TopNotch wrote on 04/11/09 at 23:14:28:

Indeed, is it really about an upcoming repertoire book??

This is a very confusing thread to follow, I mean what are we really arguing about. Indeed Chess Players of all levels should strive to improve and learn to play all types of position Open, Closed etc all that remains is in which order is the most effective and systematic approach.

Personally I believe as Markovich does that one should study Open games first since tactical proficiency is paramount in chess. However, in the end we must learn also how to play strategically. Yermo disliked Zak's methods very much, partly because Zak focused alot on Gambit play which Yermo for the most part considered rubbish, only later did he come to appreciate some of Zak's early teachings.

Yermo explained in his book that he did not excel at any one part of the game but learned how to do many things relatively well which allowed him to mix it up successfully during his matches. In essence we need to be at least competent in all phases of the game or it will be near impossible to improve, Karpov in his early years played incredibly sharp open games and so too did Kramnik, however I do not think history will remember these players as tacticians.

Chess improvement is all about maximising our strengths and subtracting negatives from our game. Like John Shaw and Keith Arkell a player may avoid initiating tactics in their games,  but they must be aware and capable of analysing, anticipating, countering and neutralising tactics when there are thrust upon them or they would not have become GM's. To imply otherwise is plain dishonest or else all we would need to do to beat these tactically weak GM's who are hopeless in Open Games would be to play the BDG or KG.

That is all for now.

Regards,

Toppy      

Right. I suppose Ambartsoumian is just nuts. And Hellsten/Houska were deprived when they started on the Caro, or Varuzhan Akobian when he started on the French.

The fact that we don't have any truly universal players suggest that you cannot train everything to a top level. Kramnik was at his peak, if anything, more universal than Kasparov, but it was only when he managed to take Kasparov to a slow-motion fight in the marshes that he defeated him in the match.

Dvoretsky's most successful student, Yusupov, is of course not bad in an attack, but give him the positions I get after 15 moves and he would be just as lost in them, as I would be in his. 

Obviously there are a lot of cross-overs when acquiring abilities in chess, but the idea that you should focus on your weaknesses is simply anti-humane and does not take how we really work into consideration. Yes, I disagree with Mark on this point, not that you should spend some time on your weaknesses.

I should maybe just remind you that we started with 1.e4 being good for you and 1.g3 being bad for you, according to some.

Willempie wrote on 04/10/09 at 11:30:03:

Yes, but in chess the player is the whole team - not an eleventh part of the team. You don't have a Ron "Chopper" Harris lurking around at the back to make up for a Peter Osgood up front (younger readers may not get this).

Jacob Aagaard wrote on 04/10/09 at 07:51:09:


You seem to disagree with Dvoretsky on this.
A rare occasion indeed!

I believe you are as strong as your weakest link.

Kasparov was only 'not as strong' positionally against geniuses such as Karpov (in the fisrt match, but he had just defeated Korchnoi with some catalans) and Kramnik, and before that he had beaten the same Kramnik in a very technical Nimzo in Linares.

Btw everyone is showing these days the Slav of Dos Hermanas 1996 where Kramnik shows his tactical ability... So these top players are indeed strong in ALL areas and INCREDIBLE strong in others...

In short you need to improve your weaknesses not to loose (or be trounced   ) AND improve your strengths to have a 'competitive advantage' in the wise words of LB Hansen (I love his latest book)

Funnily, that is chesswise. Some strong players lack social ability and therefore not everything they say is gospel... Kasparov is acknowledging some mistakes regarding the split from FIDE..etc..

Elsewhere (NIC) Yermolinsky indicated that Zak should be investigated for inappropriate behaviour with children. It is simply impossible to understand what lies behind those comments, and thus to judge them. So, it is not about chess at all.

John Shaw, a strong technical player, sees nothing. I mean, for a 2000 his tactical ability is low. 

One thing I stumbled upon in the previous is this idea of the universal player and working on what you don't like. Just like communism it is a great ultimate theory, from which all good things should spring. However, no one has ever done this!

Our current top players are far from universal. Topalov plays mainly with the initiative and is focussed only on the opening. Anand is not far from this either. Leko and Kramnik focus on technical aspects. Ivanchuk, Morozevich and Shirov are very creative. Carlsen is a natural, and his calculation is often poorer than his colleagues as a result.

Kasparov, the greatest ever, did not play passive positions - and when he got them, he sunk. He tried to avoid positions where there were no dynamics at all costs.

Actually, working on your strengths just as much as your weaknesses seems to give better results, in most sports. One of the reasons for this is that it is intrinsically rewarding, and not something you force upon yourself.