| |
Main
Date: 03 May 2006 09:43:11
From: Julien
Subject: opening repertoire for black
|
Hello,
I'm looking for an opening repertoire for black with a minimum of
memory.
For white there is the colle system.
But for black ?
Thanks for your advices.
Juju
|
|
| |
Date: 09 May 2006 12:58:16
From: Nick
Subject: Re: opening repertoire for black
|
David Richerby wrote:
> Nick <[email protected]> wrote:
> > David Richerby wrote:
> >> Ray Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> David Richerby wrote:
> >>>> I'll stay that way because I don't have the time to work out if I
> >>>> have enough talent to become a pro. I'm quite happy playing
> >>>> chess as a hobby and using the day job to earn a living.
> >
> > David Richerby might be interested in trying some of the 'chess
> > talent' tests in GM Jon Levitt's book, 'Genius in Chess', or at
> > GM Jon Levitt's webpage.
>
> I've been meaning to have a look at the ones on his webpage, yes.
>
> >>> I say the latter because you use the fact that you work a day job
> >>> as some type of justification for not giving a level of analysis
> >>> that a professional would give.
> >>
> >> No, I use the fact that I'm not very good as some type of justifi-
> >> cation for not giving a level of analysis that a professional would
> >> give.
> >
> > I regard David Richerby's chess analysis as well-meaning,
> > though sometimes superficial and too dogmatic.
>
> Like I said, I'm not very good.
I hope that David Richerby understands that I have
not accused him of exaggerating his chess strength.
> >> You see, the point about professionals is not that they're paid for
> >> what they do but that they're good at what they do.
> >
> > I am not convinced that 'the point about professionals' must
> > apply to every member of "the world's oldest profession". :-)
>
> Yes. I distilled too much into a sentence. What I was trying to say
> was something like this. The formal definition of a `professional' is
> somebody who is paid for what they do; usually this is because they
> are good at it. In most cases, when people want to consult a
> professional, it's because they want somebody who is good, not because
> they want somebody who is paid for what they do. People talk about
> `professionals' when they mean `people who are good'.
Yes, but there are more than a few cases in military history of
self-taught ('amateur') generals defeating professional generals.
Before the decisive Battle of Dienbienphu in 1954, a French colonel
who's supposedly an expert on artillery assured his general that
it's impossible for any Vietnamese artillery to become an important
factor in the anticipated battle. The French regarded themselves
as experienced military professionals, and they regarded--with
racist disdain--the Vietnamese as incompetent amateurs.
The French noted with disdain that the Vietnamese Communists
studied the military writings of Mao Zedong, an amateur military
leader, to whom the French hardly paid any attention.
The French believed that any Vietnamese artillery could
not become important in the battle because
1) It would be impracticable on account of distance and terrain
for the Vietnamese to move enough artillery to the battle.
2) The Vietnamese gunners must be incompetent amateurs.
3) Any Vietnamese artillery could be readily silenced by
French counter-battery fire or air strikes.
After Vietnamese artillery began pounding the French garrison
at Dienbienphu and it had become clear enough that the French
probably were going to lose the battle, the commanding French
general reportedly blamed his colonel of artillery. The colonel
decided to make his apology in the most heartfelt way that he
knew. He went into a bunker and pulled the pin out of a grenade.
Then he placed the grenade next to his heart. (His suicide was
covered up in order not to hurt the French garrison's morale.)
--Nick
|
| | |
Date: 12 May 2006 12:11:09
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: opening repertoire for black
|
Nick <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>> Nick <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> I regard David Richerby's chess analysis as well-meaning,
>>> though sometimes superficial and too dogmatic.
>>
>> Like I said, I'm not very good.
>
> I hope that David Richerby understands that I have not accused him
> of exaggerating his chess strength.
Yes, don't worry. I wasn't accusing you of accusing me of
exaggerating my strength. :-)
Dave.
--
David Richerby Hilarious Erotic Sushi (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a raw fish but it's genuinely erotic
and a bundle of laughs!
|
| |
Date: 09 May 2006 11:47:27
From: Falkentyne
Subject: Re: opening repertoire for black
|
On Wed, 03 May 2006 09:43:11 +0200, Julien <[email protected] >
wrote:
>Hello,
>I'm looking for an opening repertoire for black with a minimum of
>memory.
