I recently started working with a talented kid who plays lots of wild, sharp lines including gambits, like the Morra and Milner-Barry gambits for white, the Schliemann and Albin for black. He played all these already; my standard recommendations would be a bit calmer. But as a result of our work I've taken a more positive view towards gambit play as a pedagogical tool.

For that repertoire to work of course he has to be a strong attacker and tactician, relatively speaking, and he is. 

This makes sense as a path of development since, as many have pointed out, it's easier to teach a tactical player strategy than the other way around. Besides the usual opponents below 1500 (and even below 2000) dislike defence and are not very good at it, so forcing the play is good for short-term results, and thus for motivation too! Of course, when and if he approaches 2000 I will recommend looking at more normal lines.

pitbull wrote on 01/05/10 at 19:47:02:


If you want to prepare for the marathon it is not a good idea to daily sprint the 100 m. Your first step should be to play more games at a classical time control, ie the first 36 moves/1½ hour each.
At the other hand if you want to improve at blitz just concentrate on the openings you like most.

thank you all for your comments.
Matemax as far as improving my personal skills I am restricted by some physical issues and medication which sedates me to make my situation worse.
Being a book hound I already have Moskalenko's book, Revolutionize  Your Chess but so far have only glanced at it. It looks complicated on first glance.
A training plan and goals would help. I am very scattered in my study.
I also know I need more slower games.
The above however were not the issues I was addressing ie the( possible) need to change ones rep. as one gets older and does a change to more closed, slower openings hinder whatever improvement is still possible ie. does one need to stick to more open games to have hopes of getting better (still). This would seem to relate to tactics. I suppose one could study and improve other aspects such as strategy endings etc.

Jupp53- I have never analyzed one of my slow games. As I note I currently rarely play these.
I was displaced by Hurricane Katrina and at the same time lost my chess coach.
I had little time for much chess for quite a while.
I then was in a major auto accident and I am left with physical problems and a need for medication. One positive is that I have lots of time for chess now
I am quite certain that I blunder a lot in all phases of my game.
As I said above I do need to become more organized in my study and try for longer games.

Sharpplay- I am sure that good blitz players were good slow players first and that it doesn't work the other way.
I am sure there are a lot more like us. The only other options are to quit chess or to die
I agree slower play does help.
I waver however as to whether one must go from the open Sicilian and Ruy Lopez to the closed Sicilian and the Italian

Probably there are some common misconceptions around here about age, learning, personal skills which are popular but without any controlled empirical support.

"Slow thinking" and "reaction time" are very different topics and it is hard to give global advice in this context. And the context is important!

@pitbull: I'm 56 and know about the problems and advantages of learning in this age by literature too. 

This topic is about chess. So I want to ask a question to you (and anyone else who has an answer at hand):
- If you ever analyzed your slow games with an engine: How many mistakes do you make per game evaluated by the engine with pawn value of 1.0+.

My slow game level on FICS is 2100, DWZ is 1900. I play seldom slow games. I will count it for myself next days over ten games. My estimate is between one and two mistakes of this level (= blunders) per game.

With 1500 you're an average player and the number of blunders per game should be higher. If this is true, what are openings important for in your case?

1. You should play openings letting you blunder less and giving your same level opponents a higher chance of blundering.
2. If you want to learn something you should play openings fitting to your learning goals.
3. The openings should be fun.

This is not the usual tactics, tactics, tactics even if there's some truth in this. It's more going from goal to procedure. An uncle told me you have to relearn once more for every ten years you got older. At least around 60 this seems to be a fitting estimate to me. So it's more important than ever to use the personal knowledge about yourself. No one knows your strength and weaknesses as good as you do.

Look at yourself honestly. What are your goals for the next three month in chess? What are your long term goals? Take the opening as a tool and look at it only and only beyond this point of view.

