It's just not true that weak players sit around and hope for tactical jokes to happen. People in the 1500-2000 I have met always seem to have one or a few ideas connected to what they play e.g Space, weaknessesa and patterns. They look for those and just fool around. Usually with very or terribad or sometimes no calculation. Yes, when they are in a bad position they start looking for tactical tricks which just aren't there in the position. The laws of chess are quite cruel.

By the way, these people make incredible competitors is like LOL what nonsense. What GM's and IM's do for a living is having a set of rules (openingbook remembered in words rather than moves) and play according to this. Then when playing an amateur it's waiting for when they do something strange. At this moment they decide what the difference is with the 'main line' think up why the move must be bad. Expose all its weaknesses. Get the advantage and drive it home. Simple! I play that way myself, not being a serious player scoring

I've got lots to say and teach it's just different with the people who want to learn something.

Matt Since August 2009 92 Games 76 Wins 16 draws 0 Losses

I don't know where your meeting players like this. I met a lot of 2100+ players who simply, as you put it, "sit around and hope for tactical jokes to happen." Maybe people are just that much weaker in the US, but I doubt it.

The French Defense is a man's opening. Enough said.

Last year I played 10 matches in the league competition in Belgium playing people all between 2100 and 2300 (scoring 9,5/10 by the way). Usually where IS a plan, just bad calculation and execution! for instance against someone rated 2160:

1. e4 c6 2. d4 g6 3. c4 Bg7 4. Nc3 d6 5. Nf3 a6 6. Be3 Bg4
7. Qb3 Qc7 8. Nd2 e5 9. dxe5 Bxe5 10. f4 Bg7 11. Bd3 f6 12. O-O Be6 13. Nd5 Bxd5 14. Bb6 Qf7 15. exd5 Ne7 16. Ne4 Nc8 17. Ng5 fxg5 18. Rae1+ Kd7 19. fxg5 1-0

it was obvious he wanted his King's Indian with b5 under better circumstances. Yet when it came to calculating Bg4 Qb3 hw failed. This kinda people only play for their idea and execute is badly.

I present you another example from last night me playing white blindfold simul:

1. e4 e5 2. f4 d5 3. exd5 Qxd5 4. Nc3 Qe6 5. fxe5 Qxe5+ 6.
Be2 Nc6 7. Nf3 Qc5 8. d4 Qb6 9. d5 Nb4 10. a3 Na6 11. Ne5 Bc5 12. Rf1 Nh6 13. Bb5+ Ke7 14. Qe2 Kd8 15. Bxh6 c6 16. Nxf7+ Kc7 17. Bf4+ Bd6 18. Bxd6+ Kd7 19.Qe6# 1-0

Tactical mistakes the poor guy (1540) was just clueless, but it was clear he was trying to develop while failing to notice any tactical nuances!

Two weeks ago in the clubcompetition against someone rated 1630:
Obviously the idea being keeping is simple and safe (Bd2) was the first mistake after this white misses a tempo. Then later Nc6 uncovers problems with d4 black is already better. The main goal in the exchange variation has been reaches occupying e4/e5 and a tactical stupid mistake decides.

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Bb4 4. exd5 exd5 5. Bd2 Nf6 6.
Nf3 O-O 7. Bd3 Bg4 8. O-O Nc6 9. a3 Bxc3 10. Bxc3 Ne4 11. Re1 Re8 12. Re3 f5 13. Be2 f4 14. Rd3 Bf5 15. Bd2 g5 16. b4 Nd6 17. Rb3 g4 18. Ne5 Nxd4 19. Nd3 Nxe2+ 0-1
Played to celebrate the start of the Tour The France (A)

I've got many more examples! the problem is tactical, not ideas!

Matt, Matt...*deep sigh* What am I gonna do with ya?

Listen, you've attacking MrF and me for things we never posted. Do you ever bother to read?

How about cereal boxes? Do you at least read those?

And your posts provide less information than the back of those boxes!

Kasparov spoke of the KID as being "difficult, positionally very difficult". He was alluding to many factors, but space is surely one of them.

I've played the KID for years, probably even before you were born, and it's HARD. White can squeeze for a long, lonnnnng time. Many top GMs have thought it lacked enough space--Korchnoi, Kramnik, etc. And they made a killing against the KID.

Let me put it another way. When is the last time we saw the KID in a world championship match? Ever heard of the Slav? Think there's a big reason why so many play it and not the KID?

