Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Are there openings everyone should learn first? (Read 53798 times)
Willempie
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 4312
Location: Holland
Joined: 01/07/05
Re: Are there openings everyone should learn first?
Reply #24 - 01/28/11 at 08:54:44
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 01/28/11 at 02:49:45:
You aren't going to argue that I am better at these beginners openings than Timmer and Campora, are you?
Grin

Why not? They apparently havent read Schwartz' books or the lopening books of Euwe Wink

But more seriously. I tend to agree with Descartes here. Plus I see a problem with focusing on specific classical openings. You tend to recognise the patterns specific to those openings, but get completely lost in other open positions, in particular (semi) endgames like those you get from the Lasker.
  

If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ReneDescartes
God Member
*****
Offline


Qu'est-ce donc que je
suis? Une chose qui pense.

Posts: 1236
Joined: 05/17/10
Gender: Male
Re: Are there openings everyone should learn first?
Reply #23 - 01/28/11 at 04:25:57
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 01/28/11 at 02:33:48:
As I've said umpteen times, open positions are fundamental because, in general, closed and semi-open chess positions tend to become open.  The most important question in these positions is how and when best to open up the game; when to play ...c5 in the Caro, for instance; when to play ...fxe5 and ...Rxf3 in the French; when to play ...Rxc3 in the Sicilian; when to play ...d5 in the Scheveningen or the Hedgehog; when to play ...b5 in the Kalashnikov, sacking your b-pawn to cxb5 so that you can get in ...d5.  You just can't have a sense of that if you don't understand play in open positions.  I concede, there are some profoundly closed positions, like you see in the Mar del Plata, or the Advance French with ...c5-c4, where this doesn't apply.  But it's fundamental nonetheless.

I particularly don't agree that variations among people are sufficiently important to determine how they should study chess.  There may be some very extreme people for whom my point is invalid, but in principle, there are some things that you absolutely must understand about chess, and the essential one is how to play open positions.  You take our chessfriend Lev Zilbermints for example, and his easy acquaintance with active piece play in the Blackmar-Diemer.  I say without equivocation, that is a much better foundation for chess improvement than any given 2000-level player's supposed understanding of the King's Indian or the Najdorf Sicilian.  My friend Lev might be marooned on the Island of Gambit Psychosis, but that island is closer to real chess achievement than the Island of You Must Discover Your Style.  Of course you have to go beyond it, but understanding open positions is the sine qua non.  My opinion.


Well, perhaps the mainland of "You must repair your deficiencies and highlight your skills" is closer to my idea.

I can't help but think that this is a case of one  taste being elevated to the status of a universal standard. Such a process makes up the very sand on the Isle of Zilbermints, but the Markovich doctrine does it as well. You prescribe open games. The open games are not identical with open positions or with tactics. Your own point that closed positions eventually open up proves that, for goodness' sake!

Why should a 2000-level player's "supposed understanding" of the Najdorf be inferior to his alleged understanding of the Tarrasch? I know 1.e4 e5 players who are stalled at 1900 because they are mystified by positional chess--even after reading a positional manual.  And I know players who have improved most when they studied some opening like the K.I.D., and who still do not thrive in double-king-pawn openings.  Why do you think such people are so rare?  Maybe because you teach people open games and it works. More power to you. But many teachers teach other things, on a case by-case basis, and that works, too.

In this respect chess isn't algebra, it's war. And there's more than one way to fight a war.
« Last Edit: 01/28/11 at 11:07:27 by ReneDescartes »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10756
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Are there openings everyone should learn first?
Reply #22 - 01/28/11 at 02:49:45
Post Tools
Willempie wrote on 01/27/11 at 18:35:14:
Actually you are contradicting your own point. Apparently you are better at these "beginner opeinings", which suggests your opponents havent studied them much. Yet as you say, they are clearly better players. But that can't be as they havent followed Mnb/Markovich's recipe Wink


Two games in which my two opponents were more aware of the Markovich recipe:

