neuronet wrote on 11/11/06 at 21:25:01:


At your level you are to preoccupied with theory and repertoire, it is more important for you to focus less on theory and more on playing. That is playing opponents on or near about your skill level so as to develop some practical experience, imagination and winning techniques.

If you must commit things to memory at your stage it should be concepts like typical mating patterns, and how to spot mating motifs and other tactical triggers such as: 1) Double attack 2)Trapping 3)Pinning 4)Line closing 5)Diversion 6)Attraction 7)Ambush 8)Overloading etc., without a good grasp of these devices memorising Opening lines is pointless.

Bottom line, aspiring chessplayers must learn how to think first, memorise later.

As a parting gift here is an exercise for you: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.Nc3 e5 4.e3 exd4 5.exd4 Qe7+ 6.Be3 Qb4 In this more or less unbooked position how should White proceed and what should his thought process be like, record your verbal thoughts and analysis in a notebook. Review the note book in 4 months time and see whether you still agree with your findings, in this way you can monitor how your thought process and understanding of the game is evolving and growing and make adjustments accordingly. 

I would rather you not use a chess engine for this exercise, as that would invalidate your results. 

Have fun with that and let us know how it goes.

Toppy  

Hi neuronet, I don't mean to be rude, but...maybe you're expecting a little too much?  You already have Rizzitano's book, so you can use that for lines where White doesn't play 2.c4.  But really, you shouldn't complain about a book starting at move 5 (though that isn't really how Aagaard's book is).  I mean, there's no book out there that will tell you what to do after EVERY single move in the world.  Just play chess!  

Develop your pieces.  Put them on squares that control the center.  Use your pawns to fight for space and central squares; it's really that easy.  Sure you may not always find the theoretically best move but there usually isn't one "best" move in an opening position.

Ifyou're wondering about what to do on moves 1-4, than maybe your problems don't have anything to do with learning an opening.  Maybe you need to learn about basic chess strategy and basic opening principles?!  If that's the case, I heartily recommend Yasser Seirawan's extremely wonderful series of books Play Winning Chess, Winning Chess Tactics, Winning Chess Strategies, and Winning Chess Brilliancies (he's written others, but those are the ones I have experience with), in that order.  If you would like a book devoted specifically to teaching general opening strategy and principles, as opposed to "theory", I think Edmar Mednis' How to Play Good Opening Moves  is the best I've seen.  But really you'll get a lot of general opening strategy from those Seirawan books I mentioned.

You asked about specific openings, so people gave advice about books on specific openings.  But from your last post, it sounds like you need a course on general principles and strategy instead.  If that's the case, Aagaard's book was not wasted money; save it for later, and in the meantime use it as a reference work for the times when you play a game that starts 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 c5.

Remember that there is no book that will tell you what to do all the time!  You have to learn to make good opening moves for yourself, and not rely on a book to force-feed you everything.  I personally think Aagaard's book is quite good; the lack of index is really a bummer, but the content is nice.  Anyway good luck with your studies, but it really sounds to me like you need to be grounded in basic chess principles, not worrying about what particular openings to play.  

I got the Aagaard book today. It is awful for beginners. Over a hundred pages on what to do <i>after</i> move five. At my level, I don't want to go much past move five in my repertoire (in focusing on tactics, I build a broad and superficial repertoire that I refine over time).

Plus, there is woefully inadequate coverage of what to do if white doesn't play 2. c4. This should be called 'Metting 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 c5 4. cxd exd 5. Nf3 Nc6', not 'Meeting 1 d4'. Plus, it is a worst-case kind of opening book: annotated game dump with no index of variations. This leaves you the fun of searching through games for variations you want to find. 

Contrast this with James Rizzitano's book "How to beat 1d4.' Over half the book is on when white doesn't play 2. c4, but the coverage for when he does play c4 is so packed with information that it feels like he could have been greedy and gotten two books out of this. While I have superficially played the QGA and gotten my rump roasted, I think that because Rizzitano's book is so far superior to any beginner 1. d4 response, I'm gonna learn that one. I just don't have the time to pull together different responses from different sources. 

neuronet wrote on 11/10/06 at 08:11:23:


I really doubt that you need a book besides Aagaard's at your level.  But don't you already have Rizzitano's book?  If so, between that and Aagaard's you should be all set.  If you don't have Rizzitano's already and are certain you want a book in addition to Aagaard's, I recommend Dealing With d4 Deviations by John Cox. 

But really, I wouldn't worry much about openings until you get much stronger... maybe 1800 or so.  You should read a book like Pawn Structure Chess by Soltis instead of worrying about getting opening books.  If you understand how to play a wide variety of pawn structures, you'll do fine against White's "other" tries.

I found the comment from Karpov curious as well, due to the Dreev game in the KID.  But on the other hand, if he was in a must win situation, the KID would give better chances, especially considering the lines Dreev plays in that opening.  I am suspecting that Karpov was referring to the Grunfeld in an "everyday defence" context, where those ultra sharp lines that end in a draw are not the end of the world (especially for Karpov), but if the opponent falters, he would steal the initiative and press for a win.

I find that the QGA is unsuitable for ultra beginners, I've just seen them get blown away on the queenside or in the center too many times.  I would pick the QGD TMB, Tarrasch, or Nimzo/QGD TMB as a first defence to learn.

It's funny that Short lamented about missing out on the dynamic play of the KID.  Mickey Adams also wishes that he played Open Sicilians earlier in his career.  Let's see, KID, Open Sicilian, sharp dynamic play...sounds like the chess educations that Fischer and Kasparov got!  Maybe that's why became such powerful World Champions!

TopNotch wrote on 10/05/06 at 23:56:07:


Interesting stuff TopNotch - in principle I think you are right, although of course there is a bit of a work-load here to maintain this type of repertoire at a high level. My opinion is beginners should start with a classical repertoire, later when more understanding of chess comes, the hypermodern stuff can be introduced. Also, of course, some openings are not for everybody - for example many players have experimented with the KID and found it is just not for them - personal tastes come into it. Of course there are other hypermodern openings such as Gruenfeld then which might be suitable. I remember Karpov saying that he had never played the KID or the Gruenfeld, but that if he had to play one it would be the Gruenfeld. Finally, as I said before, I still think it is possible to win as Black with a classical repertoire, although sometimes players are scared of doing this against a lower-rated player and think they must some-how "mix it up a bit" to win - which usually works in any case but can lead to bad habits!

Finally, your comment on the 1.e4 e5 repertoire is interesting - to back this up look at Marins comments on the Topalov-Kramnik Slav game where Topalov won as White - out of the opening we get a position where White has completely occupied the centre, and has two bishops! Marin says something like ("This is a 1.d4 d5 opening - but what is the difference between this position and the hypermodern openings....")

I think TMB refers to Tartakower Makagonov Bondarevsky.. ie. Tartakower QGD.