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.

Keano wrote on 10/05/06 at 21:21:11:


I overheard Short saying that he regretted never learning the KID as it's so dynamic and offers so many winning chances, but then again he said playing The Two Knight's defence with Black is taking your life in your hands, so who knows.

Personally I consider a good repertoire to consists of both classical and hyper-modern openings, in this way you are better equipped to respond to any type of tournament situation. If that is too much work, you should at least have an understanding of how to play both types of game. Someone mentioned Davies play 1.e4 e5 book, which ostensibly can be considered a classical repertoire, nevertheless it is striking how often the Keres line he recommends against the ruy transposes to positions akin to the Modern Benoni.

The first strategical concept that anyone taking up the QGD as black must learn to cope with is the exchange variation with its primary strategical idea being the minority attack. Here I can heartily recommend retired GM Mathew Sadler's excellent book Queen's Gambit Declined, wherein he outlines Black's various strategies in fighting against the minority attack.      

Last but not least, what does  TMB mean ?

Tops

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 10/05/06 at 03:57:23:

I think that there are two points to be taken into account with this statement. Firstly what exactly would constitute a beginner. If a player would be a beginner imo I wouldnt recommend him any opening or if pressed the QGA (for the open play). Secondly I dont quite agree on the characterisation of the QGD. Very much will depend on the actual use of the QGD by the player. If he analyses his games a lot and compares his play with ideas in literature, then your observation is incorrect. However if he just sticks to the book lines he learnt in the beginning it will prolly become a "lazy" opening.

I have played the minority attack against masters who later said they didn't understand why they lost!  (Ok, there was only one master who admitted to not knowing what was going on, but others have lost without appearing to understand the nature of the attack.)

I recommend 1...d5 to my students, but I don't recommend the Slav (my favorite opening) for several reasons.  The most obvious is that I don't want to create clones, I want to create players who think for themselves.   I often recommend the Tarrasch, the QGA, the Chigorin, and sometimes the Classical TMB.   

I agree that players should learn the classics first.  But in the case of the QGD, the Orthodox variation of the QGD gives white winning chances while only providing Black with drawing chances.  Even a beginner deserves an opening that is dynamic enough to win as Black.

I just wanted to chime in ....

I think 1...d5 is the perfect start for beginners.  Its just so logical and clear.   
Push a center pawn, fight for control of the key central squares, open lines for your pieces, etc.
White attacks 2.c4 and Black defends his center with 2...e6.  Then the knights come out, then the bishop is developed before playing e3 so its not stuck behind the pawn chain, etc, etc.

The QGD is just so perfect from a classical standpoint that I cannot help but think its the easiest to understand for beginners.
Direct central play with standard piece development...no problem.
You also have all those great old games from Steintiz, Lasker, Capa, etc.  The World Championships....the legacy, the rich chess history.

I can still remember the "magic" of Lasker's ...Ne4.  The cunning of that little ...h6 nuance.   
Do you remember the first time you really understood why the minority attack made sense?  I was happy the whole day.

The QGD also sets up the Tarrasch beautifully.   
People still really appreciate Tarrasch's bold 3...c5!?  What a great idea that was back in the 19th century. 
Also, I still think Rubinstein's system (with g3, Na4, etc.) is fantastic reply to Tarrasch and was amazingly creative.
Imagine allowing black to un-isolate the pawn and block your bishop on g2, so you can set up a dark-square bind!   
That was sheer genius and a perfect example of the evolution of opening ideas.

As Sadler said, the QGD really serves as a foundation for almost all of Black's defenses to 1.d4.
Kasparov described it as 'the cornerstone'.

The Tarrasch, the Nimzo, the Slav, Queens Indian, etc.  all make more sense once you've understood why Black players got away from the clear-cut development of the QGD.  Each of the first 7-8 moves can make sense for people who have just learned how to move the pieces and yet the opening is still good enough to be played at the highest levels of chess even today.  What more could you want?

Nietzsche

ps - I tend to stay far, far away from the Catalan when teaching beginners.  It just gets so complicated strategically that I feel like I have to explain everything.  Has anyone else had this experience?    

When anyone new to chess begins to formulate a defense to 1)d4 I always strongly suggest they make the QGD their defense of choice. I belive someone else explained the benifits of learning this opening defense in the above replies.....I could not agree more!