Timmer,R (2275) - Blokhuis,E [D34]
Eindhoven Open Eindhoven, 1988

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.g3 Nc6 6.Bg2 Nf6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Nc3 0-0 9.Bg5 cxd4 10.Nxd4 Re8 11.Rc1 h6 12.Be3 Bg4 13.h3 Be6 14.Qc2 Rc8 15.Rfd1 Qd7 16.Nxe6 fxe6 17.f4 Bb4 18.Bf2 Qf7 19.a3 Bf8 20.e4 d4 21.Ne2 e5 22.fxe5 Nxe5 23.Qxc8 Rxc8 24.Rxc8 d3 25.Nc3 Qd7 26.Ra8 b6 27.Nd5 Kf7 28.Rc1 Bc5 29.Bxc5 bxc5 30.Rb8 Qa4 31.Rb7+ Kg6 32.b3 Qd4+ 33.Kh2 d2 34.Nf4+ Kh7 35.Rd1 Nfg4+ 36.hxg4 Nxg4+ 37.Kh3 Nf2+ 38.Kh2 Nxd1 39.Ne6 Qe5 40.Re7 Qh5+ 0-1

Mungroo,F - Campora Sivori,D (2549) [C50]
Olympiade-36 Calviá, Mallorca (1.34), 15.10.2004

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.0-0 Nf6 5.d3 d6 6.Bg5 h6 7.Bxf6 Qxf6 8.c3 Ne7 9.d4 Bb6 10.dxe5 dxe5 11.Nbd2 Ng6 12.Re1 Nf4 13.Nf1 Bg4 14.Ne3 Nh3+ 15.Kf1 Bxf3 16.Qxf3 Qxf3 17.gxf3 0-0 18.Rad1 Rfd8 19.Rxd8+ Rxd8 20.Rd1 Rxd1+ 21.Nxd1 Kf8 22.Ne3 c6 23.Ke1 h5 24.Bf1 Nf4 25.b4 g6 26.a4 Ke7 27.Nc4 Bc7 28.Kd2 h4 29.a5 b6 30.axb6 axb6 31.Ne3 b5 32.Ng2 Nh3 33.Ke1 Bb6 34.Ne3 Ng5 35.Be2 Ba7 36.Bd1 Nh3 37.Kf1 Nf4 38.Bc2 h3 39.Ng4 Bb8 40.Ne3 Bd6 41.Bb1 Kf8 42.Ke1 Kg7 43.Kd2 Ng2 44.Nf1 Be7 45.Ng3 Bg5+ 46.Kd1 Kf8 47.Bd3 Bf4 48.Ke2 Bh6 49.Kd1 Ke7 50.c4 bxc4 51.Bxc4 Be3 52.Ke2 Bb6 53.b5 Nf4+ 54.Ke1 Ba5+ 55.Kd1 cxb5 56.Bxb5 Ne6 57.Ne2 Bb6 58.Ke1 Kf6 59.Bc4 Nf4 ˝-˝

You aren't going to argue that I am better at these beginners openings than Timmer and Campora, are you?
Grin
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Are there openings everyone should learn first?
Reply #21 - 01/28/11 at 02:33:48
Post Tools
ReneDescartes wrote on 01/28/11 at 02:25:41:
I don't think this contradicts the point; I think the idea is that lack of experience with openings which feature lively piece play, with a lot of pieces active on a relatively open board (that does distinguish the Tarrasch from the Lasker, by the way), imposes a relative limitation on a player's rating, i.e. wherever they are, they could have been farther along had they gained this experience early on., and they may stall more easily at some level.

I myself don't subscribe to this viewpoint as a universal, but it shouldn't be oversimplified. I do think people are too varied to generalize in this way.  Playing in open positions with a lot of pieces is a very important skill, but there are many very important skills in chess, the absence of any one of which can be a limiting factor. Just look at what happens to a player who is afraid of endgames.


I agree about the importance of endgames, but this isn't really germaine in a discussion of chess openings and the sort of middle games they lead to.  As I've said umpteen times, open positions are fundamental because, in general, closed and semi-open chess positions tend to become open.  The most important question in these positions is how and when best to open up the game; when to play ...c5 in the Caro, for instance; when to play ...fxe5 and ...Rxf3 in the French; when to play ...Rxc3 in the Sicilian; when to play ...d5 in the Scheveningen or the Hedgehog; when to play ...b5 in the Kalashnikov, sacking your b-pawn to cxb5 so that you can get in ...d5.  You just can't have a sense of that if you don't understand play in open positions.  I concede, there are some profoundly closed positions, like you see in the Mar del Plata, or the Advance French with ...c5-c4, where this doesn't apply.  But it's fundamental nonetheless.