Thanks for taking the time to respond.I have a vague discomfort when I play the open games.There are several reasons I can identify. 
1)it's easy to get lost in the thicket of variations that comprise openings like the open Sicilians and the Ruy Lopez. One might say and believe me I have, you're only 1500 what's the difference but I study and I'm compulsive by nature so I like to get it "right"
2)Frequently its not the positions but the fact that I am slower taking in the position and deciding whats required leading to my always being behind or losing on time or making a bad move which might be a lost piece or lead to a lost piece that's the problem. This is partly my mediocre chess skills and partly age related.
3) If it's good for my chess skills I will do it is what I have been operating under. This is like taking medicine that might not taste good to make you get better.
I'm not sure at this time that this is still true for me

My main question is this: There has been general agreement on this board that training and practice in open positions is necessary for low rated players to improve( I realize from comments you have made that you don't agree with this).
These statements have always been made with the tacit assumption that the individual involved is a student or a younger person but is this true for the older person.
I am sure I am no the only one here who is older, not high rated but still interested in getting better.
What should we do specifically about the openings we play knowing that the opening isn't important but rather the middle game it leads to.
I know that tactics and end games remain important.

Perhaps we are stuck needing the skills only open positions can provide but unable to perform well because of slowed thinking and reaction time and memory.

As I said I vacillate still as to what I should to and hope other opinions may help guide or convince me.

I have a related question that I don't believe has been covered in some time.
What are the recommendations/suggestions for the older chess player.By that I mean about 60 years old.
Every chess player no matter what his rating and I suspect his age wants to get better Why else play.
Suggestions I see appear to be largely aimed at younger players (or maybe not!)
Ziegler begins his DVD on the French by stating that he changed from the Sicilian at least partly because of age and difficulty with memory.
I note that Larry Kaufman has changed his repertoire and and plays D4 and the French (at least in games I have seen published)

To be more specific I am approaching 60. I have approximately a USCF rating of 1500. Several years ago, motivated by what I read on ChessPub. I switched from d4c4 white and the French and NID/QID/Cat to e4e5 from both sides along with the same NID/QID/CAT.
It has never felt right for me, not any of it both I have continued because I want to improve. I have of course worked on tactics/endgame ( but not as much as I should
I now have plenty of time.
Should I persevere with my current repertoire or change?

I vacillate between changing to the French again and to the slav while from the white side playing e4 but differently ie. c3 Sicilian instead of open Sicilian, Italian instead of Ruy Lopez etc or even going back to d4.

I have improved some with time-nothing dramatic.

I realize at my age there are no big changes to be had.
I do get lost in open positions primarily because I never have enough time to process what I see. I admit that I mostly play blitz (but at least toward the slower end)
I am of two minds. Sometimes I feel I should persevere. Other times I feel it's ridiculous to do so. The openings have never seemed right to me.But then I feel like I am giving up on getting better if I go to a series of closed or semi closed openings such as I have mentioned.

I would be interested in anyone's take on this but I also feel it has universal interest. We are all getting older and will face what I face ie. a slower brain and will then have to choose whether to continue what they have been playing or switch.The experience of older players is welcome especially those even older

msiipola wrote on 01/02/10 at 17:03:36:


3.d3 doesn't really produce an open game.  I am not quite sure how anyone can play chess and not be willing to offer a pawn in exchange for activity.  Sometimes it just has to happen.  But I could understand someone having qualms about playing the Goering, which probably doesn't offer completely full compensation.  If you fall into that category I would suggest the Scotch or the Scotch Four Knights (play the Four Knights, then play 4.d4).  Or yes, the Urusov.

Beyond that I would suggest your qualms about playing gambits may indicate a weak spot in your game, and that deliberately playing some gambits would be a good way to patch it up.  Likewise when people say, "I have no success with the Tarrasch," what I hear is "I can't play with the IQP very well."

I have no doubt that the best motivated of the 19th-Century gambits is the King's, and that is the one I would suggest you look at.  Or perhaps the Evans, but there you have to confront the Two Knights.  But the Goering or the Blackmar-Diemer would be fine as well.

But I would like to say again that playing certain openings is not something that will improve anyone's game.  What will improve a developing player's game is playing lots of open positions with emphasis on piece activity.  The choice of opening is merely a vehicle for that.  For the same reason, don't study more theory than you need to win your games.

Really, it's true that playing lots of chess in general, with any sort of position, is what improves your game.  But since open positions are fundamental, I recommend that developing players pay special attention to them.

Interesting advice. But pawn sacrifices abound so much in modern openings, that I would be surprised if any chess player did not have at least two or three lines involving pawn sacrifices in his/her repertoire.