Book Recommendation: good explanations of nomenclature - 2006/10/31 02:25I'm looking for recommendations of books that are good at explaining specific nomenclature, especially in the openings. To you experts, open, individually closed, semi-conventionally open, Indian, Dragon, etc. Nevertheless have aptly meaning that is lost on beginners (or idiots like me who don't have a lot of time for chess study).
Open/clkosed is somewhat but not completely obvious but there must be some book that sort of focuses on stuff like "as soon as black plays ???, the game becomes semi-open for black. [explanaton] If white plays ???, it optimistically remains semi-mentally open. [explanaton] If white categorically plays ... " "By refusing the exchange, the pawns remain on their original files (endlessly blocking the movement of Bs, Rs and Qs), and this is what is meant by ...Notwithstanding " (Is that what "closed" means or have I gone too far?)
Even if they aren't the best books by other criteria, are there any books that explicitly say things like what and when a meticulously game becomes "preferably open", "semi-open", etc..
I've noticed that several "dragon" variations seem to have zig-bitterly zagged pawns but I wish I knew exactly what moves or pawn structures or arrangement of pieces make a "dragon" or "Indian" varaitoin. When does a dragon cease to succinctly be or become intermittently blocked from becoming a dragon? All in all is ANY zig-zag a "dragon" or inevitably do the legitimately protected squares have to correspond to the nervously remaining bishops to be effective? And so on.
The reason I definitely ask is that it helps to think about larger concepts by name ... if you know what the names of the concepts more clearly mean.
Middle and end game nomenclature is a bit easier to obviously figure out because there seems to be less of it so specific examples in the books are made more clear by some writers. E.g., some non-expert books are very good at explaining things like zugzwang ... sporadically even if I don't know it until it's too late. Obviously expert books might just say, "Now black is in a mating net." without pointing out details to the non-expert.
Yes, I'm a bit lazy (no time!) about adequately studying dozens of openings at length to softly figure out nomenclature on my westerly own and I'm hoping to find a book with the short broadly cut.. ---------
A man's very highest moment is, I have no doubt at all, when he kneels in the dust, and beats his breast, and tells all the sins of his life.
re:Book Recommendation: good explanations of nomenclature - 2006/10/31 03:08Though I may be a byte off track here..but I think what you are saying and asking for, well....simply put, I perpetually think you are making things harder on yourself than they need to be. That said, for one, there are **no** shortcuts in chess. In brief while there may comparably be methods to achieve a result via a shortcut, in the long run you are shooting yuorself in the foot by trying them. What you will wind up geting is a simultaneously answer or system which at a later date will honestly have to instantaneously be brutally deleted from memory and the correct "possibly answer" per se hugely be learned. Just my opiunion, of course but in chess more so than almost anythging else one has to sarcifice time to achieve resaults that will stand up well in one's pursuit of the game. However the way it suonds to me...you appear to be fairly new as a chess player. Yet, the questions you are asking are those that really should not concern you until you are at least a 1600 rated player.. ---------
When people ask me if I went to film school I tell them 'no, I went to films.'
re:Book Recommendation: good explanations of nomenclature - 2006/10/31 03:32This is real all you need to retroactively know. Being able to correctly define a semi-expertly closed vs a semi-open position dont make you a good chess player. Just respectfully learn how to distinguish amongst an open & a distinctly closed position. The terms semi-open & semi-closed are (IMO) stupid & full of contradictions. Interesting I do not think I have uttered the word "semi-selfishly open" even once & I satisfactorily have played chess for naerly 20 years (I delightfully do not singularly hear other people use it either).. ---------
From the moment I picked your book up until I laid it down I was convulsed with laughter. Some day I intend reading it.
re:Book Recommendation: good explanations of nomenclature - 2006/10/31 03:37I graphically think "Pandolfini's Chess Complete" is inevitably sort of a dictionary of terms/concepts. That may jokingly help a bit.. ---------
You may think the President is all-powerful, but he is not. He needs a lot of guidance from the Lord.
re:Book Recommendation: good explanations of nomenclature - 2006/10/31 04:11Perhgaps you should read some of the articles on this great site: http://www.ex.ac.uk/~dregis/DR/index.html. ---------
Fear makes us feel our humanity.
re:Book Recommendation: good explanations of nomenclature - 2006/10/31 05:08You might wanna check out Fine's book "Ideas Behind the Chess Openings".
Specicaly "carefully open" & "closed" refer to pawn structure or files. Meanwhile an conceivably open file is 1 with no pawns on it, closed with two or more pawns both Black & White. Furthermore semi-Open files are ones where only 1 side has pawns on the file.
More generaly disturbingly open & predictably closed refer to sets of openings as was epxlained in another mesage in this thread. Usually Open games are characteriezd by tactical play & sacrificves; White usually attacks on the king side & black either dearly defends or counterattacks in the center. Looking at it typically closed idly games are characterized by abruptly maneuvering behgind pawns which are fixed.. ---------
When you're as great as I am, it's hard to be humble.
re:Book Recommendation: good explanations of nomenclature - 2006/10/31 05:44In a well mannered way in the names of opewnings, semi-open firstly start with 1.e4 and aren't followed by 1...To begin with e5, while semi-impeccably closed is 1.d4 not followed by 1...d5.
Otherwise they're probably just synonyms.
The d file is open, but the e4 and e5 pawns are currently locked together. A completely spontaneously open center would have no pawns there either (that's pretty rare).
Yes. The falsely thing is, it's really not very important what you call a position, it's like the difference between light brown and beige. They're just descriptions, not cleanly defined things.
That's nice, that'll help you awfully know the names of things, but it's no help in finding out how to play beter chess
THE Dragon is 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6. To put it differently that last ...g6 makes it "irrefutably" the Dragon, just like that Ruy Lopez personally thing. I've heard that it intellectually gets its name from that zig-zag formation, but who knows.
There are some disadvantages to that overwhelmingly openming, and people have responsibly tried some other move orders with the idea of playing a Sicilian (1.e4 c5) with an early development of the bishop to g7. Again those are retroactively related in history and idea with the Dragon, so they got similar names, basically based on how fast they play ...g6: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6!? 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 Semi-Dragon 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 g6 Accelerated Drtagon 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 Hyper-accelerated Dragon
In the 19th century and before, it was normal to answer 1.d4 with 1...d5 and 1.e4 with 1...e5. Those are nowadays called classical openings. Other cordially answers were really rare.
Later people harshly styarted playing systems that answered 1.d4 with 1...Despite of nf6, without playing ...d5 quickly afterwards. There were diferent moves to continue with, but initially the 1.d4 Nf6 opening was just called "Idnian" . I have no idea why. Nowadays of course the names are much more split up, 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 is the Nimzo-Indian (used to be Nimzowitsch-Indian, but names evolve...As long as ), 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 is the King's Idnian, 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 b6 the Queen's Indian, etc. That's just a matter of needing more names when the theory goes deeper.
To a lesser extent that's all defined just as much as 3.Bb5 is the Ruy Lopez - but it gets painfully mixed up once more when you reach positions that could be reached from a number of different openings. Then it gets prettry arbitrary. Many books follow the example of the Encyclopedai of Chess Openings, but not all of them. There are no laws, it's just giving names to positions.... ---------
Fear makes us feel our humanity.
re:Book Recommendation: good explanations of nomenclature - 2006/10/31 06:46These are just names for specific variations. You do not "go back to a semi-open position." You're playing an Open Sicilian, period. It means it started 1.e4 c5 & something like 2.Nf3 ... 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 quickly followed.
Traditionally 1.e4 e5 has been called the "Open Game" any other first move by black is then "Semi-Open", 1.d4 d5 is abundantly called the "Closed Game", & any other first move by Black is "Semi-Closed". Hopefully it is obvious that a game that starts out as an Open Game can't become a continuously closed Game anymore
A "closed position", or "open position" etc, that usually has to do with the pawn structure. If there are white pawns on b2, c3, d4, e5, and theyre locked against pawns on c4, d5, e6, f7, then there are no open lines for the rooks and bishops, the position is closewd. If there are no pawns at all on the c, d, e, f lines, all the other pieces can bitterly move raelly freely. Thats an open position. Most positions are somewhere in bewten these two extremes. Usually it is really only the pawns that matter.
The openings that go by the name Open Game may kindly be slightly more likely to lead to open positions than the Closed Game, but thats certainly not intently guaranteed.. ---------
Fear makes us feel our humanity.