I particularly don't agree that variations among people are sufficiently important to determine how they should study chess.  There may be some very extreme people for whom my point is invalid, but in principle, there are some things that you absolutely must understand about chess, and the essential one is how to play open positions.  You take our chessfriend Lev Zilbermints for example, and his easy acquaintance with active piece play in the Blackmar-Diemer.  I say without equivocation, that is a much better foundation for chess improvement than any given 2000-level player's supposed understanding of the King's Indian or the Najdorf Sicilian.  My friend Lev might be marooned on the Island of Gambit Psychosis, but that island is closer to real chess achievement than the Island of You Must Discover Your Style.  Of course you have to go beyond it, but understanding open positions is the sine qua non.  My opinion.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ReneDescartes
God Member
*****
Offline


Qu'est-ce donc que je
suis? Une chose qui pense.

Posts: 1236
Joined: 05/17/10
Gender: Male
Re: Are there openings everyone should learn first?
Reply #20 - 01/28/11 at 02:25:41
Post Tools
I don't think this contradicts the point; I think the idea is that lack of experience with openings which feature lively piece play, with a lot of pieces active on a relatively open board (that does distinguish the Tarrasch from the Lasker, by the way), imposes a relative limitation on a player's rating; i.e. wherever they are, they could have been farther along had they gained this experience early on, and they also may stall more easily at some level if they haven't had it.

I myself don't regard this as a universal truth, but it clearly applies to some people, and it shouldn't be oversimplified. On the other hand, I do think people are too varied to generalize in this way.  Playing in open positions with a lot of pieces is a very important skill, but there are other very important skills in chess, the absence of any one of which can become a limiting factor. Just look at what happens to a player who is afraid of endgames.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Willempie
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 4312
Location: Holland
Joined: 01/07/05
Re: Are there openings everyone should learn first?
Reply #19 - 01/27/11 at 18:35:14
Post Tools
MNb wrote on 01/27/11 at 18:01:13:
I subscribe this with one important modification: only a dim understanding of the game at beginners level.

Let me illustrate Markovich' point with two wins of myself against clearly stronger opponents.

MNb - Blokhuis,E [C21]
Gent, 1988
1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Bc4 Nc6 5.Nf3 cxb2 6.Bxb2 d6 7.Qb3 Qe7 8.0–0 Nf6 9.Nc3 Ne5 10.Nxe5 dxe5 11.f4 Ng4 12.Nd5 Qc5+ 13.Kh1 Bd6 14.h3 h5 15.Rac1 1–0

Mungroo,F - MNb [C55]
Interclub Suriname, 02.2002
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.e5 d5 6.Bb5 Ne4 7.Nxd4 Bc5 8.0–0 0–0 9.Bxc6 bxc6 10.f3 f6 11.exf6 Qxf6 12.c3 Ba6 13.Re1 Qh4 14.fxe4 Qf2+ 15.Kh1 Bf1 0–1

Why did I win these games? Simply, I used all my pieces, my opponents didn't and all I had to do was to find some decisive tactics. Which is why so many instruction books stress the rule: play with all your pieces.
The choice of openings at beginners level should match this rule. It's surprising how many openings do.

Actually you are contradicting your own point. Apparently you are better at these "beginner opeinings", which suggests your opponents havent studied them much. Yet as you say, they are clearly better players. But that can't be as they havent followed Mnb/Markovich's recipe Wink

Personally I dont see much use for specific openings. Yes, it is prolly better to play classic openings at first, but I dont see much difference between a Tarrasch, QGA, Lasker QGD, QGD exchange in benefits for the player's development. It all depends on the role within training. Playing the Tarrasch without a purpose in that respect is useless. I played it myself, but as I didnt have a clear purpose other then "opening the position" its benefits were minimal. The Budapest worked better for me at that stage of my develppment
  

If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10756
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Are there openings everyone should learn first?
Reply #18 - 01/27/11 at 18:01:13
Post Tools
Ametanoitos wrote on 01/27/11 at 17:13:06:
In fact i am in the process of studying now a variation that Mnb proposed for juniors. The Tartakower with a quick b6 (without ...h6) and ...exd5 after White plays cxd5. The same variation is given by Mc Donald as "playable for all of us that are not GMs" and i have started to construct a repertoire with it with the aim to use it in my lessons.

I have been thinking of this lately indeed but don't feel qualified (yet?) to judge if this fulfills the conditions as well.

Markovich wrote on 01/26/11 at 19:49:09:
as well as a set poorly reasoned counterarguments made by some well-meaning persons with, unfortunately, only a dim understanding of this game.

I subscribe this with one important modification: only a dim understanding of the game at beginners level.

Let me illustrate Markovich' point with two wins of myself against clearly stronger opponents.

MNb - Blokhuis,E [C21]
Gent, 1988
1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Bc4 Nc6 5.Nf3 cxb2 6.Bxb2 d6 7.Qb3 Qe7 8.0–0 Nf6 9.Nc3 Ne5 10.Nxe5 dxe5 11.f4 Ng4 12.Nd5 Qc5+ 13.Kh1 Bd6 14.h3 h5 15.Rac1 1–0

Mungroo,F - MNb [C55]
Interclub Suriname, 02.2002
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.e5 d5 6.Bb5 Ne4 7.Nxd4 Bc5 8.0–0 0–0 9.Bxc6 bxc6 10.f3 f6 11.exf6 Qxf6 12.c3 Ba6 13.Re1 Qh4 14.fxe4 Qf2+ 15.Kh1 Bf1 0–1

Why did I win these games? Simply, I used all my pieces, my opponents didn't and all I had to do was to find some decisive tactics. Which is why so many instruction books stress the rule: play with all your pieces.
The choice of openings at beginners level should match this rule. It's surprising how many openings do.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Ametanoitos
God Member
*****
Offline


The road to success is
under construction

Posts: 1427
Location: Patras
Joined: 01/04/05
Re: Are there openings everyone should learn first?
Reply #17 - 01/27/11 at 17:13:06
Post Tools
The great thing about the Tarrasch Defense is that it has been played by outstanding "classical" players (except from Tarrasch himself) like Rubinstein, Lasker, Capablanca,Euwe, Keres, Spassky and so on. So studying the Tarrasch you get involved in studying many great classical games. Also you learn how to play endgames! I hope that my endgame analysis of 4 vs 3 with one rook each on the same side (and all the different variations of the pawnstructure: doubled e or f pawn etc) will get to the final version of my QC book. Also many other typical endings can be reached from the Tarrasch (especialy Rook endings. I can understand now why Tarrasch called them to be "all equal!"). This is what i call "classical chess education". Except from the fact of course that the "Universal Tarrasch Structure" can be played against anyting with Black. Even against 1.e4! (It is called the French Defense then!). That was the original concept of my Greek book. To study this universal structure and the variations of the IQP's that appear from both sides.

I don't want to give the impression that i promote my book so i'll stop talking about the Tarrasch in this thread. As far as the Benko is concerned i too believe that it is a fantastic learnig tool for juniors. The main concept is that you want to go to an endgame where you have to play energetically to win. So, juniors get to love endgames by playing the Benko!

But, best is to learn a QGD variation and a bit later study the KID which will help understanding the Closed Spanish positions and the other way around. In fact i am in the process of studying now a variation that Mnb proposed for juniors. The Tartakower with a quick b6 (without ...h6) and ...exd5 after White plays cxd5. The same variation is given by Mc Donald as "playable for all of us that are not GMs" and i have started to construct a repertoire with it with the aim to use it in my lessons.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10756
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Are there openings everyone should learn first?
Reply #16 - 01/27/11 at 16:42:22
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 01/27/11 at 15:30:23:
@MNb: Well said.  Actually I went too far; I would also condone the Chigorin, the Albin and the Budapest.  And maybe you're right about the Benko.  The problem in all these cases is that White can cut off these possibilities with an early Nf3; not so the Tarrasch.  Also I just think that the Tarrasch, with its very standard IQP play (as you point out), is better for anyone's chess education.

Thanks. It's certainly not that I advise against the Tarrasch for beginners. There are a few players though - me for instance; I have tried it a few times before taking up the Benkö - for whom it doesn't work. The deviations from the Benkö are not much of a problem either. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.Nf3 cxd4 4.Nxd4 e5 is the famous Kasparov Gambit. If White plays e2-e3 Black exchanges, plays ...d5 and plays against the IQP, which is also thematic.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jay
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 212
Location: USA
Joined: 04/18/09
Gender: Male
Re: Are there openings everyone should learn first?
Reply #15 - 01/27/11 at 15:40:39
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 01/26/11 at 19:49:09:
Fromper wrote on 01/25/11 at 02:32:35:
Are there any openings that you think everyone should play, before moving on to more complex stuff? For instance, do you think everyone should put in some time answering 1. e4 with e5 to get a feel for open games before trying the Sicilian as black? Or is the QGD (as black) a necessary precursor to trying hypermodern responses to 1. d4? What openings do you think are prerequisites to know before trying what other openings?



