Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Should the opening sections be reorganised? (Read 2197 times)
Leon_Trotsky
Senior Member
****
Offline


Кто был никем — тот станет
всем!

Posts: 414
Location: Barcelona, CAT
Joined: 08/11/17
Gender: Male
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #50 - 09/08/19 at 03:49:53
Post Tools
The Awerbach usually is played with ...e5 but no ...Cf6 to avoid KID transpositions. Black also wants the diagonal open for the fianchetto to get the knight to d4 and cement it there.

Maybe it is not so popular. But a Modern player has to play it to avoid going to the ultra-theoretical KID.

My guess is that the Dzindzishchashchwili-Indian would be in this section too, as people who play that usually are Modern players avoiding the KID.

1. d4 g6 2. c4 Ag7 3. e4 c5 4. d5 would probably transpose to the Benonis without the knight on f6. But 4. Cf3 could transpose to the Accelerated Dragon. Unless Black plays really hypermodern with 4...Db6 or something.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4486
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #49 - 09/07/19 at 16:31:48
Post Tools
By the way, as far as I know the Averbakh is 1. d4 g6 2. c4 Bg7 3. Nc3 d6 4. e4, so it doesn't include some lines of the Modern with c4.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stigma
God Member
*****
Offline


There is a crack in everything.

Posts: 3009
Joined: 11/07/06
Gender: Male
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #48 - 09/07/19 at 16:00:00
Post Tools
Leon_Trotsky wrote on 09/07/19 at 06:38:02:
Does the Hipoótamo get included in that fianchetto section too ¿ What about the double fianchetto Hedgehog lines ¿

The Awerbach should be in that section too, since most people play it expressly to avoid the KID.

Come to think of it, where is the Averbakh Modern (Modern with c4) placed now?

I have the impression it isn't covered much at all as it's unclear whether it belongs in the KID, 1.e4... or Daring Defences section. But correct me if I'm wrong.

The Old Indian and the unique 1.d4 d6 lines have a similar issue. Though admittedly none of these are usually on the cutting edge of theory.

Edit: Looks like the Old Indian and the Averbakh Modern are in the KID section. But it would make sense for all of the Modern to be in the same section. The others I mentioned may be "Daring", but I'm not sure of all of them.
  

Improvement begins at the edge of your comfort zone. -Jonathan Rowson
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Confused_by_Theory
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 406
Location: Europe
Joined: 05/13/15
Gender: Male
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #47 - 09/07/19 at 15:11:46
Post Tools
RoleyPoley wrote on 09/07/19 at 10:18:06:
Confused_by_Theory wrote on 09/07/19 at 04:47:47:
Hi.

I think it sounds like a decent idea to group Dragon, Acc. Dragon, Pirc and Modern. There is overlap for sure, even if the Modern and Pirc both can go towards different structures entirely. If the Sicilian section is split not having to put the dragon somewhere there could make it easier as well.

What I'm thinking though is: where would the Alekhine be grouped in case Pirc and Modern leaves the section? Alongside Caro Kann like now but only with the Caro?

Have a nice day.

How about the Alekhine, Caro Kann and the Scandinavian being grouped together as they share common structures?

Forgot about the Scandinavian obviously. Yea though. This could work.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
RoleyPoley
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 553
Location: London
Joined: 12/29/13
Gender: Male
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #46 - 09/07/19 at 10:18:06
Post Tools
Confused_by_Theory wrote on 09/07/19 at 04:47:47:
Hi.

I think it sounds like a decent idea to group Dragon, Acc. Dragon, Pirc and Modern. There is overlap for sure, even if the Modern and Pirc both can go towards different structures entirely. If the Sicilian section is split not having to put the dragon somewhere there could make it easier as well.

What I'm thinking though is: where would the Alekhine be grouped in case Pirc and Modern leaves the section? Alongside Caro Kann like now but only with the Caro?

Have a nice day.

How about the Alekhine, Caro Kann and the Scandinavian being grouped together as they share common structures?

  

"As Mikhail Tal would say ' Let's have a bit of hooliganism! '"

Victor Bologan.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Leon_Trotsky
Senior Member
****
Offline


Кто был никем — тот станет
всем!

Posts: 414
Location: Barcelona, CAT
Joined: 08/11/17
Gender: Male
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #45 - 09/07/19 at 06:38:02
Post Tools
Does the Hipoótamo get included in that fianchetto section too ¿ What about the double fianchetto Hedgehog lines ¿

The Awerbach should be in that section too, since most people play it expressly to avoid the KID.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Confused_by_Theory
Senior Member
****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 406
Location: Europe
Joined: 05/13/15
Gender: Male
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #44 - 09/07/19 at 04:47:47
Post Tools
Hi.

I think it sounds like a decent idea to group Dragon, Acc. Dragon, Pirc and Modern. There is overlap for sure, even if the Modern and Pirc both can go towards different structures entirely. If the Sicilian section is split not having to put the dragon somewhere there could make it easier as well.

What I'm thinking though is: where would the Alekhine be grouped in case Pirc and Modern leaves the section? Alongside Caro Kann like now but only with the Caro?

Have a nice day.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 3046
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #43 - 09/06/19 at 08:43:51
Post Tools
Glenn Flear writes:
Quote:
As for any adjustments on the site. You probably shouldn't do anything (as it would just upset people) so I would leave all the columns as they are.
If however I was starting from scratch, apart from minor adjustments here and there, the only big change I would do is combine the Dragon with the Pirc and Modern.
'1.e4: Dragon and fianchetto defences'.


