MNb wrote on 02/17/16 at 17:00:18:
Strength of my opponents: ELO 1500 - 1800.
I never felt that any opponent was well prepared - they usually had just some vague idea of what to do.
That is exactly what I have awaited. A skilled but not very much skilled oponentship with no special theoretical background to the very item (which is not easy to get...). And at best you know your mainlines and that you have to hunt King and Queen...
MNb wrote on 02/17/16 at 17:00:18:
I think you could recommend this to some pupils who need a quick patch and like taking risks.
I fully agree - and add that in the Ryder it is not only about taking risks but also about taking opportunities...
MNb wrote on 02/17/16 at 17:00:18:
Be honest though - I never fooled myself by thinking it was the ultimate solution. It's dubious at best. Plus make sure they are prepared for Black's two best defenses. It's kind of fun (for players with a certain attitude) to find ideas, even if dubious, in lines that are supposed to be bad. That will improve analyzing skills. In practical games that will often work like a charm, because the defender gets insecure and still will have to find solutions behind the board.
That is what I think. Of course the Ryder is no ultimate solution but much more an ultimate task...
Improving analysing skills - yes, just as they are forced to (with vibrant pieces if just the opponent slipps a bit).
That insecurity of the opponents is just a matter of fact. We don't deal theoretically with the positions but just practically with time limit. Mistakes are allowed and wellcome...
MNb wrote on 02/17/16 at 17:00:18:
In the meantime the pupil can work on a more serious repertoire.
Here we are. The problem of every "normal" opening approach for upcomers is: It is too much you have to deal with. Especially in the 1.e4-sector...
MNb wrote on 02/17/16 at 17:00:18:
There is some truth in "beneath ELO 2400 (or whatever) anything goes", as long as you understand the positions better than your opponents. The Ryder Gambit worked for me like that.
This is the inclination I too have. We should not forget that chess is a game of mistakes. And making the first "mistakes", giving away two pawns for not enough play, may be a good investment, as the opponent later is invited to mix in his own share of mistakes...
And they will, not all, but statistically for sure and in rising rate the lower the level is...
CarriedbyGg wrote on 02/17/16 at 21:30:10:
To explain my point, I would not like to recommend such objectively unsound openings to anyone, because I think just scoring well is not an excuse for playing bad stuff.
Objection.
Just scoring well is in first instance a very good excuse for playing risky stuff. Simply: Why not?
Ah, as the oponents grow stronger. So you should do. And develop your skills.
How do we learn chess? In my last lecture, on tuesday, we talked about openings and just as naturally as it may be one of the pupils suggested to play for what in Germany is called the "Schaefermatt" - 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nc6 3.Qh5...
You may call it rubbish, I as a teacher would call it a micro plan. In a teaching or learning sense this pupil acts goal orientated - not sound yet, but goal orientated.
My simple question is how I can get pupils advance to play for goals. Even if this goals are on a higher level not sustainable. The Ryder is, quite sure, not sound. But for sure it is lively with White having the initiative - or fun as MNb gave it on his experience. Not enough but nearly... If Black plays the best moves, the Gambiteer may fail. May. But how often this case will arise?
I think they have to learn even those failures to reach the next level... Never forget: Those items may return in ugly situations were you have to choose between just bad or very risky.
So I think pupils should learn this early on...
CarriedbyGg wrote on 02/17/16 at 21:30:10:
There are enough openings that are thought of being fine while providing enouh sharpness for someone who wants to take risks. The King's gambit, to name one.
Yeah. 1.e4 e5 2.f4. Burns. But how often do you get 1...e5?! And how do you sac against 1...c6 or 1...Nf6?
To keep things straight and simple, to reduce the workload in a sense that the pupils get an active position is a point on it's own...
Besides:playing the King's gambit quite often forces you to even sacrifice a whole piece (e.g. on f7) - may be logic and clearcut but also not easy...
CarriedbyGg wrote on 02/17/16 at 21:30:10:
There is no better way of learning a proper repertoire than to play it from the beginning!
Objection. Check Morphy. His play was clearly not allways exactly to death, but vibrant. But wrong in theoretical sense. But in combination with the opponents mistakes it was enough to construct masterpieces...
Young pupils should get in touch with such a genius input even if their level may be much lower. All in all they want to rise.
My experience is, that the input of pupils on lower ranks and higher ones dramatically rises, when the position turns to be concrete...
So of course they should learn, that an invested risk may matter positively...
CarriedbyGg wrote on 02/17/16 at 21:30:10:
Maybe the points will not come that easily because the opponent also knows some more stuff in "his" line, but it will teach you a lot about pawn structures, harmony, development and so on.
Before we learn about pawn structure we definitely should learn about piece power for sure...