Well, the argument is that at lower levels of play, "your personal playing style" counts for very little. What indeed can a playing style be for a weaker player but an affectation founded on a set of misconceptions? Does some deep understanding of semi-open positions underlie some 12-year-old's passion for the Najdorf, or is it only that he fantasizes about playing like Fischer? Style is not something to be cultivated even in a strong player, why should it be cultivated in a weak one?

I am sorry if it offends anyone's deep sense of individuality, or of his child's for that matter, but at a young age there are certain things that must be learned before other things. It doesn't offend you if someone wants to teach your child addition before teaching him division, or analytic geometry before calculus; why then does it offend you if someone says he should.learn open piece play before taking up 
closed positions?

And I'm NOT talking about repertoire, mind you. Developing a repertoire is one of the last things an improving player should worry about. Now do I deny the importance of individualized instruction. Instruction doen't fail to be individualized just because everyone is working on tactics and open piece play.

I must admit also that I often find myself wondering how many of those theorizing so extensively here about chess instruction have any actual experiece doing it.

May I quote Réti


”A beginner should avoid the Queen´s Gambit and the French Defence and play open games instead! While he may not win as many games at first, he will in the long run be amply compensated by aquiring a thorough knowledge of the game.”

        Masters of the Chessboard by Richard Réti.

My brain totally agree but my heart sometimes forgets.

By the way, a fantastic opening book.

Zatara wrote on 03/08/12 at 00:39:25:


I some time ago presented my choice for my students (elo 1600-1900). It has developed to this:

White:
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 and 4.d3 / 3.d4
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6...5.Nc3
1.-c5 2.c3
1.-e6 2.d4 d5 3.ed ed 4.c4 / 4.Nf3 intending  c4 soon
1.-c6 2.c4
1.-d6/1.-g6 Be3-system
1.-Nf6 exchange
1.-d5 early Ne5-system

Black: 
1.e4 Petroff 
1.d4, 1.c4, 1.Nf3 Tarrash/Lasker QG 

I think this is simple, consistent and active enough collection.

I don't really know what you did either. I can't figure out what you were even trying to do. Did you lose some posts in all these moves?

Markovich wrote on 03/08/12 at 03:58:18:



Yes, I agree. I'm the first to say "I can't play chess." I got to 2000 rating after 10 years of playing 1600 to 1700, by switching to the closed games. But I admit, at 2000 my chess still sucks.

Markovich wrote on 03/08/12 at 03:58:18:


Oh wait..."If you can't play open positions well, you can't play chess" isn't a universal principle? You should have said, "For most, learning to play open positions is paramount, unless you really are much better at closed positions..." But that wouldn't have sounded quite as neat.

As for guessing G.I.A.L.'s play would have been better had he stuck to open games...hmnnn...if only Garry Kimovich had concentrated more on boring positions, I frankly suspect he would have done a lot better against Kramnik's Berlin Wall...

Another thing I'm reminded of is a line from Michael Stean about the old main lines of the Closed Ruy:  "Never in the history of chess have so many moves been repeated so often so quickly by so many people who really didn't understand them."

One might wonder, when you were rated 1000, just how many of your opponents played a dozen or so moves of main line Ruy.  (This causes me to recall that my first and lowest rating was 1044, and my games in that first tournament involved things like erroneous piece sacs within the first few moves.)

Zatara wrote on 03/08/12 at 00:39:25:


My advice to you is to stop worrying so much about what openings to play and (1) play a great deal of chess, preferably against challenging but not-too-challenging opponents; (2) spend as much time as possible solving tactics exercises; ;and (3) spend a little time reviewing good attacking games, like the classics by Morphy, Andersson and Chigorin.  Marshall's games are good to study.  Kere's games are very good.

Don't worry about theory.  Learn only enough theory to win your own games.  Gradually as you improve, this rule will imply deeper study of theory.

Openings, even the ones I recommend, are not going to win your games for you.