ReneDescartes wrote on 01/28/11 at 04:25:57:
I can't help but think that this is a case of one taste being elevated to the status of a universal standard. Such a process makes up the very sand on the Isle of Zilbermints, but the Markovich doctrine does it as well.
Well let me preface my reply by saying that I don't claim to have God's truth. I suppose you're a coach yourself and that you take my ideas as a criticism. I'm sorry about that, and if you have a better idea for helping players to improve, I salute you. But if someone comes to this forum and asks how he can improve his chess, I'm jolly well going to say what I think and not hem and haw about it. And I make no apologies for that.
I do believe that a majority of coaches, not only those of today but those of the past, have taken the same or very similar point of view (not, perhaps with respect to the Tarrasch but with respect to the importance in general of piece play in open positions). I only jest when I claim to have originated it.
If (sic) you advocate any young and improving under-2100 player's taking up the French or the KID, I would consider your position to be the strange one.
Strange, but not bad. The French teaches a player about attacking a pawn chain (any position with e5/d4 vs. e6/d5, with the thematic ...c5 and ...f6 breaks, handling an IQP (3.Nd2 c5 4.ed5 ed5), when to sacrifice material for the initiative (e.g. ...g5 in the Steinitz), and the 6...Ne7 7.Qg4 Qc7 Winawer is guaranteed to produce tactical chances for Black. The Rubinstein and related variations teach how to handle the d4 vs. e6 pawn structure, and the key pawn structure with a2/b2/c3/f2/g2/h2 vs. a7/b7/e6/f7/g7/h7.
The KID teaches how to attack in opposite-side attack positions (Mar del Plata), sacrificing material for the initiative (...g4/...f3 breaks in the Mar Del Plata, ...Nc6 in the Samisch, meeting Nc1 with ...e5 d5 Nd4 Nb3 c5 dc6 bc6, to name two examples), handling the e4 vs. d6 structure with a pawn on c4 (Fianchetto Main Line, 7...ed4 Classical), and the classical structure with c4+d5+e4 vs. c7+d6+e5 (pawn chains, when to break with ...f5).
I wouldn't recommend the French or KID to most players either, but it obviously depends on the peculiarities of the player. ReneDescartes wrote on 01/28/11 at 04:25:57:
You prescribe open games. The open games are not identical with open positions or with tactics. Your own point that closed positions eventually open up proves that, for goodness' sake!
I recall having seen this argument before, but I don't recall having responded to it. I certainly don't dispute that the open games don't always lead to open positions. But playing 1...e5 with ideas in mind like the Open Spanish or Two Knights Defense is, I think everyone will agree, the best way to try to bring about an open position. And of course, French and other closed positions do often open up, but playing straight into closed positions is not the best way to acquire the skill necessary to play open ones -- while that skill is necessary to good play in many closed ones. I think that coaches who tell their sub-2000 players to take up the Caro or the King's Indian are putting the cart way before the horse. For goodness sake, indeed.
The Scandinavian is just as likely to open the position, but it doesn't teach a player enough about the fundamentals of pawn structures and dynamics of chess.
The Caro-Kann is not always closed. Black can play 4...Nf6 5.Nf6 gf6 in the main line, which often leads to sharp tactical positions, he can meet 3.e5 with 3...c5 when dc5 will lead to a semi-open position quite quickly, 4.c4 blasts open the position and 4.c3 is rather easy for Black to meet if he understands the French Advance pawn structure at all. And 3.ed5 cd5 will quickly lead to an open position after 4.Bd3 Nc6 5.c3 e5. It is a logical choice for some players , since it exposes them to the dynamics of chess and the nature of the initiative.
I agree that the KID is too hard for a sub-2000 player to play successfully. White has a lot of different tries, all of which require a different reaction from Black. Not a practical option at all. ReneDescartes wrote on 01/28/11 at 04:25:57:
Why should a 2000-level player's "supposed understanding" of the Najdorf be inferior to his alleged understanding of the Tarrasch?
Simply because a very straighforward and simple set of ideas lies behind the Tarrasch, while the Najdorf requires a very fine sense of how to balance all sorts of different strengths and weaknesses. Look at Black's game against 6.Bg5, for crying out loud! Look at his game against the English Attack! I would never advise a 1900 player to take that on. I would be much happier to see him in the attacking role there, but there are perhaps easier ways for a player in that class to get good chances against the Sicilian. If a player can't figure out the best squares for his pieces in the Tarrasch or the Two Knights, he damn sure isn't going to be able to play anything else very well. A 1900 player who can't do that but can play the Najdorf well? Don't make me laugh. He can't drive a Honda Civic, but he claims to be able to drive a Ferrari. This guy will never see a Najdorf, he'll just lose to the c3 Sicilian or the Smith-Morra.
If I had to teach the Sicilian to a player in that class, it would be the Lowenthal or perhaps the Four Knights. But a big problem with 1...c5 for these players is that there are so many good replies besides the Open Sicilian.
I can't recommend the Najdorf to most sub-2000s either, but the Classical is quite a good option since it exposes the student to the ...e5 and ...e6 pawn structures without the necessity of learning more moves of theory than is practical at that level. Moving on, the Anti-Sicilians can be annoying, but the ...d5 Alapin, Smith-Morra and Wing Gambit at least lead to open positions. And it's important to be able to play against an initiative as well as with it. The Bb5 and Closed Sicilian setups are rather positional, but ...d6/...Nc6 gives Black some dynamic chances against Bb5, and the Closed Sicilian structure is essential for a player to learn since it arises frequently in the 1...e5 English. ReneDescartes wrote on 01/28/11 at 04:25:57:
I know 1.e4 e5 players who are stalled at 1900 because they are mystified by positional chess--even after reading a positional manual. And I know players who have improved most when they studied some opening like the K.I.D., and who still do not thrive in double-king-pawn openings. Why do you think such people are so rare?
I think that there are many people whose problems in chess are mis-diagnosed by their coaches. I think that if anyone can't play well in open positions, it really won't help his game very much to study the French or the King's Indian or, for that matter, to develop a very fine sense of how to play a minority attack or besiege an isolated d-pawn. Your King's Indian specialist will get blown off the board by the Four Pawns Attack, our outmaneuvered in a fluid system like the Gligoric. Or his opponent will just play the Colle and beat him with very straightforward Bd3, Re1, e3-e4 ideas. However if your 1900 player can sometimes beat 2200-level players in open positions (which would seem to imply that he's underrated), I will say fine, it's time for him to take a look at the French.
I agree, though a player could also gain an understanding of open positions (and chess in general) by studying the games of the old masters.
I dispute the claim about the Colle since this is a closed opening (at first), and Black can always play ...c5/...cd4 when a d4+e3 vs. d5+e6 makes e4 less feasible, and c3+d4 vs. d5+e6 leads to the Carlsbad pawn structure. But to be honest a player who can play well in open positions will almost certainly be higher rated than a player who cannot, meaning that any sensible opening would lead to the higher rated player winning most of the time. I don't like war as a metaphor for chess, but I'll agree that it's a fist fight. But that goes to the fighting qualities of the player, which come from the soul, not from any coach. Though I suppose coaches can encourage their development.
In summary: I generally agree with Markovich's approach but it is not the only good one.
Pages: 
Are there openings everyone should learn first? (Read 68208 times)