It's an interesting idea, and does make a lot of sense.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Keano
God Member
*****
Offline


Money doesn't talk, it
swears.

Posts: 2883
Location: Toulouse
Joined: 05/25/05
Gender: Male
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #42 - 08/30/19 at 00:55:18
Post Tools
Grunfeld + Anti Grunfeld might be a section
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 3046
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #41 - 08/29/19 at 16:02:00
Post Tools
PatzerNoster wrote on 08/25/19 at 11:56:16:
The French and also the Dragon are openings that attract very dedicated followers, after all how many people are
there who only play the French for there whole life?
I can think of quite many.

By changing these sections, the site would become a lot less attractive for subscribers of that type, and I presume (please correct me if I am wrong) that there are quite a lot of subscribers to the French and Dragon sections.


Yes, that's true, it would risk annoying more subscribers than it pleased.
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
PatzerNoster
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 131
Joined: 10/22/09
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #40 - 08/25/19 at 11:56:16
Post Tools
GMTonyKosten wrote on 08/19/19 at 16:49:21:
Personally, I like the idea of keeping two Open Sicilian sections, one with the Najdorf and the Schevy and one section with all the others - even now The Open Sicilian section often contains 80% or more Najdorfs anyway.
I also think that moving the Modern Benoni to the KID and maybe the Catalan to the Nimzo makes sense.
I'm open to all other sensible suggestions Smiley


I agree from a statistical point of view.
The Najdorf is the overwhelmingly most popular Sicilian and for that reason a specialized section would be sensible.
Also for putting French and Caro-Kann together as suggested.
But there another question appears: do all other answers to 1.e4 apart from the moves of the c- and e-pawns really need a separate section?
In that way it would perhaps be more logical to single out the Caro-Kann for a separate section and put the French with the remaining defences.

But from another, perhaps more emotional standpoint I disagree.
The French and also the Dragon are openings that attract very dedicated followers, after all how many people are
there who only play the French for there whole life?
I can think of quite many.

By changing these sections, the site would become a lot less attractive for subscribers of that type, and I presume (please correct me if I am wrong) that there are quite a lot of subscribers to the French and Dragon sections.


For me the issue I see with keeping the current structure is that Sicilians apart from the Dragon/Accelerated Dragon and the Najdorf (about 5/8 games in the Open Sicilian section) are underrepresented.

As a player who focuses on Dragon and Najdorf in the Sicilian I can live with that. How do others feel?

About changes in the closed openings:
Changing Benoni to King's Indian and Catalan to Nimzo sounds sensible.
David suggested to give the Grunfeld its own section, but do the remaining "Daring Defences" really need a section of their own?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bibs
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 2101
Joined: 10/24/06
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #39 - 08/19/19 at 22:25:14
Post Tools
This all seems sensible yes.
I would agree with as Tony K suggests. Single Catalan / NID / QID / Bogo section, KID / Benoni section, two Sicilians etc.

Re: hiring, in my experience of this (I look after the p/t staff at my uni), more options is always better than fewer.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
trw
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1253
Joined: 05/06/08
Gender: Male
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #38 - 08/19/19 at 17:23:36
Post Tools
fluffy wrote on 08/19/19 at 14:44:22:
This all started because of some issues with the 1.d4 d5 section as it looks like we'll need a replacement.



That's a different problem... I have several GM friends that would be a good fit... should I reach out? Tony?

GMTonyKosten wrote on 08/19/19 at 16:49:21:
Personally, I like the idea of keeping two Open Sicilian sections, one with the Najdorf and the Schevy and one section with all the others - even now The Open Sicilian section often contains 80% or more Najdorfs anyway.
I also think that moving the Modern Benoni to the KID and maybe the Catalan to the Nimzo makes sense.
I'm open to all other sensible suggestions Smiley



I think that sums up my feeling.
  
Back to top
IP Logged
 
GMTonyKosten
YaBB Administrator
*****
Offline


Mr Dynamic?

Posts: 3046
Location: Clermont-Ferrand
Joined: 12/19/02
Gender: Male
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #37 - 08/19/19 at 16:49:21
Post Tools
Personally, I like the idea of keeping two Open Sicilian sections, one with the Najdorf and the Schevy and one section with all the others - even now The Open Sicilian section often contains 80% or more Najdorfs anyway.
I also think that moving the Modern Benoni to the KID and maybe the Catalan to the Nimzo makes sense.
I'm open to all other sensible suggestions Smiley
  
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
fluffy
Full Member
***
Offline


International Master

Posts: 236
Location: USA
Joined: 08/01/05
Re: Should the opening sections be reorganised?
Reply #36 - 08/19/19 at 14:44:22
Post Tools
This is David Vigorito...

My idea was to modify the sections with the parameters of twelve sections. I do not think we can split the Open Sicilians, 1.e4 e5, Flank Openings, etc. One perhaps, if another section, like the Dragon, is 'absorbed', but not all.

It's hard enough to find decent columnists (Tony had to scrape the bottom of the barrel for the King's Indian section), but we cannot expect Tony to find (and fund!) columnists for a few more sections. This all started because of some issues with the 1.d4 d5 section as it looks like we'll need a replacement.
« Last Edit: 08/19/19 at 16:04:09 by fluffy »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo