It seems to me that Ken Smith's line was actually "Until you are at least 1800, your first name is "Tactics," your middle name is "Tactics," and your last name is "Tactics."   

I must "admit" that while I am sympathetic to the idea of playing Open Games from the beginning and for some considerable period of time, I hardly did that myself.  I played 1. e4 e5 with Black at the very beginning, but soon moved to the Najdorf (I now cringe at the thought), then to the Classical French, then to the Dragon, with a dabbling with the 2...Nf6 Center Counter thrown in there somewhere.  That was all within the first ~3 years; I then stayed with the Dragon for quite some time.

msiipola wrote on 10/12/09 at 15:05:55:

When tackling these variations you will be able to practice - and hopefully improve - your tactical skills. Doing exercises is just not enough. I will happily help you finding your way through all this stuff, it's not that hard. But you must answer two questions first:
1) 2...Nc6 or 2...Nf6 ?
2) If 2...Nc6, will you answer 3.Bc4 with Nf6 or Bc5 ?

nyoke wrote on 10/12/09 at 19:05:20:

Then why would he study tactics at all?

I guess a tactics aversed adult should combine The French Fort Knox with the Cambridge Springs or the Lasker Variation of the QGD. He also should play the London vs. everything. If such a repertoire helps to become a better player is something I highly doubt.

nyoke wrote on 10/12/09 at 19:05:20:


I don't think it's strange at all.  It's one thing to learn tactics from a book, it's quite another to know when "the tactics light is on" as I used to say to my chess kids.  (Funny, another lightbulb analogy.) The tactics light is on much more often in open positions, and I further opine that it's easier in such positions to know when it is on.

Further there is more to this recommendation of playing into open positions than just fostering tactics.  Open positions are fundamental: blah, blah, blah (I just put those blahs to stand for the arguments I have already made a bizillion times upon this point, which I imagine everyone here will be familiar with already; upon request I will supply the actual reasoning).

Concerning TN, I think that either he is so advanced that he's forgotten what it's like to be an improving player, or he just doesn't get the whole idea of what sort of positions are really suitable for people in the 1200-1900 range.  Arguably 1900-2100 is a gray zone, but even there I recommend that unless the player is capable of knocking off the occasional Master in open positions, he should persist in attempting to master them himself.  But certainly the Kan would be one of the last systems I would recommend to someone under 2000.  The Petroff or 1...e5, 2...Nc6 (which I consider preferable because of the educational value of learning the Two Knights) would be among the first.  If someone was absolutely pining to play something besides 1...e5, I would recommend the Loewenthal Sicilian.

Oh, and another thing.  Chess is pretty much tactics.  Don't like tactics?  Don't play chess.

The whole idea of adding an opening to one's repertoire to exercise tactics is very strange to me.  (Do you go and study 'electricity for industrial installations' when you need to change a bulb ?) Surely CT-art or something of the kind is much more economical, and more fun.

Especially with adults who already show some aversity towards highly tactical positions this is tantamount to chasing them away from the game.

And concerning the repertoire books advice : are you aware that these, too, are primarily geared towards youngsters with a knack for tacticalities ? And that they offer a cocktail of 'shortcuts', which is not very attractive for the kind of longtermplanning player msiipola is ?

>"You loose because you play against stronger opposition, not because the opening is wrong."

Yes I'm aware of this and and I don't blame my openings for my defeats.

Often the answer to my often asked question is: If you ever want to become a good player, you have to play open games. Period!

But after 1.e4 e5 you will face several different second and lot of different third moves from white. The amount of variations is huge.
 
But if you select a opening where the number of opponent moves are reduced, like the Colle, you have less variations to understand. Is this a misunderstanding? Will I as Colle player develop less and will my development be slower, compared to playing opening games?

I have seen even masters recommend opening systems to beginners.
For example: http://www.chesspublishing.com/content/repert.htm#lim

Are they wrong?

