ghenghisclown wrote on 04/06/09 at 18:56:51:


Was this quote taken from Road to Chess Improvement by Yermolinsky, and if so on which page would I find it?

Regards,

Toppy

Anyway, bottom line is that when you get a trainer,
you delegate to him the choice of what's good for you
and which areas you should work on.

If you're not happy at some point, get another trainer.
It happens all the time in sports like tennis.

Or don't get any.
You'll save some money and have your beloved freedom.

ChessPublishing!


Posts: 175

  Re: Solid way for black to face the K´s Gambit?
Reply #60 - Today at 23:36:20      Hi all,
1.  What Markovic was saying if you read his post that Nf3 is better than f4 When you have a highschooler with a 2100 rating and climbing. also at 2100 markovic believes (I think) that anyone can play whatever they want.  Before 2100 one should play open games as they are the cornerstone of chess.  I say this cause closed positions open up!!   
2. As far as "style" Markovic was saying I believe that when you are 1100 and dropping pieces to 1 move blunders ALL the time it doesn't matter what if they are "attackhers" or "positional" players THEY need tactics and ideas on how not to blunder (like writing there move down and checking if something can take it).  But when you are 1800 I think you can see game after game that someone may choose an "attacking" line for a "positional" AND they know the ups and downs of each then I think one has a style!  If you just pick the tactical idea and didn't see the positional lever then you aren't an attacking player You need positional help!!!!
3. As far as repetition When people ask the same questions (I do that sometimes) to get a different answer to the same question isn't valuable because it causes confusion.  Also the people writing about "free speech" have a point but they are just repeating themselves!!!   So when you have a 10 year old playing 1.e3 cause they don't understand the center this is not free speech it is wrong not to instruct the student.  3+3=6 If someone continues writing on a test that it is 8 they are wrong or is this "free Speech"???  I think it is nice that a strong player (I believe Markovich is over 2200) giving opinions then one should at least hear him out.  I hope we have not lost anyone because or boredom or repetition.
4. he backs up what he says: he recommends 1...e5 and open positions for a sound reason: most closed positions if not all open up, so until someone has mastered this type of play how can they master positional play?    

5. Repeating "free Speech" mantra isn't talking about chess and wastes ones time.  We are here to improve our chess and or "coach" people.  So if someone has an idea that one doesn't like one should back it up rather then just say "free speech".  Tell us why Playing the French when you are 10 and have a 1100 rating is good for there development as a player for example!?!?  Not This is free speech.  (yes I do think Zak was harsh on his pupil!!!  He should have said some thing like nice game but at this level it might be best to play something that leads to stronger positions from the get go.  Also note I think if Zak saw tactics that yermalinsky missed and totally didn't see them then Zak has a point in saying maybe 1.e4 is best for now!!!)

6. Really can't we all just get a long and talk chess!!  What is the point of "fighting" especially when there is so much chess to talk about!!  I love talking chess I hope I haven't started more contraversy my writing is just to try and methodically say "don't fight, play chess"!!!

Thank you,
Zatara

Back to the actual book...

I've just gotten Greet's QID book and he has an improvement on one of Avrukh's Catalan lines: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.g3 Bb4 5.Bd2 Be7 6.Bg2 O-O 7.O-O c6 8.Qc2 b6 9.Rd1 Ba6 10.b3 Nbd7 11.a4 c5 12.Na3 Bb7 13.Qb2 Ne4 14.Be1 Bf6 15.e3 and now Qe7 instead of releasing the tension with cxd4 as in the Piket - Kramnik game Avrukh cites. I've tried to search for an edge but can't find any. Perhaps 8. Qb3 is more challenging or White has to play Bf4 after all. Maybe avoiding b3 with 10. Ne5 is a thought too. I'm not sure but I can't find any edge in these lines. In fact, if White plays Qc2 AND b3 it looks like an improved QID for Black. In the QID White plays b3 partly so he doesn't have to play Qc2 and combining these can't be scary for Black. Any ideas?

BTW: Since trying to adopt a g3 based repertoire I've had great trouble against this solid line: 1. d4 Nf6 2. Nf3 g6 3. c4 Bg7 4. g3 c6 5. Bg2 d5. It essentially kills the game for White and I just hope Avrukh has something with promise worked out against it because it's not such an uncommon line for Grunfeld players. Unfortunately, Avrukh also has almost all draws against this.

