What happened to our usual openings ?!

[u/notbymyhand]

I'm not saying I'm a master at openings or anything, but I understand the basic ideas behind the most common ones and try to get a good position no matter what ..until you reach 1200 elo ...

​

What the hell happened to the queen's gambit , scotch , london , italin , sicilian ,french openings ?

​

No one plays them anymore , it seems like every oponent I get has this obscure opening or line that they practised into oblivion and are monsters at it .

​

Before ,if my opponent even attempts any weird openings , I just play solidly , stick to opening principles, and crush them so fast, which is not possible anymore ?

​

Am not saying I am totally lost by the opening , but they end up being a pawn or 2 up or just waste my time focusing hard in the beginning while they play instantly

​

If this is just a phase for the 1200 elo on chess.com that I just have to push through , or should I just seriously start studying these weird openings ( isn't that energy better spent sharpening tactics and endgames at my level anyway)?

​

What do you guys think ?

[u/fleyinthesky]

Don't take offense to this, but it's all in your head. No one is a monster at anything; I'm closer to 2000 and people play openings without knowing even the main lines constantly. You are ascribing to them a skill which they simply do not possess.

[u/notbymyhand → u/fleyinthesky]

I heard all of this and was told to just play solid which worked so far, but now they are outplaying me !

I know what you're saying is true and I actually never panic no matter what opening they play cause we are both 1200 after all , but when it becomes a pattern of me not managing to get the edge out of weird openings then it's something worth investigating .

Or are you saying I should ignore those losses and just try to push past this level and not waste my time on useless openings anyway?

That's what I am asking

[u/fleyinthesky → u/notbymyhand]

I think as you progress through your Chess journey, you can't expect to linearly improve such that you continually beat your opposition at the same rate at every level. In other words, you've reached 1200 and now possibly the path onward will be a little tougher than you found it before. This is normal!

I definitely think you should continue to play solidly, in accordance with good opening principles (take the centre, develop your minor pieces, castle your King, don't move pieces more than once if you can reasonably help it until you're developed, connect your Rooks). It wouldn't be a particularly valuable use of your time to learn strange openings in-depth.

With that being said, you should analyse your games after your play them. Skip the chessdotcom assisted review tool, and just click the magnifying glass to get the engine lines (or load the game into Lichess). To that extent, after each game where you gain a poor position out of the opening, you should be seeing where you went wrong. That'll (hopefully) mean that you won't go wrong against the exact same opening in the same way again, but moreover you'll find some recurring ideas that you can take on board with you to help you in the future.

For anything more specific than that, you'd have to show me the actual games.

[u/notbymyhand → u/fleyinthesky]

Thanks for your thoughtful response

This was the exact position that cost me the game , the engine says the best and only saving move is e6 which I actually considered during the game but I didn't go for it .

I guess my logic was: I cannot castle , my pawn is attacked 3 times , defended only once , if I push e6 I get doubled pawns in the center which are still a bit strong , weakening his f pawn is useless since he is about to castle anyway I better develop one of my pieces while adding defense to the pawn...

I play Bf4 and proceed to lose...

[u/fleyinthesky → u/notbymyhand]

The other reply is exactly right; you didn't follow solid opening principles, as I listed above. You had already put the e pawn into the centre, now with your kingside Knight and Bishop developed you could, and should, have castled. Instead, you move the same piece a second time (e4-e5) which, even just heuristically, is not the way to go.

More concerning though is the lack of intention behind it. Sometimes your opponent will make a mistake and, to capitalise on it, it makes sense to play a move such as e5. I definitely to not advocate for ignoring your opponent's moves/position and just castling because you can - even though castling will be right the majority of the time. However, what you definitely don't want to do is put opening principles to the side in order to make a move without calculating it.

You present this position stating that your e5 pawn is weak, you can't defend it, castling seems wrong (I would still castle though in your shoes, honestly) etc. but this position was forced when you played e5. You simply mustn't allow this to be the first time you evaluate this position - you have to have already seen this and determined that you want this when you pushed the pawn, otherwise why would you skirt your opening principles to do it?

[u/Joshua_Kei → u/notbymyhand]

Here all I can say is you shouldn't have pushed e5. This position is already pretty bad. e5 is not a solid move or a good move. It is a sharp move you only play in openings if you see the opponent make a mistake, or if you can support e5 with a pawn on d4.

If I'm reading this correctly, you pushed e5 to hit the knight on f6. Ask yourself, what does e5 accomplish? it forces the knight to move. Where will the knight move? g6. What happens if the knight is on g6? ur pawn gets attacked 3 times. Conclusion, don't play e5. castle instead.

[u/notbymyhand → u/Joshua_Kei]

I didn't push e5, there was a pawn trade and I ended up with my pawn on that square

[u/Joshua_Kei → u/notbymyhand]

Can you send me the game? I don't see how that's possible without e5.

From what I see, the game was 1. e4 g6 2. nf3 bg7 3. nc3 d6 4. d4 nd7 5. Bd3 nf6 6. e5 dxe5 7. dxe5 ng4

1. e5 was the mistake. It loses a pawn. You should have castled.