hicetnunc wrote on 06/12/20 at 22:21:42:

All true. I have played and continue to play the Steinitz Defense a lot (both old and modern), which is why I recommend the Petroff.

BadDays wrote on 06/12/20 at 15:50:03:

The London is an ok-ish opening, as is the Colle. I've actually played both occasionally. My prejudice against the London is because of how I've seen it played. No objection to how Kamsky plays it or how some other GMs play it today, but club players do it all wrong. At a certain point you are not playing book moves any more, and are just doing what makes sense for the position. So the key question becomes, what do you do when you don't know what to do? What I've observed is that club players go h2-h3, and Bf4-h2, when they should be doing something concrete. And this just gives black time to develop or get a stronger grip on e4 or protect the queenside or whatever, so then white really doesn't know what to do. But in the Colle, everybody knows to play e3-e4, and even if they mess up and get an IQP position it's still open and interesting. So the London is better because the bishop is out, but in a way it's worse because it's better.

LeeRoth wrote on 06/13/20 at 04:00:24:

I see your How to Think Ahead in Chess (don't forget co-author Reinfeld), and raise with Chernev's Logical Chess: Move by Move, incidentally where I learned the Colle.

BadDays wrote on 06/13/20 at 00:11:00:

Incidentally Portisch played it via 3...Nf6 4. 0-0 Be7, ruling out lines with long castling by White.  (A game with 0-0-0 which stuck in my memory is Spielmann-Maroczy from 100 years ago; Euwe used it in his Judgment and Planning book.  And speaking of historical stuff, there is the Tarrasch trap ...)

BadDays wrote on 06/13/20 at 00:11:00:


There's a set of Chessbase DVDs by Nigel Davies, the philosophy of which seems ideal here. The idea was to learn first the London, Torre, or Colle-Zukertort, and then to add on d4/c4 systems. The improving player could stick with 1.d4 and 2.Nf3, but eventually add 3.c4 gradually and still have the system opening as a backup line.

BadDays wrote on 06/12/20 at 22:07:42:


It was reasonable advice offered in good faith.  We weren't to know you were so opposed to hearing it.   

Anyway, if you want to close discussion on it, that's fine.  I think if he's a smart guy and making rapid progress as you seem to indicate in the OP, then you shouldn't treat him like an old codger and shackle him to the London System for life.  Have him play 1.d4 2.c4 and get some interesting positions with white.  System openings aren't for improving players of any age, they're for when your chess skill reaches a plateau and you can't be bothered anymore.

hicetnunc wrote on 06/12/20 at 22:21:42:


I will look into the Steinitz.

hicetnunc wrote on 06/12/20 at 22:21:42:


I like this idea, but what to suggest if my student finds himself in the starting position of the Meran? As far as I know, 6...dxc4 is the only "correct" move and I don't want to suggest a dubious continuation to a new player, but at the same time I think that we are not ready to dive into the strategic nuances that result from 6...dxc4.

Thank you for your reponse!

TopNotch wrote on 06/12/20 at 19:09:32:


I appreciate your book recommendations. 

I reject your premise that an opening repertoire is ludicrous for a player of his level. Obviously, opening study should be scaled depending on the strength of the player in question, but I am certain that studying the opening is beneficial for any player of any level.

It should be clear from reading this thread that I don't intend to have him "memorize Breyer move orders". Perhaps there is a widespread misunderstanding about what "studying the opening" means since I would suggest that memorizing opening moves at any level is likely to be a waste of time. In my opinion, there is a lot of instructive value in trying to understand subtle Breyer move orders for example, even for a player of 1200-1400 strength. As I said in a previous post, you cannot study the middlegame without studying the opening.

To be clear, I don't expect my friend to master the Spanish or any other opening. I do want to have some idea of where to point him if he runs into 3.Bb5, for example, which is why I made this thread.

I will clarify further with an example. Let's say he faces 3.Bb5 in a blitz game and asks me how he should reply. Now, it's my job as his teacher to point him in a direction. In that position, he could play 3...a6 or 3...Nf6 or 3...d6 and so on. I would like to be able to say, "I've thought about it and I think that 3...a6 is the move you should consider next time you get this position. Here's how the game might continue from there." 

So the premise of my original post was to solicit ideas for suitable openings to suggest to him in such situations. I could draw an analogy to running a game of Dungeons and Dragons; I have worked out many of the story elements beforehand, but I will only reveal them to my players when it makes some sense or when they ask specifically. Perhaps I should have made my intent more clear in my original post, but I didn't want to be too wordy. I am somewhat surprised at the reaction many posters have had to the idea of working on openings with a new player.

I also should have made it clear in my original post that I'm not particularly interested in discussing the merit of my approach. I think such a discussion is interesting but obviously not productive with regards to my goal. 

Anyway, I appreciate the thoughtful responses from Ordinary Chessplayer and MaxJudd, but nobody else has even attempted to engage with my questions! If all of your responses can be boiled down to "don't bother", then why bother posting those responses at all? Do you think you're going to change my mind by dismissing my premise? When I said "I appreciate any and all responses" in my original post, I didn't exactly expect such nonsense.

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 06/12/20 at 17:26:22:


I know there are some 1400 players who do that.  I think it's a complete waste of their time and does them no good whatsoever, which is why they're still rated the same as the majority of 1400 players who know little to no theory.  If they do it against me, I certainly do not have more or better books.  It's unlikely they'd even get to play their 16 move line to the end, and even if they did, I'd just outplay them from there, not because they're idiots, but because at 1400 they're just not as good at chess.   

Of course, I can only speak from my own experience, and my experience is of not knowing a thing about opening theory when I joined my first club, and yet still having a first published rating over 1400.  I didn't choose an actual repertoire until I was knocking on 1800.  It was only 15 years ago, and things haven't changed that much since then (I'm 38 and am still the second youngest member of my current club) So I am baffled when people say you NEED opening knowledge in order merely to survive at that level, because I didn't and I'm a fairly unremarkable player.

Still, if the OP must have something to teach as a first repertoire as black, they could do worse than my old french/stonewall dutch combo, which I played successfully after skimming through about 5 games by Botvinnik. 

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 06/12/20 at 17:26:22:


I very much agree with this. I often encounter the idea that players shouldn't spend time looking at openings until they're 1600, 1800, 2000, even 2200 strength, but I think that such an idea is at the very least outdated. To me, the study of the middlegame is inexorably linked to the study of the opening, since middlegame structures and imbalances are direct results of the opening. I remember GM Gustaffson has said something along the lines of "studying the opening is studying the middlegame." The underlying assumption of my initial post is that there is some value to studying the opening for players of all levels.