Log in
| 1 | ||
| 1 | ||
| 1 | ||
| 1 | ||
| 1 |
This one is for white. If you play e3, you're developing your white squared bishop, and you can just keep your king where it is. The dark squared bishop should stay in place, it helps protect the e3 pawn so that it has three defenders. Your d and f pawns should also stay in place to protect the king from diagonal attacks. Then you can attack the flanks quickly.
What I do is 1. c4 to have some control over the centre. If your opponent doesn't respond with e5 then you play Nf3 to prevent e5 afterwards. Then 3. e3. Later in the game you can line up your light square bishop on d3 and your queen on c2 for an attack on the king's side. Likewise you can push the pawns on both flanks to attack those. I figured most people castle on the king's side so I'm trying to attack that from the very beginning simply anticipating it. If he decides to castle on the queen's side instead then fine, I'll attack that flank instead. My king's in the middle so I'm free to push my flank pawns.
I used this strategy for the first time today and one. There was a brief moment where his d pawn threatened to take my e3 pawn and I wouldn't be able to take it back with either of the pawns defending it because they were both pinned, the d pawn to the queen and the f pawn to the king. Well, I saw that and properly defended. That was the only moment my king was in any form of danger. He had castled on the queen's side and I had no issue attacking it with my queen, a knight, two pawns, and later a bishop and castle as well.
@x0x7
I'm not the best at visualizing based on coordinates. I don't want to attack the strategy because I can't fully see it. Something I'm wondering is if we are under developing the center and under developing in general. We are down at least a bishop because it's staying behind to give a pawn three defenders. That's basically the same as losing 3 points of material for most of the game. It also means it's harder for our rooks to meetup and there isn't a cleared center file to centralize the rooks to get stronger mid-game central control. Instead we need both rooks to get out from under flank pawns which isn't always consistent for one.
Doing your initial attack with a queen and a minor piece feels very scholar's mate. Usually falls apart once you have an opponent that knows how to prevent you from moving those pieces effectively. The queen is easy to get tempos on and the knight has even less movement options than the bishop so tying things down is potentially easier than a queen and bishop attack (which is weak anyway).
But if you won you won. I should embed some chess here.
I don't agree with the equation between an underdeveloped bishop and being down one because in the latter case, you won't have it no matter how far the game progresses, that's the whole pain of being down a piece. In the former case it's simply asleep, to be activated later, and sure you miss out on the ability to make some good moves from it being inactive, but what you gained instead was tempo in other areas of the board because you chose instead to develop other pieces or move pawns. Plus as a defense it prevents your opponent from making a potentially devastating attack on the king. It's a conscious decision to overdefend the d and e pawn because you gotta take caution with a king in the middle. Plus it doesn't need to move. There's an elegance to it when two of your pieces are on the intended position at the beginning of the game.
Nonetheless there is some flexibility. You just need to push your b pawn to make room for the bishop on b2, then it can help in the attack, and I often do that. It's just not one of the first moves I'm making.
Also a note about the centre: the point of 1. c4 is to have some grip on the centre as it attacks the d5 square, and if the opponent doesn't respond with e5, the next move is Nf3, also attacking e5. When the queen and bishop are lined up, they attack e4 so that the opponent can't push the e pawn too much.
That's right. It's simply a very different playing style where you aren't trying to do those things with the rooks. I don't really need to connect the rooks. I'm simply taking caution to prevent the issue. When I place the dark square bishop on b3, that protects the a1 rook from shenanigans, and after I've developed the b1 knight, I often move Ra1-b1 where it's definitely safe. I do often connect the rooks as well since e2 is a nice place for the king, depending mostly on whether or not the opponent still has the white square bishop as e2 is a white square that's exposed diagonally. So I connect them a bit later on in the game after the b1 knight and c1 bishop have developed.
With scholar's mate you're bringing your queen forward too much, early in the game, and it's a one trick pony kind of thing, if the opponent defends it with often just a single move, there is no point anymore to your queen being there. With this strategy the queen comes to the second rank but it's still tucked away more or less. You do need to be cautious about the knight because after black plays Nc6 he can bring it to b4 where it attacks the queen on c2. So after Nc6 you should immediately defend with a3. Which is sort of what you want to do anyway since it can support the b pawn on b4, and doing that in turn allows you to bring the dark square bishop to b2. So it's part of your regular development. And that knight is the only piece in practice that gains a tempo on the queen there.
Yes, would be cool. Imo you should make it a possible embed for the chat room with seats that can freely be taken and abandoned.
To be fair it is hard to visualize. I saw the game you linked and it's way easier to see than when I wrote that comment.
There is a lot of embedded shit I want to do in the chat. I'm realizing the movie player is the least cool thing I can do. The laziest cool thing I can do is just embed my multi-player snake. That would be instantly easy because it's already made.
http://speedy.gvid.tv/msnake
The pipe dream version is making something in godot where we live make a game with each other in chat while playing it. But that is very pipe dreamy because I'd want it to be very back end driven for the multi-player (slave client) and basically let people submit code for agents on the back end. But I'd have to pick a language that people would actually feel comfortable with. Maybe Javascript is more realistic than Elixir.
That snake is basically the same architecture and written in javascript running on the backend and sending render instructions to the front end. I've proven the same concept with 3D using babylon.js as the slave. Made a little explosive drone game / technical demo.
We could make 3D multi-player snake but it's a Cessna simulator in a city. Maybe we've got some kind of nerve gas chem-trails you can't even fly through. And you have to collect more nerve gas to get a longer chem-trail.