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 07/30/06 at 04:18:34:


From 1982 until 1987 the Benkö helped me to rise from ELO 1300 to 1800. As I wrote before, it helped me to formulate a plan and execute it (big deal, it is so stereotypical). In 1984 a clubmate asked me what to do against 1.d4 (he already, unlike me, had chosen the French). On my advice he also chose the Benkö and guess what happened? Also 100 point up each year. Oh, and we did not rely on endgame theory at all (much too far away at move 10). The only thing we knew was putting our heavy artillery on the open queenside files and try to find good squares for the light pieces. Our dream was to place a knight on d3.
Now I will not say, that this happened only thanks to the Benkö, but obviously it did not hurt either.

Frendo, 

"The average club player" is several notches (about 700 rating points) above a true beginner.  For such a player, let's say around 1500 elo (which used to be the true mean but has drifted upward by nearly 400 points), then yes, let that player experiment with various openings.  That player has already found out a great deal about himself or herself and his/her relationship with chess.  The Benko is just fine for such a player, but I wouldn't expect such a player to rise dramatically just because of learning one opening variation.  Such a player would learn far more just from having a friend such as Bent Larsen!

Enviously, 

SF

I personally think the Benko is one of the worst lines to teach young chess players.  It's heavy on endgame theory, breaks all sorts of rules, and is difficult to play unless the student has experience.  The one plus is that if you want a student to learn an opening by rote, there are few openings that are as forcing.

I often recommend the Tarrasch QGD as Markovich does.  I try not to recommend the Slav because it's one of my pet openings and I often find myself going into too much detail when I am dealing with my favorite lines.

The QGA is strategically simple, but I like teaching the fundamentals of the Classical Orthodox and TMB lines.  I don't tell the students the name of the variations, I just let them find the best moves for themselves.  If they find ...b6, I steer them toward the TMB.   If they find ...c6, I show them the Orthodox and the Cambridge Springs.

Most students don't need to know reams of opening lines, they just need something that is active and gives them chances to play from the very beginning.   

As students get more advanced, I will address their needs on an individual basis.  I have students who successfully play the Tarrasch and Modern Benoni (depending on the move order); I also have students who play the QGA and Cambridge Springs; and some who play QGD TMB lines.  I even have a student who is learning the Chigorin!

This individualised method has one real advantage.  There are teachers in the region who teach one opening only, and it's relatively easy for my students to prepare for them.  My students don't have to worry about some chess coach teaching a one-size-fits-all counter to the systems they learn.

Markovich wrote on 07/20/06 at 16:39:31:

When I was still coaching kids (mostly up to 12), I would recommend the QGA for essentially the same reasons. I found the Tarrasch lacking in the pedagogic department like in the logical pawngrabber lines (eg 4. cxd5 exd5 5. dxc5), plus the symmetrical lines are usually less open.

I don't think the the QGD is more difficult than the Slav; if anything I'd say it was the other way round

Quote:

I agree, that is quite likely in the Lasker and Orthodox variations. If you decide to go with the QGD make sure to pick one of the options with some counterplay for Black; I'd suggest the Tartakower as recommended by Silman himself http://www.jeremysilman.com/chess_instrctn_bgnrs/120603_crt_easy_op_rep_bk.html 

Chessville.com also suggest the QGD for beginners http://chessville.com/instruction/instr_open_rep_position.htm

The QGD is also good against 1.c4 or 1.Nf3.  The book for the QGD is Sadlers' classic. One of the best opening books ever and written for the beginner/improving player.

For beginners either the Tarrasch or the Benkö is a good choice. Markovich will say his word on the first, so I on the latter.
Below ELO 1800 in about 50% of the games White will not reply d4-d5. That means, that Black will play several types of positions. The nice thing about the Benkö after 3...b5 is, that the beginner will learn to formulate a plan and consequently execute it. That's relatively easy, because this plan is so stereotypical. It is also beneficial to learn to appreciate long term compensation for material.
I have played the Benkö with good results for about 6 years; then I became bored.

Hi everyone,

I can't count the number of times I've seen it recommended that beginners play the open games as white and black to get a good chess education and to sharpen their tactics.  However, I never see discussion about anything other than 1.e4 e5.  Does responding to 1.d4 with 1...d5 offer the same benefit in terms of chess education?  Do you think that in the closed games a beginner can try other openings earlier, like the Nimzo/QID, or should he/she stay in classical mode (presumably Slav, QGA or QGD) for a number of years before branching out.

Thanks for any thoughts,
Scott