a) how and when it will work.
b) your opponent's defensive resources, and when it is unlikely to work.
So after this, you can try to employ more subtle methods of developing your game....or just remain a mad attacking player all your life!
All this was inspired by something I noticed last week. I went to one of my favourite websites, the chess cafe, and they have a list of anniversaries. I noticed last Wednesday was the birthday of Alexander Zaitsev and I wondered who this player was, so I looked him up. I noticed there was a gambit named after him, which started with the moves 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.h4.
Now personally, I have had some trouble playing the white side of the Grunfeld so the move 4.h4 grabbed my attention. Then when I realised that Zaitsev was a GM and co-winner of the USSR Championship, I understood that this was not the move of a patzer. In fact, the first game in my database with this move has Zaitsev trying out against none other than ex-World Champion Smyslov! And Zaitsev won!
So as a group we started to analyse some fairly crazy positions, though our examinations were based on black taking the c-pawn with 4..dxc4, whereas the main moves in the position are 4..c5 (as played by Smyslov), or 4..c6 leading into a Schlecter Slav type formation. After 4..dxc4 white would likely play 5.e4
"whether it is better to play something that you understand, or a move which is considered better but is beyond your understanding."
ReplyDeleteShould I play a strong opening that I don't know the theory behind? Of course I should. Why should chosing a middlegame or endgame move be any different? Many moves we 'know' to play without understanding the subtle mathematics behind them are essential. Don't double your pawns, castle your king. keep your rooks connected and so forth.