Abhi yadav

Abhi yadav 4 months ago

Do you love Sokolsky 1.b4

I love to learn many new openings idea.

Do you guys ever tried this opening.

Sokolsky 1.b4

I am learning it to understand how to handle unfamiliar positions.


K H 4 months ago

I prefer the move order with 1.a3 2.b4. It's good for bullet games but not that good for Classical. 
Abhi yadav

Abhi yadav 4 months ago

I meant sometimes I saw it.

I got the GM's point and I do follow normal study plan.

I just sometimes love to explore new things too.

GM_Avetik Grigoryan

GM_Avetik Grigoryan 4 months ago

Abhi, for understanding chess, you should learn good openings, where the fight goes for the center.
Not 1.b4 
Abhi yadav

Abhi yadav 4 months ago

Um thanks GM sir.

I am normally focused on my positional openings.

I tried to learn b4 just to understand how top players tackle some unusual positions.

b4 is not in my repo.

I am e4 player and I am going to start learning some attacking because even though i play e4 but I play positional lines. So for that I will try to focus on tactics, attacking basics, endgame basics.


K H 4 months ago

What top player plays 1.b4 exclusively? :)
Kevin D

Kevin D 4 months ago

Abhi yadav 

You seem to be very attracted to unorthodoxed openings such as Czech Pirc, and now 1.b4 and how to play against it, which suggest a few things to me:

Either you actively are trying to avoid popular theoretical lines in order to take opponents 'out of book', or you yourself are uncomfortable playing against unusual or rare Opening Systems. 

I propose a study plan focussed more on the principles, themes and ideas behind good opening play rather than just trying to memorise some moves of theory. For example:

1.b4 is a Flank Opening, which means it does not occupy the centre with a pawn directly, but rather invites the opponent to  to do so instead with the idea that the resulting Pawn Centre can be later undermined and exploited. Essentially the game often revolves around whether the player with the Pawn Centre can consolidate it and use the advantage in space to cramp his opponent and launch an attack or The Pawn Centre becomes overextended leaving many weaknesses and vulnerable entry points  behind them that can be infiltrated.  Against Flank Openings these are the considerations that should guide your Opening play and allow you to find reasonable moves and a sound plan in the absence of concrete theoretical knowledge.

Should you decide to take up my proposal, don't forget to study the other Opening Classifications as well and try to understand the differences between them.  Consider the following.

Gambit Openings: Ask yourself, should you accept, decline or offer a Counter Gambit. Often such considerations are simply a matter of taste, and depends on what type of player you are. Take for instance the King's Gambit, if you like extra material and are confident in your defensive skill and or theoretical knowledge by all means accept and say thank you; However the KGA can lead to some very irrational positions that could well favor the better prepared player, so declining could well suit players who simply want to get a playable position with a clear plan; on the other hand there is the psychological option of forcing the gambiteer to defend by offering a counter-gambit of your own, particularly if you are an attacking player yourself. Amateurs are often way too preoccupied by what theory considers the absolute 'strongest' or 'best' counter to a particular Opening, when in Human terms there is no strongest or best, only what is best for you.  

Closed Games: These are with interlocking pawn chains like in the Advanced French. Ask yourself which side of the board should I direct my attack (Hint: the answer lies in the pawn chain).

Open Games: Usually arise from 1.e4 e5 openings, where Ranks, Files  and Diagonals can open up quickly and the f7 Square is particularly vulnerable in the early stages. Theoretical knowledge is important here no doubt, but no more so than fully understanding the principles of Time, Space and Force which usually determine the outcome in open games.

Time in chess refers to the number of developing moves one gets to play in relation  to that of your opponent, in an Open Game, a big lead in development (Lead in Time) often proves fatal for the opponent because the King is particularly vulnerable to  early attacks on the f7 square right from the Opening. 

Space in chess refers to the amount of squares one controls. more space usually means that your pieces have more mobility, more mobility means that you can organise attacks faster against weak points in opponent's camp. But, and this is a very important but, a space advantage does not necessarily mean you are better as  your position could easily become overextended and difficult to consolidate. A general rule of thumb is that the side with more space tends to avoid trades of pieces while the side with less space seeks them out to avoid ending up in a cramped position .

Force in chess simply refers to your Chess Pieces/Material, the side with an advantage in force all things being equal, will nearly always win. However it is the interplay between these three elements and knowing which is more important in a given situation that differentiates Masters from Mortals, especially in Open Games.

In summary, even though we live in an age where the chess engine is king, don't underestimate the power of mastering the guiding principles of sound opening strategy, distilled over centuries by the best players of the past. Not only will your opening play benefit greatly from such study, but your chess intuition and overall sense of danger will as well.

Good luck.

Abhi yadav

Abhi yadav 4 months ago

I just do not have too much time to study nowa days sir. I so I only try to solve tactics and look at new openings but it does not meant that I am not focused on understanding of good openings. I just like czech pirc and I saw many indian strong FM's are playing it. I saw you suggested a line with h4. You might right but every openings have their pros and cons but you are right about b4. I just learnt it for fun.  Also my idea is to focus on middle game and endgames whenever I will get time and openings are not my priority now because I am under 1600 and I dont think that openings matters too much in below 1600 or even below 2000 section. I prefer to study middle game and endgames and classics before 2000 level and after 2000+ we can focus on making nice and two kinds of opening repo. One is positional repo and another is attacking because my approach is to play attacking against positional players and positional against attacking player.

I really appreciate the efforts you invested in making a nice article.

It's helpful thanks a lot.

Abhi yadav

Abhi yadav 4 months ago

I am also trying to focus on tactics because I think it sharpen our calculation and visualization.

So I am going to pick a book on forcing moves by Charles Hertan.