Stigma wrote on 01/31/11 at 23:25:17:

I agree with Markovich that players at my level (1700) and lower don't have a style. We have a collection of weaknesses. But we each have different weaknesses, which will require different solutions to overcome. That's my reason for opposing the "one size fits all" approach.

And I can see his point about the Tarrasch as an open game for black. But I also see the point of that old saying about abandoning an opening that you've done poorly with, for psychological reasons. I'm glad I abandoned the Tarrasch. And some day, when I'm a stronger player, and have time to put in some serious effort learning to play IQP positions, I may return to it. But for me, at that time, it was the right decision.

Fromper wrote on 01/31/11 at 20:31:48:

That reminds me of the Chigorin Defence... not pleasant memories!

And I should make sure to play the French against some patzer soon (and maybe offer an early draw!?), or else that'll be a lot of work thrown out the window!

Markovich wrote on 01/31/11 at 21:40:56:

You keep going on about the Tarrasch being good for black to play with the IQP, but you ignored my statement that the IQP just doesn't happen at low-intermediate levels. How would someone learn to master those positions if they never actually come up in a game? 

As I said, I played the Tarrasch when I was in the 1500's. Nobody rated below 1800 ever initiated the pawn exchanges necessary to give me an IQP. Against higher rated opponents, I did get the isolani a couple of times, and I lost just because they're higher rated for a reason. But lack of practice against opponents at my own level kinda got in the way of learning how to deal with those positions.

I have recently decided to take up the Panov-Botvinnik as white against the Caro-Kann. The CK might not be nearly as common as facing 1. d4 as black, but I think I'll actually get to play with an isolani more than I did when I used to play the Tarrasch, so maybe I'll finally learn how this IQP stuff is supposed to be played.

Fanat, I play the Classical Dutch now. Maybe it's not as educational as other openings, but it provides a fun, unbalanced game. And after my disaster run playing the Tarrasch in tournaments, I've had pretty good results with the Dutch, which helped me get from the 1500's to 1700's.

Fromper wrote on 01/31/11 at 20:31:48:


Fromper,

So, what defense against d4 do you play now?

No matter how many times I start studying and playing Tarrasch I just can't get a good handle on it and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. So, maybe it's not a defense for me too.

kylemeister wrote on 01/31/11 at 18:20:22:


So maybe it's a matter of players on both sides not knowing when to trade pawns. As I said, I was only rated 1500 back when I played it. But even when I researched information about the opening, I couldn't find any guidance for black on when/if to trade pawns in the center, because it was just assumed that white would initiate trades first, which never happens at lower levels.

Anyway, I read somewhere that the old Russian trainers used to have a rule: If you lose 3 times in a row with the same opening, abandon it forever, no matter how much effort you previously put into learning it. From then on, that opening will always evoke negative feelings in your mind, even if it's a perfectly good opening. So I decided to follow that advice when it comes to the Tarrasch Defense after doing so badly with it. 

This thread is quite interesting, and not at all what I intended when I started it. Thanks to everyone who has responded.

Markovich wrote on 01/26/11 at 19:49:09:


Two questions. 

1. When you say that players below 2000 MUST play those openings to improve, are you saying that they must ONLY play those openings, or do you think having multiple responses as black which happen to include those is enough? In my case, I've switched back and forth between e5 and e6 as my main response to 1. e4 several times over the years. Realizing that I need to stick to more open positions, I think I'm finally ready to give up on the French (and the Closed Ruy, but that's a subject for a different thread) for good. But what about people who might choose to have two responses to 1. e4 prepared, and go back and forth depending on their mood, opponent, etc? Do you approve, or should the U2000 player stick to just e5?

2. I'm not sure I get your recommendation of the Tarrasch. At higher levels, it leads to the type of open, IQP positions that emphasize an open center and piece play, which I suppose is your point. But those positions only happen when white initiates pawn trades with moves like cxd4. I don't know about you, but I don't think I've EVER seen a player below 1600 playing the QGD as white initiate ANY pawn trade before the 20th move of the game. At that level, every Tarrasch game is just a symmetric QGD that's guaranteed to be 274% more closed and boring than the Giuoco Piannisimo (sp?). I used to play the Tarrasch for a while when I was in the 1500's, and I had trouble beating guys rated 2-300 points below me, because the position was so closed that I couldn't figure out how to even attempt to accomplish anything. I think my USCF tournament record with the Tarrasch was 1 win, 2 draws, and 7 losses before I finally gave up on it. Some of the losses were against higher rated guys in the types of open positions that I was looking for, but I remember the draws were against 1300's who I felt like I should have beaten, and the win was a kid rated 1100. 

So at lower levels (below 1600), I'd say that if the goal is to get an open center and tactical game against 1. d4, then I'd recommend the unsound, yet good enough at that level, Englund Gambit (1. d4 e5). I used to play that back when I went from the 1300's to 1500's, and I never lost a game with it against anyone rated below 1600. Of course, I got clobbered in one sided losses when I tried it against guys rated over 1800, which is when I decided to give it up in favor of the Tarrasch. 

LeeRoth wrote on 01/29/11 at 05:11:15:


That approach makes much sense, and is one of the paths to improvement recommended in various sources that mimics player development with the development of the game itself from the 19th century to the present. The selection of openings with common centre themes is up to the players personal taste. 

Throughout all of these discussions, I think we have mostly forgotten what the goals and motivations are of the player themselves. There is no cookie-cutter approach to chess improvement, there is no single "chess curriculum". That's obvious from all the improvement books and websites and DVD's. The path to improvement has to be tailored by goals and motivations. Just like any competitive sport ( and I coach a lot of soccer), there are many different competitive levels across different age groups, with each category requiring a slightly different approach, albeit with general guidelines or principles. I see chess as no different. 

If the case to present "Open games" or more generally - 19th century chess openings - to a beginner chess player (0-1500 say) is made as a general principle of chess player development, I would agree. So I think Markovitch's point of view is true - for beginners - but also it is not flexible enough to consider the goals and motivations of each individual player. 

Overall, the discussion itself on this topic thread is the most valuable part of it all, not the end conclusion If anything it provides even more evidence that there are many different roads to Rome. May you have a good GPS 

Markovich wrote on 01/31/11 at 14:43:46:


If I understand this non-reply correctly, I might need to add that I've continuously improved from 1400 to 1950 over that time with no end in sight.

Depending on whether you view those things as either a general guideline that is true in the majority of cases or a fundamental truth about chess learning that every player has to follow I'll either agree or call it complete bollocks.