---------
One opening I have played little more then the others, is the Petroff.
Which is a e4-e5 opening.
Is this something you recommend for a beginner?
Is it a opening you can use for a long time or is it a dead end?

kylemeister wrote on 10/11/09 at 18:09:32:


I agree with your book recommendations and that the repertoire books you mentioned above are too advanced for this <1500 player. My reasoning behind recommending the Sveshnikov and Kan over other Sicilians is because they are relatively easy to learn (both in terms of theory and strategy) compared to more theoretical Sicilians such as the Najdorf and Dragon, but still have a better theoretical reputation than sidelines such as the Grivas Sicilian and the Pin Variation. I did not recommend 'The Easiest Sicilian' but merely mentioned it although I see your point in terms of people recommending books aimed at a different readership. 

For the record, the Taimanov would be another suitable option, using Rizzitano's 'Chess Explained: The Taimanov Sicilian' as a reference. Once the player reaches the level where opening preparation becomes important, they can use 'The Safest Sicilian' or a more recent book if one is available. The Four Knights is not a bad first Sicilian either although the 6.Nc6 bc6 7.e5 Nd5 8.Ne4 variation is tricky to handle and requires precise knowledge to avoid a bad position.

This is indeed a perennial sort of thing here, but I never cease to be amazed by people e.g. recommending the Sveshnikov or Kan Sicilian to a sub-1500 player ...along with repertoire books such as "Play the Sicilian Kan" and "The Easiest Sicilian" which I would have thought were geared to players several hundred points higher, at least.  Regarding opening-related books for such a player, I would think of things more along the lines of "Chess Openings" by Basman and "Chess Openings for the Average Player" by Harding and Barden.  Such books will not tell you exactly which openings to play, however.

play 1.d4 then colle vs d5 and vs Nf6 play the Tromposky (1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5) so buy Palliser's new book on that!  This will make your 1.d4 rep a bit sharper!  Or you can get the new book a Killer chess repertoire!  The only other idea is to play 1.e4 but that might be too much theory??  You can play lines like exhcnage with c4 vs French, Ponov vs caro, Be3 ect vs Pirc and modern, ruy with 5.d3 or 4 knights scotch variation, vs sicilianI think everyone here would recommend the open but that might be too much theory.  That is why I recommend the Trompowsky and colle or the killer chess repertoire by summerscale.  Oh Silman really likes Kosten's Dynamic English book.  This or the colle, tromp or killer opening would be good.

As Black, you can learn a lot of tactics with the open games.  Buy Davies book play 1...e5 or something like that.  Play the 2 knights as he recommends.  Play either Schleiman or open variation vs Ruy lopez.  I would recommend the schleiman as it is sharp and there is no exchange variation which can be boring.  But also with the open you can playNc6, Nf6 then a6 when the exchange is not that fearsome (I thik that is right - its late and I need sleep)
At less than 1500 I would recommend the tarrasch and buy Meeting 1.d4 with Aagaard.  Or even the Chigorin 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6 as both will lead to open games like the above repertoire. You can buy Wisnewsky book on 1...Nc6.  But over all the tarrasch is most ecomomical.   

There you are tarrasch vs 1.d4 vs 1.e4 1....e5 whith Schleiman 2 knights, Vs other stuff play tarrasch ( like Nf3 or c4 and traspose into tarrasch)....

else play Sicilian like Accelerated Dragon, and either KID or Nimzo (probably Nimzo) and buy Roman dizinshaschvilit and ALburts book Black opening explained or something like that.  They rocommend the Nimzo and c4  is dealt with a transoposition to accelerate Dragon.  So it does overlap lessening study time.  (oh don't buy their white repertoire if you play1.e4 is has many holes)   

so there you are 2 overlapping reps.  Like you say stick with the openings.  Oh yeah you can play the slav as in Vigus's book and the Caro vs 1.e4.  This gives you similar pawn structure with an semi open open positions.  Buy Houska's book on the caro or else Peter wells book on the caro.  So you don't say wither you are a tacitcal player or a positional player.  If positional play caro/slav rep if attakcing play the tarrasch and 1..e5.
Just my thoughts,
Zatara