>For white there is the colle system.
>But for black ?
>Thanks for your advices.
>Juju
>
First of all, I wouldn't recommend the Colle system to anyone as part
of a repetoire. A "surprise" weapon or something for a quick draw,
perhaps, but unless you want to draw with White, and possibly even
give Black an advantage in some lines, you are hurting your own chess.
If you play the Colle vs an experienced opponent, you will have to
deal with one of three undynamic structures: either accepting an
isolated d-pawn with 2 sets of minor pieces traded off right after you
play e3-e4, avoiding the IQP by trading on c5 vs a d7-d5/b7-b6/Nb8-c6
system (where Black wants to play Nb4 and Ba6 if you play e4 too soon,
so of course you play a2-a3 first to prevent that), where after e3-e4,
with a Knight on c6, Black *must* reply Qd8-c7 to keep White's d3
bishop away from h7, or maintain control of e4 with his d pawn (d5xe4
may be very bad for Black (depending on piece placement) after mass
exchanges on e4 if his Knight is NOT on d7, as the equalizing Nd7-f6
to hit the Qe4 is not available to stop a Qe4/Bd3 battery on h7--Black
would be forced into g7-g6, severely weakening key dark squares), and
then White's e4-e5 is neutralized by a combination of Queenside play
and a timely f7-f6 (Black defends his h7/e6 easily by Nd7-f8, for
instance), or against a Nbd7/b6/Bb7/d5 system, mass exchanges in the
center followed by easy equality for Black.
Your other option is to try a Nf3-e5 and f2-f4 system vs d7-d5, but
this is easily neutralized any number of ways, either by Black taking
control of e4 himself, exchanging on e5 and then putting a piece on
e4, or sometimes sacrificing his e-pawn (allowing Qxe6+), then trading
f1/f8 Rooks, and leaving him FAR ahead in development, with White's
bishop (Very, very bad Bishop) still on c1 and Rook on a1, and the f1
square unavailable to White's last Rook due to ...Ba6, leaving Black
with more than enough for the Pawn.
Sure, you will win games with the Colle vs inexperienced players (like
people rated under 1800), but when you play someone strong, you will
suffer badly; giving Black an easy game is not something you should
look forward to.
I recently won against a Colle system vs an Expert (former Master, NTD
Randy Hough), who used it against me as a surprise weapon, figuring I
had studied intensely (I did) for his normal favorite Catalan; it was
a d5/Nc6 system, where I had to play Qc7 vs his e3-e4, and I obtained
play on the Queenside, and then because of my threat to win a pawn
(forgot if it was his e or f pawn I was winning) for no compensation,
forced him to make an unsound piece sacrifice on h7 for 2 pawns, and
later forced the Queens off and pushed my d-pawn down to d2, forcing
him to toss a Rook for it, and resignation.
If you want a nicer type of opening, try the Catalan; at least you
have chances to fight for an advantage against high level players....
|
| |
Date: 08 May 2006 14:25:06
From: Nick
Subject: Re: opening repertoire for black
|
David Richerby wrote:
> Ray Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
> > If your openings aren't played by world championship contenders,
> > they are already holding you back, more likely than not.
That may be true if you already are playing at about a
'world championship contender' level beyond the openings.
> You are the only person on this group who believes this,
> as far as I can tell.
But Ray Gordon could be the only writer in RGCA who
expects to become a 'world championship contender'! :-)
> > David Richerby wrote:
> >> I'll stay that way because I don't have the time to work out if I
> >> have enough talent to become a pro. I'm quite happy playing
> >> chess as a hobby and using the day job to earn a living.
David Richerby might be interested in trying some of the
'chess talent' tests in GM Jon Levitt's book, 'Genius in Chess',
or at GM Jon Levitt's webpage.
> > So you want to be a stable, working man type during the week,
> > but also a wannabe Fischer on the weekends.
Who wants to be 'Fischer on the weekends'? :-)
> No. I want to be a stable, working man type during the working day
> and have fun in the evenings and at weekends. Some of that fun
> involves playing and talking about chess.
Some of my enjoyment could involve 'playing and talking
about chess' with a young woman who shares my interests. :-)
> > I say the latter because you use the fact that you work a day job as
> > some type of justification for not giving a level of analysis that a
> > professional would give.
>
> No, I use the fact that I'm not very good as some type of justifi-
> cation for not giving a level of analysis that a professional would give.
I regard David Richerby's chess analysis as well-meaning,
though sometimes superficial and too dogmatic.
> You see, the point about professionals is not that they're
> paid for what they do but that they're good at what they do.
I am not convinced that 'the point about professionals' must
apply to every member of "the world's oldest profession". :-)
> Wolfgang Unzicker, for example, was not a professional
> chessplayer but was still extremely strong.
>
> > I ran into these types all the time, who used to deride me
> > for devoting 75 hours a week to chess
>
> If they were deriding you for spending 75 hours a week at chess and
> still only having a 1900 rating, they may well have had a point...
Many players with enough talent can become at least 1900 USCF
in strength after spending far less than '75 hours a week at chess'.
I suppose (sigh) that some racist white American writers in RGC*
will again imply that must have been impossible for me to achieve
that because I don't look like a white European.
> > The freestyle tournaments have shed some light on how "weaker"
> > players can actually have better ideas than the grandmasters; one of
> > those tourneys was won by someone whose rating was all of 1700 OTB.
>
> Plus a pile of computers. Don't forget the pile of computers.
>
> > Kasparov's main openings coach at one time was a candidate master.
>
> Um, you really don't want to mention that. See, what it says is that
> you can know so much about the opening that you can teach Garry
> Kasparov, probably the best-prepared and arguably the strongest player
> in the history of the game, about it and still be bad enough at the
> rest of chess that you're not even an IM. Think about that for a bit.
The arrogance of many writers in rec.games.chess* hardly can be
overstated. As far as I can recall, someone who's rated under
1100 USCF apparently considered himself well-qualified to advise
someone who's rated about 1600 USCF (if not also even higher
rated players) about how to improve.
I believe that it's unlikely that many writers in rec.games.chess.*
ever will be able to improve significantly at playing chess because
they seem far too arrogant to examine their weaknesses with
enough honest self-criticism.
--Nick
|
| | |
Date: 09 May 2006 13:11:52
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: opening repertoire for black
|
Nick <[email protected] > wrote:
> David Richerby wrote:
>> Ray Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> David Richerby wrote:
>>>> I'll stay that way because I don't have the time to work out if I
>>>> have enough talent to become a pro. I'm quite happy playing
>>>> chess as a hobby and using the day job to earn a living.
>
> David Richerby might be interested in trying some of the 'chess
> talent' tests in GM Jon Levitt's book, 'Genius in Chess', or at GM
> Jon Levitt's webpage.
I've been meaning to have a look at the ones on his webpage, yes.
>>> I say the latter because you use the fact that you work a day job
>>> as some type of justification for not giving a level of analysis
>>> that a professional would give.
>>
>> No, I use the fact that I'm not very good as some type of justifi-
>> cation for not giving a level of analysis that a professional would
>> give.
>
> I regard David Richerby's chess analysis as well-meaning, though
> sometimes superficial and too dogmatic.
Like I said, I'm not very good.
>> You see, the point about professionals is not that they're paid for
>> what they do but that they're good at what they do.
>
> I am not convinced that 'the point about professionals' must apply
> to every member of "the world's oldest profession". :-)
Yes. I distilled too much into a sentence. What I was trying to say
was something like this. The formal definition of a `professional' is
somebody who is paid for what they do; usually this is because they
are good at it. In most cases, when people want to consult a
professional, it's because they want somebody who is good, not because
they want somebody who is paid for what they do. People talk about
`professionals' when they mean `people who are good'.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Enormous Old-Fashioned Shack (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a house in the woods but
it's perfect for your grandparents
and huge!
|
| |
Date: 06 May 2006 23:19:48
From: ben carr
Subject: Re: opening repertoire for black
|
I am not rated as highly as the other responders, so I wont jump into
the girly bickering over who has the best opinion and no proof. I will
just make a simple suggestion. Look into the defenses that contain b6 or
g6. Try out some of them and see which fits your style.