Jacob,

I can hardly argue with any of that, but I don't think that it applies very well to run-of-the-mill scholastic players, aged 5-11.  These are the students that I have and that I imagine Robert Snyder has in L.A., not highly gifted chess kids whose parents seek out titled players for formal instruction.  

I volunteer at a local elementary school and offer a one-hour "Chess Club" once a week to all comers who "know the moves."  We have about 40 kids who come on that basis.  I also volunteer one evening each week to run "Chess Team" for a group of 10 or so of the more talented and bloodthirsty kids that I select from Chess Club, who also play in weekend scholastic tournaments.  Once I was lucky enough to have three kids rated over 1200 (we finished 3rd at the K-5 Nationals that year), but in some years I am lucky to have anyone rated 1000. 

At Chess Club the kids mostly want to play chess. The most teaching I will do is a 5-minute mini-lesson, about the fine points of castling; or the en passant rule, which is quite mysterious to most of these kids; or the virtues of getting out one's pieces and getting castled; or why 1.a4 is not a very good first move; how to mate with K+Q, sometimes even how to mate with K+R.  

At Chess Team the lesson may be longer and more advanced, 15 minutes or so out of the 90 minutes we have each Tuesday evening.  This is where I will start to address good opening play, typically starting with the Fork Trick; the Fried Liver and how best to handle the black pieces against 4.Ng5 (a very typical scholastic Fried Liver game, by the way, goes 7.Nxf7 Kxf7 8.Qf3+ Ke8 9.Bxd5 Nd4 10.Qf7++).  Relatedly I will always give a short lesson on why Ng5 in general is not a good idea if the only threat is to give up two pieces for a rook and pawn on f7; why Bb5+ is often not so great if Black has ...c6, and similar.  That's the type of thing most of these kids need to learn.  I will expose these kids to a few key lines, such as the Scotch 4 Knights out to 7.Bd3 - neither this move nor 6.Nxc6 are obvious to players at this level.  And I will sketch out how play could continue.  But even there, we mostly just play chess.  In this context I really do not have the time to teach variations, nor do I think most Chess Team members would be very interested or would benefit from it if I did.  But in general I do want these kids to play 1.e4 and to answer it with 1...e5.  For one thing, it keeps us all on the same page, and for another, I believe that it best facilitates the open piece play that I want these kids to become familiar with.  And yes, if a Chess Team kid takes up 1...c5, I tell him to cut it out.  Last night I had to tell a third grader to stop playing 1.e3, not because it was a bad move, I said, but because 1.e4 is more ambitious.  The kid was playing 2.d3, 4.Be2, 5.Bd2, not because he has a solid chess style, but because he's freaking ignorant of how best to get his pieces out.

On occasion I have had a particularly promising player, and have offered him or her free weekly, one-hour lessons.  Only there, I think, does my experience begin to resemble the subject of your remarks here.  That is when I really do seriously start to teach some opening and endgame theory, but even so practically all we do is solve tactics.  My experience with this is limited to just three or four children, but only in one case did I have the problem that the parent was actively teaching systems that I didn't want the kid to bother with just yet.  I explained my reasoning and he cut it out.  For illustration's sake, one of my recommendations is 3.exd5 followed soon by c4 against the French, not because it is best, but because it leads to the kind of position I want these students to know how to play.  

As it happens, the handful of kids that received private lessons from me all became good tacticians and quite adept (for their age) at open piece play, which I consider to be fundamental to everything else in chess. I admit that I am a chess nobody and that I have no place to lecture a titled player, still less a highly respected chess author and teacher, but that is what I believe nonetheless.

So I will respectfully maintain my view that among scholastic players of the kind that I have been working with over the past 17 years, it is in general a good idea to encourage play into open positions and to discourage play into closed positions or into positions with a significant deficit of space or activity.  And further that with the vast majority of these children, it is a category mistake to ask about chess style.