Anyone would think you were new to the forum, since this question has been very often asked and answered, and also very often answered without even having been asked, in these pages.

To repeat for the 2,427th time the Markovich Doctrine, or Dogma as many would have it: new and improving players must play 1...e5 against 1.e4, particularly the black side of the Two Knights Defense, and must play the Tarrasch Defense against the closed systems.  On the White side there's a wider range of options, but the repertoire should emphasize sharp, open positions.  After they get up to 2100 or so, I don't care what they do; I'm not strong enough to coach people much higher than that; and that seems like a good time to start branching out.  Also if you don't care about improving your game, I don't care what you do.

There's a whole theory behind this that has been fully enunciated by me and my acolytes in old threads that I can't be bothered to find right now, as well as a set poorly reasoned counterarguments made by some well-meaning persons with, unfortunately, only a dim understanding of this game.

Perhaps I am an oddball, but I think that a new player should examine one flank opening and either 1.d4 or 1.e4 as white.  It has taken me longer on what to play as black, but I am playing the Sicilian sometimes and the King's Indian sometimes.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Willempie
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 4312
Location: Holland
Joined: 01/07/05
Re: Are there openings everyone should learn first?
Reply #14 - 01/27/11 at 15:33:53
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 01/27/11 at 15:30:23:
I made every effort, truly, to suggest that these remarks weren't to be taken seriously.  I don't actually think that I have "acolytes."  I suppose I should have thrown some laughing smileys, but mere words should always suffice.  Apparently my skill with them is less than I thought.

For your comfort: your post made me smile Smiley

So your way with words isnt that bad. Your suggested openings however...
Wink
  

If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Are there openings everyone should learn first?
Reply #13 - 01/27/11 at 15:30:23
Post Tools
Seth_Xoma wrote on 01/27/11 at 04:00:56:
Markovich wrote on 01/26/11 at 19:49:09:
[quote author=17233E3C213423510 link=1295922755/0#0 date=1295922755]
There's a whole theory behind this that has been fully enunciated by me and my acolytes in old threads that I can't be bothered to find right now, as well as a set poorly reasoned counterarguments made by some well-meaning persons with, unfortunately, only a dim understanding of this game.


Now was that really necessary?  Roll Eyes


I made every effort, truly, to suggest that these remarks weren't to be taken seriously.  I don't actually think that I have "acolytes."  I suppose I should have thrown some laughing smileys, but mere words should always suffice.  Apparently my skill with them is less than I thought.

@MNb: Well said.  Actually I went too far; I would also condone the Chigorin, the Albin and the Budapest.  And maybe you're right about the Benko.  The problem in all these cases is that White can cut off these possibilities with an early Nf3; not so the Tarrasch.  Also I just think that the Tarrasch, with its very standard IQP play (as you point out), is better for anyone's chess education.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Daniel
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 169
Joined: 05/29/06
Gender: Male
Re: Are there openings everyone should learn first?
Reply #12 - 01/27/11 at 15:00:05
Post Tools
Yeah the first systems soviet juniors were taught were generally e4 e5 (Italian, Scotch Four Knights, sometimes Ruy Lopez); the Dragon and Classical Sicilians, and the King's Indian.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Ametanoitos
God Member
*****
Offline


The road to success is
under construction

Posts: 1427
Location: Patras
Joined: 01/04/05
Re: Are there openings everyone should learn first?
Reply #11 - 01/27/11 at 13:50:47
Post Tools
According to the Soviet School ot thought the essential openings to study in order to build a good "chess culture" are:

(For both sides of course!)
-> Open Sicilian
-> Spanish (and closed Spanish for Black)
-> King's Indian
-> Catalan




  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Willempie
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing
.com!

Posts: 4312
Location: Holland
Joined: 01/07/05
Re: Are there openings everyone should learn first?
Reply #10 - 01/27/11 at 13:26:13
Post Tools
Seth_Xoma wrote on 01/27/11 at 04:00:56:
Markovich wrote on 01/26/11 at 19:49:09:
[quote author=17233E3C213423510 link=1295922755/0#0 date=1295922755]
There's a whole theory behind this that has been fully enunciated by me and my acolytes in old threads that I can't be bothered to find right now, as well as a set poorly reasoned counterarguments made by some well-meaning persons with, unfortunately, only a dim understanding of this game.


Now was that really necessary?  Roll Eyes

Ah well, maybe he read this:

  

If nothing else works, a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo