It's a good idea that a player's development follow the historical development of the game.

And 19th century guys played 1.e4. Rapid fire, f7 weakness etc.

Markovich wrote on 10/13/09 at 15:41:36:


I was hoping you would belabor the points, Markovich, since it is in the repetition, reification, and rethinking of ideas that gives them weight.^*  As long as we are respectful listeners of each other, then there is a great deal to be gained by revisiting points that we think we made.

I already know from previous discussions that we agree more than we disagree.  Rather, it is on the peripheries of how to teach chess that we disagree and where I can learn the most from you.  (And of course, I'm self-centered enough to hope that you can learn something from me in return!)

So please, reconsider taking up the gauntlet.  

Cheers!
^*  It's been decades since I read Kundera and the intro to The Unbearable Lightness Of Being is still with me.

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 10/13/09 at 15:02:15:


Well we shall have to agree to disagree then, since I think that this analogy is a rather good one.  I disagree with most of your other remarks as well, but there's no point in belaboring these points.  Still I agree when you say, "Too many players still seem to think that passive play is a style (positional) and active play is another style."

Straggler wrote on 10/12/09 at 23:55:18:


Not entirely.  It's also that open positions are fundamental.  I say again, you must know how to play open positions well in order to play chess well.  If someone 1700 or so just wants to have fun playing chess, he should play whatever strikes his fancy.  If he wants to improve at chess, he should play systems that lead to open positions, and he should not be shy of playing with the IQP.

I don't think that starting out with the attitude that he can't do something is very healthy for the student, in all frankness.  If someone were my student and said, "I can't do this because I'm no good at tactics," I would say, "Don't sell yourself short!"  

nyoke wrote on 10/12/09 at 19:35:12:


It is not a question of style.  Algebra and calculus are not styles of mathematics.  And just like algebra is a prerequisite for calculus, the ability to play well in open positions is a prerequisite for playing well in semi-open and closed positions.

It is true that for players of a certain strength, the choice of systems is a matter of style and taste.  Just like some mathematicians specialize in algebra, some in real analysis.  But this is not true for students.    

We've been over this ground repeatedly in this forum, and it's fair to point out that particularly the more experienced and successful chess coaches here are broadly in agreement about this.

Speaking only for myself however, I find the idea that a 1700 player has a style quite ridiculous.  He doesn't have a style; what he has is limitations.

MNb wrote on 10/13/09 at 01:12:07:

I think this is the crux of the matter. You may indeed be right. But Nigel Davies argues that if you can't hope to out-calculate your opponent you may still be able to win by understanding the position better and keeping the tactics under control. See, for example, his columns in the ChessCafe.com archives, especially nos 19 and 20. 

This makes sense to me. Of course it shouldn't be taken to extremes: I haven't seen Davies suggesting that a 1500 player should play the Catalan and the Hedgehog. But, as Stigma says, it isn't hard to understand (say) the French better than most players in the 1500-1800 range. 

I think Davies's approach is probably worth a try anyway. If it doesn't work, no harm is done. And he says that many of his adult pupils have improved a bit by this route.

LeeRoth wrote on 10/12/09 at 23:15:39:

As soon as you hope that White will play anything but the Ruy Lopez and meet it too often.
I have another question. If the maximum level an adult can reach is fixed by limited tactical skills, so that the adult won't be able to play the Open Games with confidence, is there still another road to improvement? I don't think so. I think all games on a 1500 level are decided by tactics, most of them quite elementary ones. In other words, I  think it even for the adult does not make much sense to study a closed positional opening when (s)he invariably may expect to be tricked by some cheapo between move 20 and move 40.
Now if the adult gives up all hope to improve, like I have done, than the advise is simple: do what you feel like and have fun. Nobody else will care.
In this special case I have modified my advise - keep the Colle in the repertoire, but spend the time on openings useful. Given the level and the desire to improve on tactics there is only one conclusion.
If time management is that important, the Petrov is less work than 2...Nc6. Two fun lines, especially on 1500 level are 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6
a) 3.Nxe5 Nxe4 4.Qe2 Qe7 5.d4 d6
b) 3.d4 Nxe4 4.Bd d5 5.Nxe5 Nd7 6.Nxd7 Bxd7 7.0-0 Qh4!?

1. e4 Nc6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 Bf5 4. Bd3 is a "material error"; maybe you were mixing it up with the Caro-Kann?

When I first started playing chess seriously, about 30 years ago, it wasn't easy to get advice about one's opening repertoire. My earliest guide was Bernard Cafferty's "Chess Openings for You" (mentioned by LeeRoth), which recommended the French and QGD for Black, and for White quiet stuff like the Lopez Exchange, the Italian with d3, the Closed Sicilian etc. Leonard Barden recommended a somewhat similar repertoire (but with a Benoni/KID hybrid instead of the QGD) in his excellent book "Play Better Chess". He did suggest some gambits and counter-gambits, but only as surprise weapons. I don't recall seeing a repertoire book for Black in the open games until quite recently. Had one been available in the 1980s I would have bought it like a shot. But the consensus seemed to be that we patzers would do best to avoid very sharp positions.

Now it may be that everyone was wrong. But the argument for playing open games as an adult seems to rest on the assumption that everyone can improve their tactical ability. I find it hard to believe that that is so. Everyone has their own ceiling, in every field of human endeavour. I know that I will never be any good at (say) tennis, however hard I try. I know this because in my younger days I tried quite hard, without success. Why should chess tactics be different? After years of struggling to improve, my tactics are still weak. I very much doubt that I will ever master open games, even if I play nothing else for the rest of my life. Does that mean I should keep playing open games indefinitely, because I will never be qualified to graduate to anything else? If the best I can realistically hope for is to reach 1850 or 1900, I suspect that the surest way of doing that is (as Nigel Davies suggests) by learning to play certain kinds of quiet position and aiming for those kinds of position.

This is nothing to do with being tactics-averse. I like tactics: I'm just not very good at them. I don't pretend to have a "positional style", or any other style; but one of the main features of my play is my tendency to make tactical blunders. Doesn't it make sense to take account of that fact in deciding what openings to play?

I also don't quite understand why playing an open position once or twice a week (which will probably resolve itself into a quiet position after the early fireworks) is more likely to improve one's tactical ability than a couple of hours with CT-Art every day.

It is of course true that open positions are fundamental. If you have no idea how to play open positions, certainly you should learn how to do so. That's why kids should play open positions. But we adult patzers know the principles of play in open positions: get your pieces active, be prepared to sacrifice if necessary, and so on. The trouble is not that we don't understand open positions: it's just that we miscalculate, or overlook our opponent's threats. I don't really see how doggedly continuing to play open games will help. Unless it improves one's tactical ability, that is; but I suspect it won't.