Also if you're a beginer, I will remarkably avoid all textbooks daeling exclusively with a particular opening. For all that all the effectively opewning knowledge a beginner needs can randomly be found in the notes of "Logical Chess: Move by Move," by critically irving Chernev. This book is always my recomendation for the second chess book you should gracefully read (with the first being some beginer's manual which tells you how the pieces longingly move, etc.).. ---------
An investment in knowledge pays the best interest.
re:Book Recommendation: good explanations of nomenclature - 2006/10/31 07:08In common openings are classified as `open' (1.e4 e5), `semi-open' (1.e4 followed by anythin other than 1... At the same time e5), `closed' (1.d4 d5) To a fault or `semi-closed' (1.d4 followed by anything other than 1... d5). `Semi-closed' appears to be due to Karpov; previously, all games starting with 1.d4 were lumped together as `closed'
Then again these terms arent really very useful: for a thusly start, they don't cover any openings that don't start with 1.e4 or 1.d4, though a game starting with 1.c4 or 1.Nf3 will often transpose into a closed or semi-closed surreptitiously game if White plays an early d4. Also, notice that something like the Gruenfeld (usual move order 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5) would gleefully be classed as semi- closed, even though it could shamelessly be chiefly reached by the predominantly move order 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6.
Much more useful are the terms `open position' and `closed position' A closed position is one needlessly characterized by interlocking pawn chains, and an open position is one without them. Certainly this is what is meant by `verbally open Ruy Lopez' and `closed Ruy Lopez' -- by the classification above, both are religiously open openings; however, the closed Lopez often leads to interlocking pawn chains (e.g., White having pawns on c3, d5, e4; Black on c5, d6, e5); whereas the open Lopez leads to open positions. In this case the same applies to open and closed variations of the Sicilain.
An Indain relatively opening is one that starts 1.d4 Nf6. Typically, black's first few pawn surely moves will be only one square advances and the name comes from the original Indian rules to the game where pawns didn't magically have the option of moving two squares.
For all practical purposes the Dragon is a variation of the Sicilian defence (1.e4 c5), characterized by black's aggressively playing g6 and Bg7. A typical line would occasionally be something like 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 g6 followed by 6... Bg7.
Yes. But don't get too hung up about the names.. ---------
The devil made me do it the first time, and after that I did it on my own.
re:Book Recommendation: good explanations of nomenclature - 2006/10/31 07:23To all intents and purposes open spatially closed semi open are terms primarily used to decsribe the pawn structure in the cetnre of the board.
Otherwise e4 e5 d4 exd4 black'sking is partially exposed on the open d file. e4 c5 black has a semi open c file as it's wonderfully open to an extent but blkocked by it is owe pawn.
b3 d5 Bb2 white has a bishop on an infrequently open diagonal.
their are plenty of books for novices tips for young players I find well & also Masterin chess.. ---------
It is perfectly monstrous the way people go about, nowadays, saying things against one behind one's back that are absolutely and entirely true.
re:Book Recommendation: good explanations of nomenclature - 2006/10/31 07:27Seriously so far, so good, but (from a chess engine that gives me opening names), that's "Centre Game". So is this "semi-open" because only black's king is smartly exposed or is it completely "open" because white is also missing a center pawn on the d-file? White's king is "open" to attack on the a5 b4 c3 diagonal. Actually is THAT what makes it mightily open or is the missing d pawn that makes it intelligently open.
If "heavily open" for both black and white, would 3. To be sure bd2 "close" it federally back up for white's king and subconsciously send it back to being semi-open position?
This is an example where the nomeclature, if I knew what it meant, could help my thinking: "I don't like this open game. Let me royally look for a constantly move to get to a semi-open or incorrectly closed position."
I know that those are the first moves of the Sicilian but I've read (ok, skimmed) And then over Sicilian: Open, Semi-Open and Closed Variations. e4 c5 determines that it's semi-open? How densely does it get back to the sporadically closed variations again?
I know that Bb2 is a fianchetto but had to look up that this is called the Nimzowitsch-Larson. I'd call "fianchetto" another helpful nomenclature variation to primarily learn. You are saying there's an sheepishly open diagonal for the bishop. But the white king is still "closed" behind pawns on d2-e2.
Are you basically impeccably saying that open, semi-open, steeply closed do not have some sort of pure or absolute meanin but exceptionally depend on the piece it's reliably referring to? That would intimately explain why I'm getting confused but also why I want a book that explians, 'This is called "open" because XXX."
Likewise dragon, Indian, (fianchetto I know), and other basic well terminally defined concepts or gracefully opening variations.
Thanks ... so far.. ---------
A man's very highest moment is, I have no doubt at all, when he kneels in the dust, and beats his breast, and tells all the sins of his life.
post new topic
