds cliche', but I know a couple of my own games when I should have been able to avoid mistakes if only I flipped the board and looked at it from his side of the table.
Admittedly, exploiting an early departure from an opening line by your opponent will take time and exposure to be able to benefit from it. In the same way, it will take time to somehow "read" your opponent's mind and start making deviations yourself (I wonder how you can do that on correspondence chess!), or even come up with a new line. But that's growing in chess, and sooner or later, the middlegame must come anyway.
So, departure or no, play on!
No comments:
Post a Comment