Hello everybody, I have a question for u all: would u participate in Game of the Month if 1. e3 wasn't allowed for White and Black? It would increase uniqueness and creativity of the games. Share ur opinion: yes or no but anyway please be polite. If this idea isn't welcomed, the rules won't be changed.
You mean 1.e6 for black I presume. Ok anyway let me be clear about this. No I do not welcome at all a game of the Month competition without 1.e3 in October because 1.e3 is a proved win for white. Of course we are human beings and we can't see all the variations but still changing you can accept all games even not the 1.e3 ones but restricting the 1.e3 ones would be unfair for me and Valentino and Flo if he wants to participate because we only play that opening. I barely play 1.a4 but lately I haven't played it. I have a 50 move rule draw game that I am about to submit in October and it would be unfair to restrict 1.e3 for that. Thank you for listening!
Even without e3 people still can have good games — a3 arena proved it. So openings are just choice, not skill, that's my point. But let's listen to different opinions
A full ban feels a bit heavy, but I definitely agree with the concept that the openings should be as varied as possible to show newer players what is possible... Also it would get boring if every month was e3.
Even though I think its a good idea , I don't think wise to implement this idea only after three months the gotm concept was introduced. Also the participants are already (21 game posts in september gotm ) less . So you should hold on this until more player starts to post in gotm competition.
@Siddiq1911 said in #6:
> Even though I think its a good idea , I don't think wise to implement this idea only after three months the gotm concept was introduced. Also the participants are already (21 game posts in september gotm ) less . So you should hold on this until more player starts to post in gotm competition.
agree wholeheartedly
@WhyDoIPlayHere said in #4:
> Even without e3 people still can have good games — a3 arena proved it. So openings are just choice, not skill, that's my point. But let's listen to different opinions
I completely agree with that. I really enjoyed the a3 arena and hope that such tournaments will turn into series (where you don't play 1.e3 or 1.c4 but some more extraordinary opening). In the forementioned arena, I still managed to play some perfect games, even though 1.a3 is considered much better for black. So, yes, I share the same opinion like you - at high level openings don't matter that much unless you have decided to play something that loses instantly.
In conclusion, I approve the idea of having a GotM without games starting with 1.e3 - it will simply make it more entertaining and fun.
To this question I say no.
I'm only playing 1:e3 and can't imagine to play something other(Well vs. opponents whose tacticts vs. 1. e3 I don't like, I'm playing 1:g3).
But there(1:g3) I know no tactics and etc. and playing not so good games(the mostly I lose).
I say that for the beginners its better if they are learning what is the best tactic(1.e3) when watch at the GotM and what you have to play vs. it(1:e3).
Thx for reading
Greetings Udi
My thoughts on this:
Banning an opening completely doesn't do anything. We have had some spectacular beauties in 1. e3 lines before too.
So, instead, change the GotM selection process so that games that come out of very commonly played lines do not get as much credit as novelties. This would also take care of the fact that people can play memorised lines in other openings.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.