Timeline for Can a single player's choice of opening dictate a more (or less) aggressive game?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
5 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 13, 2012 at 18:38 | history | edited | Daniel | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 17 characters in body
|
| Jun 6, 2012 at 6:45 | vote | accept | javatutorial | ||
| Jun 5, 2012 at 19:40 | comment | added | Akavall | A great example where closed position turns into a tactical struggle is King's Indian Defense. | |
| Jun 5, 2012 at 11:31 | comment | added | javatutorial |
Everything you said is true :) and in general it's quite simple to turn an "open game" closed. For example: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.d3, from this 2-Knight Defence variant games tends to be positional, even after the "open" 1.e4 e5, and this choice is all in White's hand, who initially chose 1.e4 (a tipical "aggressive" start). But is there a way, on the contrary, to turn into a tactical struggle a closed opening, such as 1.d4 d5, for example?
|
|
| Jun 5, 2012 at 10:43 | history | answered | Teofrostus | CC BY-SA 3.0 |