Markovich wrote on 04/08/09 at 02:46:39:


I have taught chess to kids and coached them. I find this question of yours, however, to be an appeal to authority (fallacy) rather than facing my points. This is why I included the story with Ambartsoumian, etc...Authorities do not always agree on this. Synder was the exception and not the rule (here in So Cal, although Synder moved to Colorado) as I was friends with another coach who's been doing it for 12 years and also allowed his students to express themselves.

As mentioned already, I don't find your (or others') distinction between talented juniors and less talented juniors convincing. It puts you in an uncomfortable role, and it takes away from individual spirit which exists in everyone. Besides that, I've met very few kids who didn't have a style or preference. 

Plus your distinction ignores Laszlo Polgar's chief point. Genius can be made, and talent lies in almost everybody, particularly intellectual talent. What you're saying is like the piano teacher that insists only the classical school and classical piano should be taught. I don't think so. There's another side to things.

What is your defense of this straight jacket? It's telling me that it's not relevant. Oh but it is. In anycase, there are many juniors who've started off with openings other than e5. More importantly, if it's not relevant, then why agree with mean bastards that insist things must be done their way? Of course, most kids (like people) will in the short run be happy to follow authority. The long run is a different story and there's no excuses when you're encouraging someone to hate chess.

I appreciate the sensibility of handing kids copies of Blokh. I mean the really good kids- the others get what, crappy copies of Reinfield's books? But this is a bit of a rhetorical trick "Yes. They should play only e5." [when confronted about it] "Well the opening doesn't matter, only tactics and blunders." Well then, if it doesn't matter...

All good coaches should be concerned with helping their students meet their primary opening goal: Getting the kind of game they want through their use of a particular opening.

I'm truly horrified. 

Quote:


Unfortunately, I was unable to find the old article (posted when Yermo was working in-house at the Mechanics Institute in San Francisco). 

He remembered the story, though, not because of a "lesson" but because he truly hated Zak. I am shocked that anyone can describe this incident as exhibiting "character." He, Yermo, showed that he had applied positonal principles and outplayed his Master opponent (and this is a Russian Master bear in mind) over the course of a long game. 

What reward did this deserve? Certainly it wasn't comparable to telling your Catholic GrandFather that you just fell in love with a man! It also showed the tremendous narow-minded appraoch of the St Petersburg school, which doubtless works for some but not for all. No, Zak came across as a real 




A*^ %$ # HOLE, if you ask me.


Quote:


Fear is bad, but how g3 = fear is lost on me. You can't have it both ways. On the one hand, the student is too stupid to know how to chose openings, on the other he's smart enough to try to avoid theory!! In anycase, your jumping to conclusions.

Also the young teenager who related Synder's regime (at the behest of his new coach, I played training matches with him) to me was a Najdorf player. Your ideas are little hard to fathom, as it calls for the authority figure either to determine who's talented enough to get dispensation from 1...e5 and who is mundane enough to remain tethered to it or else (as in Synder's case) everybody has to do it OR ELSE. I happen to regard this attitude as pedantic in the worst way, and basically as child abuse. I don't think it's a coincidence what Robert Snyder turned out to be later. 

Ever ask your self why the Monty Python Group produced Life of Brian, and where do their their attitudes on religion come from? 

They were indoctrinated in religion and it was "taught" to them. Consequently their view is that if you really want to stamp out religion, you should force feed it down the throats of our young as part of the curriculum!

According to some here, it matters not what the personal preferences of these youngsters are! So what you're really saying is play e5, or else!

Quote:


There's nothing wrong with learning the Sicilian, particularly since it's a defense to e4, which they'll see a lot. It's an open question whether the kid can understand how the Sicilian can lead to better endgames due to pawn structure, etc...but to treat it as a priori invalid strikes me as authoritarian.

A couple of years ago I observed a young Armenian talent (probably 6 or 7 years old) playing a French defense as Black. So I asked his coach, IM Armen Ambartsoumian: 

Wow, he's good. And he plays the French? Was that your idea, or because he's Armenian?  [ And keep in mind the Curse of Petrosian, the tendency for Armenians to play the French as its called, could be used by the Armenian equivalent of a Snyder or Zak to FORCE kids to play strategic chess] Armen answered: Actually, we're going through all the openings so he can chose which defense he likes best, that suits him.