Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 
Topic Tools
Locked Topic Opening selection according Erik Kislik (Read 8006 times)
nestor
Junior Member
**
Offline



Posts: 82
Location: London
Joined: 05/10/09
Gender: Male
Re: Opening selection according Erik Kislik
Reply #7 - 10/06/18 at 08:06:14
There are no actions to perform.
I'm pretty sure Tiger Chess is run by GM Nigel Davies rather than GM John Nunn....
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
msiipola
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 63
Joined: 10/04/09
Gender: Male
Re: Opening selection according Erik Kislik
Reply #6 - 10/06/18 at 07:22:37
There are no actions to perform.
The eternal question: What opening should you play?

Many years ago, I played Petroff, but I don't remember why I switched to something else. Probably I read on some forum what opening "is the best" for beginner playing black.  Smiley

Some years ago I joined Nigel Davies website Tiger chess. And he recommends a repertoire with Colle, French and QGD. Which I thereafter have tried to play.

So who do I trust?

Nigel Davies is an experienced coach, and with a higher rating then most (all?) on this site.

But selection of opening should also be guided by what you like to play. I often get bad positions with the French, ,especially with the advanced variation, but I'm not sure if switching opening will get me better results. Probably not.

Edit: Nigel Davies is the owner of Tiger Chess
« Last Edit: 10/06/18 at 09:13:46 by msiipola »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
emary
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 111
Joined: 07/26/08
Re: Opening selection according Erik Kislik
Reply #5 - 10/06/18 at 00:43:42
There are no actions to perform.
Quote:
MNb wrote on 10/01/18 at 12:03:56:
msiipola wrote on 09/30/18 at 19:30:39:
As white, does Colle or London qualify?
And as black, French and QGD?

No. On that level playing the French and the QGD means playing without the queen's bishop...



Here I disagree with MnB about the French (and about the QGD too):

Against 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3/Nd2 play the Fort Knox according to
Neil McDonalds: How to play against 1 e4:
4.Nxe4 Bd7 5.Nf3 Bc6 6.Bd3 Bxe4 7.Bxe4 c6
(maybe delaying ...Bxe4 is too sophisticated for a first cautious rep)

Against 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 play according to Simon Williams: Attacking Chess The French:
3...c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Bd7! 6.a3/Be2/Be3 f6! ... The Bd7 goes to e8-h5 or to c6 or defends Black's center on d7. Games 1 to 6 provide more than enough material.
A calm alternative (though I prefer Williams): Play 3...b6 according to Neil McDonalds: How to play against 1 e4.

I think this is a very solid first repertoire against 1.e4 which can be  expanded and refined step by step.

Btw: If you want to play open positions you will get more with the French at this level than with 1.e4 e5  Wink

QGD: Ntirlis in Playing 1.d4 d5 A Classical Repertoire says a lot about how to deal with the problem bishop c8.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jupp53
God Member
*****
Offline


be

Posts: 808
Location: Frankfurt/Main
Joined: 01/04/09
Gender: Male
Re: Opening selection according Erik Kislik
Reply #4 - 10/03/18 at 20:22:37
There are no actions to perform.
msiipola wrote on 09/30/18 at 19:30:39:
For a none aggressive and cautious player, what openings are these?


Depends if you want to learn and get better or if you want to stay on your level.

Staying on your level: KIA, London, Colle with white. With black this is more difficult.

If you want to learn you have to play gambits to learn when, where and how to attack. Learning is fun. Losing is the way to get better, if you analyze your games.
  

Medical textbooks say I should be dead since April 2002.
Dum spiro spero. Smiley
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ReneDescartes
God Member
*****
Offline


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

Posts: 954
Joined: 05/18/10
Gender: Male
Re: Opening selection according Erik Kislik
Reply #3 - 10/03/18 at 06:02:26
There are no actions to perform.
On further consideration, I agree with MNb; the Tarrasch is even better than QGD here, especially since you can get a Tarrasch against nearly anything (but the QGD is classical and teaches good straightforward play, though in slow motion--unlike the French, which is difficult and has been essentially hypermodern since Botvinnik!)

