Gilchrist is a legend wrote on 03/12/12 at 20:11:29:
I think whilst it is important for players to learn to play open positions, the matter of opening choice or repertoire is a factor. Open games, if I understand correctly, refer to all opening systems and variations after 1. e4 e5. But an improving player might prefer to play a different set of openings than 1. e4 e5 and 1. d4 d5 to learn how to play open positions. I remember seeing above that closed and semi-open openings such as the King's Indian, Grünfeld, Sicilian, French, etc. can result in open positions from a closed or semi-closed pawn structure in the initial opening moves, one can still learn to play open positions with these openings. If they play these openings regularly they will be practically forced to learn how to play open positions well to understand the correct timing of pawn breaks, etc., so I feel that opening choice and repertoire is a factor as well.
This is like saying that you can gain experience of analytic geometry while doing calculus. You can, but you don't need calculus to do analytic geometry, nor do you need to understsnd much at about semi-open positions to play good chess in 19th Century fashion.
Quote:
Also, regarding 1. e4 e5, one needs a defence against 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5. Most of those main defences are closed: Breyer, Zaitsev, Karpov, Berlin, Chigorin, Kotov, etc. So even a 1. e4 e5 player will need to play a closed position with much manoeuvring, like those positions that are obtained by those who play the French Winawer. Then why not allow the player to choose between Breyer, Karpov, Berlin, Chigorin, Kotov Defences against the Spanish, and playing the French, Sicilian, Caro-Kann, etc.
How many times have I said that this is not about systems, but about in what sort of play one should strive to gain experience, and how many times have you ignored it? Repertoires and systems are just not very important for weak players.
Do you have any students, or have you ever had? If not, I really cannot be bothered with trying to straighten out your misconceptions about chess coaching.
This sounds strange, but some classmates I had skipped univariable calculus during secondary education and learnt it on their own a few months before doing multivariable calculus in university and learning the rest of univariable calculus simultaneously. Yet somehow they did well in multivariable and got high marks. But that is another situation.
Types of positions concern the play that arise from them. If 1. e4 e5 gives general types of positions that are good for learning, why not 1. e4 c5 giving similar positions? If the matter is not about openings, then one can play any opening in order to learn a certain type of position without being restricted to one opening choice.
When I was in secondary school I used to volunteer to do some group lectures at the school chess club, but not often. I usually just talked for less than a half hour on how to play the White side of the closed Spanish, and some minimal opening theory. I do not know if everyone cared too much, but I know some 1400-1500 students tried to use some of those lines for their repertoires.
Pages: 
Re: best systems for improving players (Read 104776 times)
