Markovich wrote on 03/28/12 at 12:06:05:


I think there is probably a connection between this point and the existence of so many "system" players among the junior ranks that others have remarked on. I have always viewed that kind of repertoire as a sign of a player who has probably been coached but badly. Players who haven't been coached much or at all tend to be all over the map in their opening choices, even from game to game. But those who have been coached by parents and other well-meaning but ineffectual teachers aImost always have very mechanical openings. In the absence of good coaches, I see many "play the first 7 moves without looking up" type of openings. (I won't list some examples so as not to offend those who play those openings thoughtfully and with understanding but I think you probably know the sort of things I mean).

emary wrote on 03/28/12 at 08:51:38:


Well, if the coach doesn't understand open positions, then there is a problem.

Markovich wrote on 03/27/12 at 13:17:12:

The one potential issue that can arise with the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit is the way certain players become obsessed by it and try to get it in every game.  
However, on general grounds I completely agree; I'm sure that those players are just a small but vocal minority who give the opening and its moderate practicioners an unjustified negative reputation.  As a regular practicioner of the Scotch/Göring/Danish/Urusov complex in addition to the BDG, I find that the resulting play is often very similar.

I also agree with the points about the Colle/Torre potentially encouraging "mechanical" play up to moves 8-10 even if the aim is to eventually open up the game.

chk wrote on 03/27/12 at 07:39:48:


Because of the way ratings work when only a few games have been played (here in the US anyway), it did sometimes happen that a fairly good player would start playing rated chess and suddenly aquire a stratospheric rating.  This was hell, frankly. The kid then had to face nothing but overpowering opposition until his rating adjusted back down -- something that takes more time the longer you play.  So it was very difficult on some kids.

I could never talk tournament directors into letting kids in this category play down.  They never wanted to risk chess parents complaining that little Johnny had to play a 1450, notwithstanding that his actual strength was perhaps 1000.

Those cases required special support, but I would never have considered recommending a different way of playing.

@Paddy: Yes, I am sure your experience is much broader and deeper than mine.  I worked entirely with kids 11 and under, and I never wanted for bright and extremely well-motivated players.  At the school where I volunteered, we ran a "Chess Club" for just anyone who wanted to play chess; and a "Chess Team" for a select group of players usually chosen for their good fighting qualities.  Chess Club met once a week for an hour, during the school day; Chess Team met once a week for 90 minutes, after school.  Chess Club received 5-minute mini-lessons followed by play against a challenge ladder; Chess Team received 15-to-30-minute lessons followed by intense round robin play with clocks, most often in quads but fairly often in speed chess battle royals.

Most Chess Team kids became fierce, fierce opponents and pretty well terrorized scholastic chess in this state.

There were a few who lost motivation after some time on chess team.  We just carried them along.  At a young age you can't kick a kid out.  But invariably the problem was enthusiam or having worse fighting qualities that I originally thought.  I would never have considered teaching special openings to these few kids, nor would they have picked it up if I had.

I just said we didn't kick kids off Chess Team, but we sometimes did if they failed to live up to team responsibilities.  These included, (1) always come to Chess Club and Chess Team if able, (2) respect other players, parents and coaches and (3) support the weekend tournament schedule as much as possible. 

I did give free 90-minute lessons in my home to the one or two most outsanding players in any given year, but not that many players in total, and never encountered there any difficulty picking up the classical approach. 

@SWJediKnight: I agree, though I would prefer to see these players play the Blackmar-Diemer, which is a great system for learning good principles.

I've come across a number of club players who played the likes of the Torre Attack and Colle System (both "system" type openings where White often aims for a Stonewall type setup).  I don't think this would be too bad if they'd learnt to play those openings aggressively, striving for an early e3-e4 break and kingside attacks, but the majority just played them passively with the aim of reaching the middlegame with a playable position.

There's a similar issue with the 1.e4 e5 approach- players need to know how to use it aggressively.  I've come across a fair number of club players who play passively with an early d3 and ...d6 resulting in the same kind of blocked positions. 

I will freely admit that I am one of those that plays chess more for enjoyment than for long-term improvement but I don't really see the attraction in playing passively, especially with White- though each to their own I guess.

ghenghisclown wrote on 03/27/12 at 06:51:21:


Probably you will read my answer and forget it as you forgot what has been said about it without contradiction here. 

The point of this is what comes after Tactics, Endgame, Opening Principles, Pawn Structures, Positional Evaluation, Attitude to the Game?

Well its plausibly on topic actually because a, or perhaps the?, primary requirement for improvement is surely having a broad base of opponents of around your current strength and to be playing a fair number of games against them.

Playing much weaker players doesn't teach much except concentration, and playing much stronger people just tends to teach you that at some level you're not very good at the game (which we all know anyway!)