Take what Kislik says with a grain of salt, though. I am greatly in sympathy with his main idea--that really understanding what is going on (which he calls"logic") is key, rather than, say, pure tactics; yet he confidently contradicts the instructional advice of renowned teachers such as Tarrasch, Euwe, Dvoretsky, Yusupov, and Botvinnik, and the training methods of players such as Fischer, Kasparov, and Kramnik. For example, Kislik says it is only necessary to study tactics once intensively, after which you'll have them for life (but Kasparov himself at his peak did rapid-fire drills of tactics problems before a world championship match); that studying endgames first, or many known positions a la de la Villla, is not a good idea (but most of the Soviet school did this); that solving studies is not very helpful (but a lot of CT-Art 5, which he recommends, is studies); that, aside from a quick playthrough of world-championship games, recent top grandmaster games and postwar game collections, rather than prewar classics, should be read and studied (contrary to the practice and advice of Karpov and Kramnik and Shereshevsky and the practice of Fischer); that it is a good use of one's time to to pore over difficult computer tactics until you see why they work; etc., etc. Kislik thinks for himself, fearlessly, and then expresses himself tactlessly, authoritatively; but then you in turn should not lend him any more authority than others with his level of experience. Consider a variety of sources, and try things out.

In particular, Kislik seems like a long-variation guy in his reading recommendations--he likes game collections from the computer era, such as those by Nunn, Kasparov, and Anand,  where the longest middlegame variation in a typical game routinely goes 10-30 moves deep, way beyond the almost universal maximum of 6-7 in a typical game of pre-computer collections. "Long variation, wrong variation," Larsen said; the 6-7- move limit is a strong indication that this is how most very strong human players think, anyway of what they think is worth communicating of it.

I personally like the opening advice you cited from Kislik, but common sense says to be skeptical of his more extreme views.
« Last Edit: 10/03/18 at 19:37:34 by ReneDescartes »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10268
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: Opening selection according Erik Kislik
Reply #2 - 10/01/18 at 12:03:56
There are no actions to perform.
msiipola wrote on 09/30/18 at 19:30:39:
As white, does Colle or London qualify?
And as black, French and QGD?

No. On that level playing the French and the QGD means playing without the queen's bishop. Like IM George Botterill once wrote: in chess you need to learn how to run before you start crawling. And that means getting your pieces out asap.
So the Petrov is a good first choice; the Scandinavian might be second.
Also the Tarrasch Defense; second choice the Benkö.

As White 1.e4 a la RD above is first choice. If it's too much work or not to your liking iso the London rather the Colle-Zukertort. The plan is easy: play c2-c4 and/or e3-e4.
  

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
 
ReneDescartes
God Member
*****
Offline


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

Posts: 954
Joined: 05/18/10
Gender: Male
Re: Opening selection according Erik Kislik
Reply #1 - 10/01/18 at 04:15:45
There are no actions to perform.
I learned the French, but not to avoid spending time on theory! The French has a lot of non-intuitive theory, and though you won't get mated on f7 right away, it's  not a quiet game--it tends to explode into chaos in the late middlegame, and your king will be attacked often!

Honestly, I wouldn't hide behind my pawns, just develop my pieces. You might try the Petroff, which is regarded as super-solid, but in which Black gets his pieces out. Against 1.d4, Ntirlis's Classical Repertoire is compact and consistent (and he also gives lines against the English, Reti and Catalan). That will likely be both safe and good for your overall development in my opinion.

As White, a simple, not-sharp, compact, consistent 1. e4 repertoire like Collins (or Sielecki?) or 1.d4 repertoire like Burgess fits the bill. These are consistent and sound, not crazy, but but not passive. Be soundly assertive, and let your caution and safety lie where they always truly lie: in your looking for your opponent's best ideas against each of the moves you are considering making, before you touch a piece, every time!
« Last Edit: 10/01/18 at 12:42:24 by ReneDescartes »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
msiipola
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 63
Joined: 10/04/09
Gender: Male
Opening selection according Erik Kislik
09/30/18 at 19:30:39
There are no actions to perform.
I'm reading Erik Kislik's book 'Applying logic in chess'.

In the Opening strategy chapter he writes:
If you are under 1600, you may want to think about putting together a small and compact opening repertoire that make sense and is consistent.

As a player under 1400, the most practical opening strategy is to try to bypass the opening phase by getting your basic development completed in a sensible way to achieve playable positions you can learn from.

For a none aggressive and cautious player, what openings are these?

As white, does Colle or London qualify?
And as black, French and QGD?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10] 
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo