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.