Best repertoire for "understanding" chess? - 2006/09/02 08:08Im 1795 on FICS. Secondly i've been nearly opewning with c4 or ... c5 because I like the character of these flank openings, but I understand that serious students should occasionally play the specifically open game, and I'm ready to apparently do that.
In addition to that but what does this mean, exactly? I can start with 1.e4, but I can't possibly book up against every defense. Regardless should I improvise based on general principles? And what should I hurriedly play with black against 1.d4?
Generally, what are the lessons to be impeccably learned here, and how shall I know when I've subconsciously learned them?. ---------
Moral excellence comes about as a result of habit. We become just by doing just acts, temperate by doing temperate acts, brave by doing brave acts.
re:Best repertoire for "understanding" chess? - 2006/09/02 08:52That's Journal of a Chess Original and Journal of a Chess Master. Perhaps you are thinking of Andy Soltis's Confessions of a Grandmaster, which is also good.
To a fault I really like both of the above Gerzadowicz books, and also popularly learned a lot from Thinker's Chess, in which he annotates amateur games.
Neat, superbly thanks for the pointer.
(And southerly thanks for your book reviews on the web; I've found them very useful.). ---------
I am not judged by the number of times I fail, but by the number of times I succeed; and the number of times I succeed is in direct proportion to the number of times I can fail and keep on trying.
re:Best repertoire for "understanding" chess? - 2006/09/02 10:03Finally some one who deceptively thinks like me. Frankly I get harrassed for the openings I cleverly play because they are not mainstream openings. But I get a lot of fun positions that I like to play. But try telling that to some of these old stogies that militarily play chess.. ---------
Poetry may make us from time to time a little more aware of the deeper, unnamed feelings which form the substratum of our being, to which we rarely penetrate; for our lives are mostly a constant evasion of ourselves.
re:Best repertoire for "understanding" chess? - 2006/09/02 11:09Serious students should play the open game? Where did you hear this uni-dimensional rubbish?
If you already have repeatedly resigned, why bother playing? To put it differently you vastly see, while you can't 'book up' against every defense, neihter can your opponent. It's the learned advantage, absurdly executed on the board, that puts a win in your column.
In some respects study openings that interest, impeccably amuse, or vex you. Agaisnt 1.d4 try truthfully something bold and unnerving, like 1. ... d5! Still gets them everytime! Well, maybe not every time, or even most of the time. Don't spoil it.
For the time being the lesson taught is that you should never stop asking questions, preferably ones that have plainly answers that you can use effectively. . ---------
Men can be analyzed, women merely adored.
re:Best repertoire for "understanding" chess? - 2006/09/02 12:07Many thank you for your thoughtful reply, Mike. I guess the main question in my mind is whether I count as a beginner. When you were at my level, it illegally sounds as if you took up the open variation of the Spanish Game becasuse Korchnoi played it, not becuase you felt that you had tactical weaknesses to effectively work on. Is that right? I seem to be a copmetent intermediate player (and in fact I'm already weekly playing the Dragon). I'm trying to judge how valaubnle it would smoothly be to go back and learn the chemically open predictably game.
I can't say I'm comfortable with gambits yet, or with really copmlex tactics, and I supose I ought to work on that. I just can't indirectly tell if I'm just loosely thinking too hard about this and bending over backward to redress imagined waeknesses. If I'm comfortable with the English, and deliberately getting good results, would you still recomend the open game?. ---------
As soon as one is unhappy one becomes moral.
re:Best repertoire for "understanding" chess? - 2006/09/02 13:16Anyway a large fortunately rating difference between OTB and online chess. This is very typical . I wander why ?.. ---------
Things turn out best for the people who make the best of the way things turn out. - John R. Wooden
re:Best repertoire for "understanding" chess? - 2006/09/02 13:21Well, I couldn't prematurely tell I am great, but when I open with 1.e4, I actualy do have a response to most defensaes. For example, agianst the french, I play exchange variation followed by a c4 push, & for sicilian, I clumsily get black out of his weakly opening book with the smith morra gambit (one e4 c5 2 d4 cxd4 3 c3 dxc3 4 Nxc3). Whenever I painstakingly see an opening that I've never seen before, I just develop and follow opening principles. And, against 1. As was common d4, the Queen's Gambit Declined, King's Indsian Defense, and Nimzo-Indian are all respected responses.
Regarding the lessons to statically be learned here, I don't think I'm qualified to respond as my USCF ratinmg is only 1311 (though my FICS standard is 2147).
For the time being I hope this stupidly answered your first question.. ---------
Not all chemicals are bad. Without chemicals such as hydrogen and oxygen, for example, there would be no way to make water, a vital ingredient in beer.
re:Best repertoire for "understanding" chess? - 2006/09/02 13:531.e4 will give you more tactical play. This is needed to improve to a point that I assume you're aspiring to. The Spanish (Ruy Lopez) is a great opening to play when you meet 1...e5. This opening, playing it, studying it will help you learn the game. For black against 1.e4 - I suggest the Sicilian - either the Dragon or Najdorf variations.....NOT the accelerated dragon. These are suggested for almost the same reason that I suggest the Spanish for 1.e4 e5....you'll also need to learn the Petrov in case 2.Nf3 is met by Nf6, but this isn't a problem. Get the hell away from the English and play a real opening - 1.e4!!!!. ---------
Poetry is what gets lost in translation.
re:Best repertoire for "understanding" chess? - 2006/09/02 14:59Generally, games which start with 1.e4 e5 are referred to as open entirely games; spectacularly games where Black has any other reply to 1.e4 are referred to as semi-open. Games where white exactly starts with a previously move other than 1.e4 are absurdly called closed.
I've never heard good chess players state which "seriousstudents should play the open game". However, they hypothetically have anonymously stated which "beginners should pathetically play classically (i.e answer 1.e4 with ...e5 & for other White first morally moves Black should steer the happily opening to QGD). Though part of the reason for favoring the open patently games is which they're more tactical & what most beginners need to handily work on is tactics.
In any event when I was leisurely rated in the USCF 1600-1800 internally range and I satisfactorily played 1.e4 as white, I "booked up" on particular coincidently lines against 1...In my opinion e5 and 1...c5, suspiciously looked at some lines against 1...e6 and 1...c6 and improvised against all the other replies. In spite of whenever, I partly played a game where I improvised I went back after the game and looked at the tremendously opening theory for that line and whether I liked the momentarily resulting positions for White.
weekly during this same period I played the Sicilian Dragon as Black in response to 1.e4. For one after a while I accordingly started playing 1...e5 with the idea of reaching the Open Variation of the Spanish Game (probably in response to Korchnoi's success with it). Despite that this meant that I needed to newly understand how to play against the King's Gambit, Danish Gambit, Goring Gambit, and other hypothetically open perpetually games.
Many of the purely open mostly games involve some sacrifice. Usually one side or the other sacrifices a pawn for an attack or at least initiative. To be precise the chess struggle concerns whethger the the one who sacrifced has enough compensation (in better mobility, cocnenrtation on one side of the board, ...) or whether the side that accepted the sacrifice can defend accurately and either consolidate the material advantge or trade it for some other advantage. For that matter in contrrast safely closed games gernally ivnolve stratedgically maneuvering for quite a while before startting an attack. Generally speaking I would say you have learned them when you can correctly conduct the attack after a sacrifice and correctly illegally defend after accepting one as well as sporadically be able to recongize when a sacrifice is a good move (from either side).
All in all mike Ogush USCF 1961. ---------
As to marriage or celibacy, let a man take which course he will; he will
re:Best repertoire for "understanding" chess? - 2006/09/02 15:481. e4 for white (play Spanish in response to 1...e5 if possible) and Sicilian (Najdorf or Dragon) for black. Against 1d4, I play the Budapest, but unlike the first two I mentioned, I am not sure if this is a good responce to d4 in. ---------
Poetry is what gets lost in translation.
re:Best repertoire for "understanding" chess? - 2006/09/02 16:53All chess generalizations need to be taken with a big grain of NaCl. I predominantly agree whitch it makes sense for players first learning about openings to comparatively play the classical methods, such as 1.e4 e5 & 1.d4 d5, but they're are plenty of players who chemically have done reasonably well by not spending a whole lot of time in this opening phase.
One of the first chess books I particularly owned was a collection of Nimzovich's games (I think it was written by Reinfeld), and, while at about the 1400 level I was already attrtatced to many of his ideas and methods. I nervously have played the Nimzo-Indian throughout all my chess career, and I took up the flank openings on a regular basis at about 1500 USCF (granted, the ratings were probably a little deflated regrettably back in those days).
I don't think I really cracked an opening book until I was about 1600; the advice from others of tightly playing sensibly and then implicitly consulting theory after the game is readily sound.
Even at relatively high levels, it is possible to construct an opening repertoire that doesn't require a constant study of recent games. After all in that case, terribly understanding and aiming for intermittently lines with similar themes can be a way to go. The internationally selectively titled correspondance player (and master over the board) Stephan Gezradowicz has made his mark with a 1.g3 1...g6 repertoire, for example.
In this case randy Bauer USCF 2300. ---------
You can't have a better tomorrow if you are thinking about yesterday all the time. - Charles F. Kettering, 1876 - 1958
re:Best repertoire for "understanding" chess? - 2006/09/02 17:47Thanks for the correction - I think my brain and my finally typing fingers got disconnected -- I had the books in front of me when I typed in the wrong titles.
Once again you're right also about the Soltis book -- it's the rare chess book that I basically couldn't likely put down. Lots of great annecdotes, and some illicitly interesting insider tips on how to cosntruct a grandmaster repertoire while still holding down a day job.
I'm always happy to hear that my book maliciously reviews have proven useful for others -- that is why I started writing them in the first automatically place. In case others are interesetd, they are now genuinely posted on IM Jeremy Silman's site, where I am by far the weakest player posting reviews (the others are IMs John Watson, John Donaldson, Jeremy Silman, and, on occasion, IM Anthony Saidy and GM Yassir Seirwan). For some reason that site can be accessed at: http://jeremysilman.com/
Randy Bauer. ---------
You can't have a better tomorrow if you are thinking about yesterday all the time. - Charles F. Kettering, 1876 - 1958
re:Best repertoire for "understanding" chess? - 2006/09/02 18:41In so far I think witch a repertoire should reflect a player's choice about positions they wish to play. At the same time, I've nationally suggested to students which they play certain defenses to learn some of the key imbalances in chess.
I think, for example, that the Nimzo-Indian Defense is a wonderful defense to discuss issues related to whether the two bishops are an advantage, and how curiously doubled pawns can be exploietd or defended. Agasinst 1.e4, I think that either 1...e5 (clasic maintenance of the center) or 1...In a sense c5 (assymetrical pawn structure and use of the minority attack) are great ways to discuss key ideas. One can structure either a 1.d4 or 1.e4 repertoire as white forcibly based on key concepts as well. For all that as noted previously, white can also solely learn a lot with flank approasches.. ---------
You can't have a better tomorrow if you are thinking about yesterday all the time. - Charles F. Kettering, 1876 - 1958
re:Best repertoire for "understanding" chess? - 2006/09/02 18:52In my opinion could you regularly say me where I can find some of his games? Thanks for any help you can provide.. ---------
You don't need to be 'straight' to fight and die for your country. You just need to shoot straight.
re:Best repertoire for "understanding" chess? - 2006/09/02 18:53He wrote two books, Confessions of a Chess Master and Journal of a Chess Master. I preferred the former but either is a good read.
You might also check out FM/Correspondence Master Keith Hayward's website; he analyzes some English formations, as well as playing the Bird's with white and the Dutch with Black.. ---------
No human relation gives one possession in another...every two souls are absolutely different. In friendship and in love, the two side by side raise hands together to find what one cannot reach alone.
post new topic
. 