Quote:

Play in the Nimzo is thematic and flexible, one can do plans with almost any pawn move and can capture the Knight on c3 with the Bishop or retreat it to a5 or e7. The Nimzo is the Ruy Lopez of d4 openings! 
With 2...c6 one needs to know first 2...e6 (QGD) to understand how to mantain the center and only then 2...c6 to give up the center and put the Bishop out. All these openings (QGD, QGA, Slav) are related. Black will follow 20 moves of structural chess and forcing lines and if he wants to win, he needs to improve on Shirov´s analysis and that could be dificult...

Ametanoitos wrote on 01/30/11 at 22:41:46:

I have thought about that one, but the Anti-Marshall 8.h3 Bb7 9.d3 is not so easy to meet.

Not to highjack the topic but in everybody's opinion what would be a suitable Ruy Lopez defense for an improving player to go with the open games? 

Markovich seems to recommend Open lopez judging from the e4 e5 section. What about 

Classical? Smyslov system?

MNb wrote on 01/30/11 at 11:28:23:


The C-K is very popular at the scholastic level in Arizona, where I did the majority my coaching.

However, I can think of a few problems, and I was able to exploit particularly #2 with my students.

#1) All of the different white tries after 3. Nd2/3. Nc3 dxe4 require careful play from black. Just about everything white may try can quickly lead black to serious problems/getting miniatured if black slips.

#2) The Panov-Botvinnik - most novices suck at playing against an IQP because it requires experience, careful defense, and knowledge of the various strategems necessary to play it well. Otherwise you're just as likely to get blown off the board with a generic white initiative. White, in the mean-time, is just putting his pieces on obvious squares and trying to mate black.

#3) Advance C-K, particularly the 4. Nc3/5. g4 hack, is a lot easier to play as white if both sides are sketchy on their theory.

I'm a huge C-K fan myself, but to be able to play it and not lose a lot of games in truly frustrating fashion you need to be able to handle a wide variety of nuanced positions. The student needs to have some significant fundamentals in place before it could be considered, in my opinion.

So, under such guidelines, something like 99% of tournament players will never be "permitted" to play e.g. the French or Caro-Kann.

But meeting 1. d4 with 1...d5 (a "natural move" which "grabs space in the center") is "much more complex" and "requires much more experience" than the NID/QID?  Hmmmm.

I definitely think Markovich's general approach is likely best for long-term chess development.

I coached scholastic players for a number of years, and the issue was always going for immediate results, or long-term development. A lot of it has to do with identifying what the students are trying to get out of the game. Identifying the goals of the person learning the game is extremely important in determining the course of action.

If they just want to have fun, win games, and don't have any serious long-term goals I don't see a major issue with them being introduced to the French, KID, or any other number of openings. In the case of the high school team I coached, they didn't have chess goals after high school, nor was there really time to give them a "classical chess education", so they ended up using the Hanham/Philidor and Old Indian as black, and the 3. g3 Vienna as white. They did very well, but obviously that is far from ideal if they were learning for the long-haul.

If the player has long-term goals, then they need to start on the types of positions (ie: open) that dominate chess more so than any other, regardless of opening.

I know in my own personal development as a player I never had a coach, and had to rely on re-reading My System and Chess Praxis repeatedly. My original opening repertoire as white was the Nimzowitsch Attack (1. Nf3/2. b3), and as black was the French, Queen's Indian, and Nimzo-Indian. That's what I got exposure to from studying, and liked the most, so I went with it.

Those openings were all well and fine for a long time (carried me well over 2000 USCF), but then I hit a wall. Hard. I didn't have exposure to enough types of positions to continue making progress against opponents that weren't playing poorly in the opening. Sorely missing was the ability to handle open positions with fluid pawn structures. Over time I've remedied the problem, but undoubtedly I'd be a better player had that become second nature to me instead of closed positions, given the former is more common than the latter.

That being said, I do differ with Markovich on the timing of when the introduction to more closed openings should begin, preferring to start the process around 1600 USCF. Below 1600 they have a lot more things to worry about than the openings, because they're quite often still hanging pieces at that point, or failing to exploit the hanging pieces of their opponent.

Markovich wrote on 01/28/11 at 14:57:29:


I can't even count the points I've won OTB facing club players (under 2200) and their attempts to play the KID against the Gligoric over the years. I haven't lost, or drawn a single game to any club player in that opening variation OTB.

An FM blundered on move 9 in it in one of my games due to being stuck in "systemic development" for lack of a better term. And this was at classical time controls over the board.

(1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7 4. e4 d6 5. d4 0-0 6. Be2 e5 7. Be3 Ng4 8. Bg5 f6 9. Bh4 Nh6??)

I know that Markovich takes himself with a grain of salt, and his doctrine does not offend me personally, but perhaps it does so philosophically.  Still, the last thing I would ever want is for him to stop presenting things forcefully as he sees them here (if he did it would be very great loss, especially since it would mean hell was about to freeze over. But perhaps I should not joke about that, since such losses have actually happened, much to the detriment of the chess world).  The only place where I wish to contest Markovich is where he asserts that his repertoire's superiority for improvement is virtually universal. I just want, to show how, like Banquo,  "I keep my bosom franchised and allegiance clear"--and to encourage others do so who might otherwise be intimidated or dazzled by Markovich's (well-deserved) prestige into converting to this form of fundamentalism.

For further contrast, and to stave off being seen as the would-be leader of a group of artsy chess flower-children expressing their feelings without technique (it was this implication in the "Island of Discover Your Style" remark that set me off), I offer views of some well-known teachers:

Jeremy Silman: "I believe that every player should create and nurture their own repertoire based on their personal strengths and tastes." Silman goes on to offer sample quiet and sharp repertoires in  1.e4, 1.d4 and some 1.c4 flavors, and advocates sticking with whatever you choose.. http://www.jeremysilman.com/chess_letters/040313_tw_qstns_at_rprtr_stdy.html

Igor Khmelnitsky: [If you are a Class C player or higher you] "should choose openings based on your taste..." Chess Exam and Training Guide, p.271.

Dan Heisman: Beginners should play sharp openings to improve their tactics, but "I suggest that players looking to improve learn and play the French and King's Indian Defenses for at least a few months each. ... a basic understanding of how to play both is a good sign that one understands pawn structures in general and can survive many irregular (and some regular) openings." --A Guide to Chess Improvement, p. 329.

Mark Dvoretsky: "People ask me ... what [a young player] should do at this [or that] level. Such advice is just impossible to give [in the abstract]. People are very different and there are many ways to success....A player should decide for himself...which openings better suit him, according to his personality, his approach, his memory, and so on."  http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/the-big-dvoretsky-interview-part-2/
The Dvoretsky interview should be read in full. His overall view is pretty close to mine. His example of the famous pedagogue of difficult children who asked abour the weather shows he is not just talking about masters. 

I would really love to see a blind prospective study about this (prospective, because I believe the issue of self-selection would be a fatal confounding factor if you tried a retrospective study). Unfortunately, that doesn't seem very likely.