I recommend it, though, for class players. Paradoxically, though I fear White's spatial advantage, I love playing the KID now and then, precisely because it's so challenging and a win with the KID can be exhilarating. But there are better defenses to the Queen Pawn--even an old KID diehard like me can cop to that!

As for space, in general, being an advantage...that's practically speaking an almost endless topic, so my remarks will be brief. Just what makes space such a sweet thing to have is debatable, but I love it because the threats you can generate with it are harder to counter because they're so indeterminate, they're tough for the opponent to keep in the forefront of his mind, especially when his clock is running low and he's focused on the purely tactical stuff.

Space--it's a many-splendored thing. And only fools rush in to downgrade its applicability to many positions.

Now, MrF, don't be so hard on IM Watson. That guy wrote some fine books which I want my future opponents to read and absorb and apply religiously. Let them eschew so-called general principles and calculate everything. That way they can get a very subtle, hard to convert advantage, maybe even a clear plus, against me--BUT have very little time left to figure out how to win. Yeah, they could use general principles to save time, but they love to calculate, right? I want them to be principled, and to be pure. As for players of my sordid ilk, well, we'll just keep on swinging the brass knuckles and jabbing in the WWI trench knives.

The back streets, baby. It'll gitcha nearly every time.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

"Tough guys, he said, time to place your bets."--Charles Simic

Listen, you know how it works, if you claim something bring proof. If you say I don't read something state what I didnt read followed by what the piece of text means and the consequences it had on my reaction. You don't mr empty shell. I come up with material when needed so the only thing I can say is: learn from me.

I refuse to accept statements like the Kings Indian isn't as sound or good as the Slav because it's dangerous to play with less space and white 'can' press on. Firstly because it's like comparing the best of the slav (space) with the worst of the King's Indian (space). And Secondly because the risk in the King's Indian is compensated by the potential of the counter attack.

Once you come to terms with this it's quite obvious that the KID is just another good way of playing against 1.d4 and it's just a matter of taste and playing environment.

You continue with your own practise and how you favor space and what it does for you. Basically this is exactly what I was saying in my previous post. Usually the 'improving' player tries to aim something that is static or visible or both because those are 'easy' to learn and spot whereas Dynamics are much more felt and need some trained talent.

It's exactly those qualities which come out when playing the KID, the feel for the game which makes the KID and amateur killer for strong players. I'll end with a quote from one of my books (Modernes Skandinavisch - Wahls)

'Bei dieser Bauernstruktur kann ubrigens per Definition von einem lcihten weiBen Raumvorteil gesprochen werden, was uns nicht waiter beunruhigen sollte. Raumvorteil namlich is noch kein Wert an sich, wie beispielweise eine MEhrfigur'

Guys like you put me off writing long posts that quote and cite stuff; you'd just ignore it and come back with the written equivalent of a four-year-old sticking his tongue out and then saying, "Yeah, so what, I'm right, you're wrong!"

Basically, I'm not going to waste much time on ignorant, mouthy, arrogant types like you.

You don't know much about my games but you imply that you do--dismissively, and of course, ignorantly. For all you know, my games are filled with dynamic counter-attacks (actually, many are!); and I recall posting some Sicilian Defense games that included some really killer tactics. You've obviously forgotten about that or didn't bother to play them over.

As for the debate between the Slav and the KID supporters--I wasn't really entering that. I said play the KID if you're a non-master because I think it's more fun to play than some other d-pawn defenses. Of course, the KID's good enough to win plenty of games--but that doesn't mean its theoretical soundness hasn't been challenged by many eminent grandmasters--as I also noted.

As for space being something that falls into the category of "static" or "visible"--no, sorry, wrong again. It's subtle, fluid, and takes years of playing and study to even begin to get a handle on it--hey, much like "dynamics"! Beim has some good stuff on this in his underrated book on Morphy. I've played over every game that Morphy played--have you? Speaking of more recent players, there's Shirov--certainly he knows something about dynamics! Played over all his games, have you? Studied them enough to be able to quote whole games? Yes? No? Could it be that the non-titled, non-rated CK knows something more about dynamics than the great Matt? Hmm, could be.

So what are you jabbering about now? Nothing, as usual.

Why I bother, god knows!

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

"Tough guys, he said, time to place your bets."--Charles Simic