| |
Main
Date: 27 Jun 2005 15:01:17
From:
Subject: "Opening" nomenclature: confusing?
|
The question "What is an opening?" is not altogether as trivial as it
might appear. One sees references to an individual who is known for
"the opening he habitually plays", or to books promising to
teach/analyze a specific opening "for white" or "for black", and this
strongly suggests to the novice that an opening is the initial set of
moves played by one side, or a line of play retaining that name
regardless of what the opponent does (with "variations" in the same
"opening" responding fluidly to the opponent's counterplay or else
expressing the whims of the opener).
This may in some cases be true, but in others an "opening" is defined
from the collective movements of both players.
For example, a novice playing White and determined (as "his opening")
to put a pawn at e4, a knight at f3, and a bishop at b5 (with Black
having a knight at c6) may imagine that he is playing the Ruy Lopez;
but in fact, under such circumstances it is Black's choice of opening
pawn which determines the opening. With a pawn at e5, it is Ruy Lopez
(C60); with a pawn at c5 it is the Sicilian (B30).
Quite often then, it seems that an "opening" is determined only if two
players follow a characteristic script, not if only one does (whether
the other player plays a different script or no script at all).
Comments? Clarifications? Objections?
.
k Adkins
[email protected]
|
|
| |
Date: 29 Jun 2005 12:43:52
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: "Opening" nomenclature: confusing?
|
> The question "What is an opening?" is not altogether as trivial as it
> might appear. One sees references to an individual who is known for
> "the opening he habitually plays", or to books promising to
> teach/analyze a specific opening "for white" or "for black", and this
> strongly suggests to the novice that an opening is the initial set of
> moves played by one side, or a line of play retaining that name
> regardless of what the opponent does (with "variations" in the same
> "opening" responding fluidly to the opponent's counterplay or else
> expressing the whims of the opener).
AN opening is always dependent on what both players do. One plays the
opening, while the other takes that opening into a variation, and so forth.
THE opening refers to the beginning part of the game.
Kind of like the term "line" (which can mean a variation or an open file or
diagonal).
|
| |
Date: 28 Jun 2005 11:10:24
From: Bob Fairbank
Subject: Re: "Opening" nomenclature: confusing?
|
Trying to define an "Opening" is like trying to answer the question: "How
high is up?"
And just as practical.
[email protected] wrote:
> The question "What is an opening?" is not altogether as trivial as it
> might appear. One sees references to an individual who is known for
> "the opening he habitually plays", or to books promising to
> teach/analyze a specific opening "for white" or "for black", and this
> strongly suggests to the novice that an opening is the initial set of
> moves played by one side, or a line of play retaining that name
> regardless of what the opponent does (with "variations" in the same
> "opening" responding fluidly to the opponent's counterplay or else
> expressing the whims of the opener).
>
> This may in some cases be true, but in others an "opening" is defined
> from the collective movements of both players.
>
> For example, a novice playing White and determined (as "his opening")
> to put a pawn at e4, a knight at f3, and a bishop at b5 (with Black
> having a knight at c6) may imagine that he is playing the Ruy Lopez;
> but in fact, under such circumstances it is Black's choice of opening
> pawn which determines the opening. With a pawn at e5, it is Ruy Lopez
> (C60); with a pawn at c5 it is the Sicilian (B30).
>
> Quite often then, it seems that an "opening" is determined only if two
> players follow a characteristic script, not if only one does (whether
> the other player plays a different script or no script at all).
>
> Comments? Clarifications? Objections?
>
> .
> k Adkins
> [email protected]
|
| |
Date: 28 Jun 2005 01:19:01
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: "Opening" nomenclature: confusing?
|
<[email protected] > wrote:
> Quite often then, it seems that an "opening" is determined only if two
> players follow a characteristic script, not if only one does (whether
> the other player plays a different script or no script at all).
Yes, the opening is chosen by both players: I can't play the Sicilian if
you open 1.d4. Books that claim to teach you how to play the Black side
of the Sicilian are assuming that White will play along with your
plan; books that teach you to play the White side of the Sicilian are
likewise useless if your opponent plays 1... e5 (or if you don't play
1.e4).
Dave.
--
David Richerby Mouldy Game (TM): it's like a family
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ board game but it's starting to grow
mushrooms!
|
|
