I have some experience with coaching kids. But I must say that the whole opening discussion is a bit irrelevant to me as I only started with openings when they were older and better. Even then it mainly involved going through their games. 

On the subject of getting open games, I dont entirely agree with Markovich, but they may have to do that my definition of open positions is different from his. Eg with the better players I did a lot on "simple" endgames (few pawns on each side with some bonus pieces) and I am not sure if that would fall into his definition (it doesnt fall into mine of open games).

I do disagree with his opening stance, but we have had that discussion before and that would only result in a threefold repetition if we got into that again
I think we can leave that to difference of teaching style and slight difference of focus (plus my dislike of the TKD in favour of the Italian).

In any case, we are just talking past each other here.  People can learn one way or another.  Many people can learn in spite of questionable teaching.  Questionable teaching is a shame nevertheless.

It does not really bear on my argument that player X was able to make it to Master by playing nothing but the French and the KID.   

Independent observers of this may wish to note that the people arguing the other way have no evident experience coaching.

No your post was pefectly valid.  I deleted it by mistake thinking that it was you who had chosen the header, not realizing that "The Kaufman Repertoire" appeared by default.  Mea maxima culpa.

I have corrected the situation now, I believe, though I can't retrieve your deleted post.

Straggler wrote on 03/08/12 at 15:03:07:


No.  And in fact, it was terrible advice.

hicetnunc wrote on 03/08/12 at 17:08:00:


I stopped coaching a few years ago, after 17 years of volunteering my services to a local elementary school.  The kids I coached had resounding successes over that interval.  ,  Over that time, I perhaps was responsible for the development of a few hundred players in total; a few dozen good players; a few excellent players.  Perhaps 20 or so of "my" players continue with the game, to my knowledge; but my essential purposes were more to share the game and to develop kids' intellects than to produce tournament players -- though I produced a few.  One of my most brilliant players decided to specialize in baseball; that's the way it goes with young people.

Besides my volunteer work with the group, I gave free lessons to the most promising kids in my home.  I have coached some older players, mostly promising former students that I could not bear to part from, and so continued to offer them lessons to on a free basis.  I have never coached an adult, but if I did, I would base my teaching on their objective strength and not on their age.  

I discovered that once a student got up to 2100 or so, there was not that much that I had to offer.  My own rating is roughly 2250, but I found myself unable to explain why I could find better moves than a 2100; it just happens.  I have never given serious attention to a student that I didn't think was highly motivated.  

In fact, I stopped offering lessons to a few students that I considered promising, just because they appeared to be unwilling to do the necessary work.

I had only two or three students who came close to a reasonably good standard of play in open positions, so I continue to believe that most students under 2050 or so will benefit by emphasizing this form of play.  

ghenghisclown wrote on 03/08/12 at 05:50:14:


I'll stand by the exact words I said, actually.  Closed positions have a funny way of becoming open, while open possitions can't become closed.  Since chess played normally has a tendency to produce open positions, and indeed since in many systems the main question is when and how to open the game, I will stand completely by my claim that open positions are fundamental.

I don't come here to debate this meta-theory however, so much as to try to keep people from teaching young people in a foolish way.

MartinC wrote on 03/08/12 at 12:19:04:

It was not a matter of rounding out my style. The advice was that, since I am not much good at tactics, I should try to avoid them by choosing quiet openings. The Fort Knox was one suggestion. I don't know whether that was good advice, but it doesn't seem to bear much resemblance to the Markovich doctrine.

Just noticed my review is in the wrong thread...oh, well; you'll all have to excuse my off-topic blather