TD wrote on 05/15/21 at 06:12:05:



This!!!! I jump from one to another with no idea or guidance on HOW to pick one.

That makes perfect sense . . . the process of creating your own file is part of  how you learn the key moves and ideas.  I have toyed with using the training mode for my repertoires files from both sides as an additional learning tool and that seems to help in some cases.

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 05/21/21 at 09:47:53:


Wow! I would never replicate a GM's file or anyone else's for that matter unless I thought it better for me than my own structure, it's just such an individual thing and for me it feels so natural and easy to create.

When I create and review a file weeks or months later. I like to utilise training mode (which hides the moves) if I encounter an idea or move that puzzles me I try to figure out what's going on, and then comparing it to the annotation I made if there was one, adding explanatory text and/or moves if necessary.

Using someone else's files rarely contains all the things that will help you, they contain the things that mainly help the creator.

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 05/20/21 at 22:57:48:

That's not what TopNotch wrote; he pointed out that there are several different methods posible. A "set of insturctions" tends to become too rigid quickly; a set of guidelines (including alternative ways) seems more practical to me.

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 05/20/21 at 21:07:24:


Does it really matter. How one creates and populates a Chessbase file is a matter of taste, and depends on you like information organised. Some like one big file, others prefer a set of smaller files, some like lots of explanatory prose and some prefer symbols and numeric evaluations 0.00.

Personally I find numeric evaluations misleading and meaningless to Human players in practical play, but try convincing an amateur of that who learned the game post 'Skynet'.

FreeRepublic wrote on 05/14/21 at 14:51:10:

MNb wrote on 05/17/21 at 10:31:56:

Well, there we have it, the two basic approaches to the opening. My sympathy lies with *both*. If everybody plays the one best or approved line, chess would become too easy for people with good memory and zero talent. However, you can't just play any rubbish to get them out of book, unless you are absolutely certain about the zero talent. What I think is possible is to play exactly one inferior move in the opening, to get the opponent out of book, and then switch back to playing all the best moves. The only question is how inferior can it be and still produce better statistical results than the best line. When there is a bunch of moves of about equal value (say on move one), take your pick. Other than that, you should play the best move *almost* all the time. It's that *almost* that requires experience and judgment.

Quote:

I call attention to "improve the variation in question", which I take to mean the player has to put in continuous work on the creative opening choice, similar to the way the top GM has to put in continuous work on the main lines. The difference will be the intensity of the opposition, which allows us to not work quite as hard.

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 05/17/21 at 06:40:53:

I seem to recall that he went with 2...Qxd5 3. Nc3 Qa5 4. d4 Nf6 5. Nf3 Bg4 6. h3 Bxf3 7. Qxf3 c6, a main line in those olden days.  That has been considered clearly better for White in ECO (I suspect including in the first edition, which came out the same year as Evans' book), though I see that the 2020 edition has it as only +=.

I love Moskalenko's (non-French) books!