fling wrote on 08/17/19 at 08:58:16:


Obviously the first is the most important as far as I am concerned, they pay for the material after all.
However, the 2nd is also important, for example, looking at this month's Anti-Sicilian update I wonder whether we should rename it the '3...Nd7 Moscow' section, instead!
Also, as David wrote to me (about the Dragon, but it could also be about the French, etc.) "it's hard to find that many relevant games in this opening... Many games are rehashes of 'White fell into this trap again'." Which is true, and while some sections can afford to mostly annotate games between really strong 2700+ players, others have to make do with games between much, much weaker opponents !

tipau wrote on 08/14/19 at 13:25:49:


Massively against this suggestion. The Reti and other flank (b4, g4) do not warrant being broken out on their own. The English is the only real serious try seen in real play.

TopNotch wrote on 08/14/19 at 16:14:33:



I also really miss the other bonuses for all sections.

GMTonyKosten wrote on 08/16/19 at 08:12:02:


No, there are not.

GMTonyKosten wrote on 08/14/19 at 10:17:35:


I don't know that I have strong thoughts in general on Vigorito's suggestions... I do find that it makes sense to combine KID and Benoni since move order wise you sometimes are forced into the other one.

I never really understood the French being stand alone as it's one of the easier openings to learn... meanwhile something like Anti-Moscow is a minefield all to itself with correspondence changing the evaluation constantly. But what to do with the Sicilian is the real question? I have found that opening very hard to learn with it's transpositions... and often one line moves into some inferior version of a different Sicilian line. Perhaps that's the reason that the Dragon was on its own to begin with?

fjd wrote on 08/14/19 at 23:47:39:

I think David's suggestions are fair. 

I like the idea of moving the delayed/modern benoni stuff to KI.

I have a soft spot for the Dragon section because it was Chris's books that inspired me to play the opening 25 years ago.

Vigorito's idea of a separate Grünfeld section is interesting. For purely selfish reasons I wouldn't mind getting even more on both the Grünfeld and the Dutch. Though Glenn Flear has been handling the current "Daring Defences" bracket very well.

But only one section for the Open Sicilian sounds even worse than the current Sicilian situation. To my mind it makes more sense to have, for instance, one section for 2...d6 Open Sicilians and one for all the other Sicilians. Or any roughly even split the authors would be comfortable with.

That the French and the Dragons get as much coverage as all of 1.e4 e5 and 1.d4 d5 2.c4 does look a bit strange (and even stranger from titled players' point of view, I imagine). Though the French and the Dragon do have some of the most "zealous" adherents!

One thought: Is the number of sections written in stone? Maybe this would be easier with 13 or 14 sections... or maybe not.

Hi.

GMTonyKosten wrote on 08/14/19 at 10:17:35:

Not a subscriber(...heh). Since I quite like chesspub though and certainly could learn to play openings better, I promise I will subscribe to at least one section in short order.

The suggested section structures in this thread seem better in my eyes compared to the current. Not that the one now is so terrible, although it feels non-optimised. Since this seems mostly like as suggestion thread right at this moment I will just post what I think would be a decent structuring (mostly by adopting ideas from other posters ). Love it or hate it:

Current structure:
1) 1 e4 e5
2) French
3) Dragon Sicilians
4) Open Sicilians
5) Anti-Sicilians
6) 1 e4...
7) 1 d4 d5
8) d-Pawn Specials
9) King's Indian
10) Nimzo & Benoni
11) Daring Defences
12) Flank Openings


Suggestion (bolded = no change):
1) 1 e4 e5
2) French & Caro Kann
3) Open Sicilians
or
3a) Najdorf, Classical, Scheveningen
3b) Remaining Open Sicilians
or (some more detailed partition, where a possibly unattainable one would be something like:)
3a) d6 Open Sicilians - Najdorf, Classical, Scheveningen
3b) Nc6 Open Sicilians - Sveshnikov, Kalashnikov, Lowenthal
3c) e6 Open Sicilians - Kan, Taimanov, Four Knights
3d) Dragon Sicilians - Dragon, Accelerated Dragon
3x) Open Sicilian Sidelines - Mainly second moves. Dunno. Whoever wants them I suppose. Most other sidelines fit in sort of naturally imo.
4) Anti Sicilians
5) 1 e4... (but without Caro Kann, not that it matters to me greatly)
6) 1 d4 d5
7) d-pawn Specials
8) King's Indian & Benoni
9) Nimzo, Queen's Indian, Bogo
10) Daring Defences
or
10a) Daring Defences
10b) Grünfeld
11) Flank Openings
or
11a) English
11b) Reti, KIA, Irregular first moves

I don't know how realistic the optionals are however. With these it adds up to a lot of sections in the end.

Have a nice day.

Plainly, yes, the current section organisation is bonkers. 
Reminds me of world religions - if there were to be an apocalypse and things started again, no new religion would appear as now. Same with this:)   

Anyhow, armageddon back to the ranch...

I'm largely in agreement with Msr Vigorito. Obvious to have KID and Benoni together, yes.

Possible variations: 
*lump in Grunfeld with KID and Benoni
* separate out 'Open' to 2 sections: 1) B60-99 d6 sicilians (Classical, Najdorf, Dragon, Schev, from 2) e6 (Kan, Taimanov) and Nc6 (Svesh, Kalash, Lowenthal etc). But I'd have to see a data breakdown on that for games volume.

Change is good!

GMTonyKosten wrote on 08/14/19 at 10:17:35:


David also writes:

Quote: