Göring/Danish Gambit 1.e4 e5 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3.

TN wrote on 03/31/12 at 11:17:19:


I pretty mcuh agree on both counts.

I'm not going to monitor this thread any more, since there is a potential conflict of interest for me as someone making arguments here.  The only exception is that I'm going to delete posts whose subject is my moderation.  Put those somewhere else, or message me privately.

Markovich wrote on 03/31/12 at 01:18:42:

It hardly matters, but, if you're going to be picky: in the Kaufman thread I asked a question which triggered the discussion which you split off into this thread.

ghenghisclown wrote on 03/30/12 at 20:05:54:


I respond now to the portion of your post that still stands.  You persistently fail to understand that my recommendation has nothing to do with repertoire and learning systems of play.  It has to do with what sort of positions people should strive to play into.  In any given game, it probably does not matter what a sub-1600 plays.  A good player can play Alekhine's or Owen's and win.  But in the long run as I maintain, he will retard his chess education if he doesn't seek to play into open positions.

I uphold 1...e5 exclusively in answer to 1.e4, and the Tarrasch exclusively in answer to almost everything else, not because these will win any given game, but because these methods best facilitate the appearance of an open position on the board, where piece play and tactics count for all.  There are other ways to do the same thing, and I would not necessarily disapprove.  I had a student who wanted to play the Albin, and that was OK because it was in the same spirit, you know?  But if he had started to play the KID I would have told him to cut it out or find another coach.

That's all, nothing about theory or learning variations or how to win as Black or any of the crap that so many openings-fascinated people fret about on this board.

I never had a student, and I had dozens and dozens in total, who failed to prosper on account of what I perceived to be an inability to deal with open positions.  The students I had who failed to prosper had much more obvious and serious inadequacies.  In particular a player's fighting qualities are to the everything else as ten is to one.  Beyond that you have the whole question of whether tournament chess or the concert piano or baseball is worth pursuing.

We are talking past each other really, because I  reject that the improving player has a style that should be considered even slightly -- he only has a certain pattern of ignorance.  On the other side we have people arguing that personal ideosyncrasy should all-determining, down to the lowest levels.  People reading this can take their pick.  I have developed a goodly number of high-achieving chess kids using my methods, which are entirely classical and by no means original to me.  Only in this forum are these very ordinary and well-recieved methods associated with me.  And I really think it is sadly characteristic of this forum that choice of repertoire is given here such preeminence in anyone's concern about his game.

Well, since I kicked off this thread by asking whether the new Kaufman repertoire is unsuitable for 1800s, perhaps it isn't too off-topic to say that I'm trying to get into that (at least as Black). But even at my humble level you need to know a certain amount before you can play the Grünfeld or 1.e4 e5 in a serious game, especially when playing for a team. So I'm wondering if it's possible to slide into these lines gradually - for example by playing the Smyslov QGA with ...g6 against the Colle etc, and/or some low-theory lines of the Alekhine but with 2.Nc3 e5 (which at my level would probably mean getting open games around half the time).

Jupp53 wrote on 03/27/12 at 11:13:11:


[Excessively pointed remarks redacted by Markovich.  Posting in color redacted also.  People posting with strong graphic emphasis may expect to have their post summarily deleted.]

Markovich believes the proper learning of chess involves his approach, and has said so repeatedly, and not made a horrible case for it, either. But now, you guys want your cake and want to eat it too. We want our students to play x, but I never found a student who failed to prosper due to anything having to do with the opening.

Markovich wrote on 03/29/12 at 01:54:01:


I have seen some kids playing this, end they ended up terribly, becoming top 10 players, having to dedicate their lives to chess 

Seriously, though, there will always be exceptions. Your point is well taken.