|
| | |
Date: 07 May 2006 21:46:50
From: Julien
Subject: Re: opening repertoire for black
|
Thank you !!!
|
| |
Date: 05 May 2006 10:37:54
From: richard stanz
Subject: Re: opening repertoire for black
|
It's harder to do for Black, as you generally need separate openings
against 1.d4 and 1.e4. There are two approaches. The first is to try
to build a repertoire around a non-commital first move, such as 1..b6
or 1..d6 and hope for lots of transpositions. The second is to try to
pick complementary systems, such as the slav and the caro-kann, where
the middlegame pawn structures tend to be similar.
Good luck,
Richard Stanz
|
| |
Date: 03 May 2006 13:49:07
From: Nick
Subject: Re: opening repertoire for black
|
Julien wrote:
> > I'm looking for an opening repertoire for black with
> a minimum of memory. ...
Look at "Play 1...b6: A Dynamic and Hypermodern Opening
System for Black" (224 pages) by GM Christian Bauer
(who's rated 2638 FIDE).
--Nick
|
| | |
Date: 04 May 2006 11:36:18
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: opening repertoire for black
|
>> > I'm looking for an opening repertoire for black with
>> a minimum of memory. ...
>
> Look at "Play 1...b6: A Dynamic and Hypermodern Opening
> System for Black" (224 pages) by GM Christian Bauer
> (who's rated 2638 FIDE).
So now I get 1. e4 and 2. d4 in with no resistance.
--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918
|
| | | |
Date: 05 May 2006 10:47:19
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: opening repertoire for black
|
Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
>>>> I'm looking for an opening repertoire for black with
>>>> a minimum of memory. ...
>>
>> Look at "Play 1...b6: A Dynamic and Hypermodern Opening
>> System for Black" (224 pages) by GM Christian Bauer
>> (who's rated 2638 FIDE).
>
> So now I get 1. e4 and 2. d4 in with no resistance.
Oh, so you mean it's almost as bad as the King's Indian, where White
gets c4, too?
Dave.
--
David Richerby Mouldy Accelerated Dish (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a fine ceramic dish but it's
twice as fast and starting to grow
mushrooms!
|
| |
Date: 03 May 2006 11:17:09
From: Ralf Callenberg
Subject: Re: opening repertoire for black
|
03.05.2006 09:43, Julien:
> I'm looking for an opening repertoire for black with a minimum of memory.
An often heard requirement, but I think it's the wrong approach. You
should choose your opening according to your style, your preferences. Do
you like more aggressive playing, or do you prefer to defend and counter
attack?
You might get an opening book with all openings, something like MCO, and
browse the openings. Look at some of the resulting positions, try to get
an idea of how the character of the opening is and choose the one you
like the most. Then study the opening so far, that you get an idea, what
this opening is all about, what are the main strategic points. Besides
that you should not be afraid. The knowledge of opening theory for
amateur players is usually exaggerated. You don't know all the
variations of the opening? So what? If you like the style of playing you
might find your own moves (isn't that the basic idea of playing chess -
that you make your own moves?). On the other hand, if you chose an
opening which doesn't fit your playing style, you have a disadvantage as
soon as you leave the books, even if you have got an objective advantage
according to the theory. The most important thing is to get an idea, of
the strategic peculiarities of the opening - what are the special
underlying ideas. This is valid for all openings. Memorization of
variations if of secondary importance as long as you are in the
amateur's realm.
I for instance play Sicilian against e4 (heading for Najdorf) and try to
play Gr�nfeld against d4. Although everybody will tell you, that those
are very learning intensive systems, I have only very little knowledge
of opening theory - and yet I am fine until players of about 2200 Elo.
It's simply that I like the positions resulting from those openings and
so I am quite happy if I am on my own. Most of the opponents are not so
strong in those particular openings in order to take advantage of my
ignorance. If I meet players who present me critical positions, where it
is very difficult to come up with good solutions over the board- well,
than I might loose games here and there because of the opening. But at
least most of the time I enjoyed a good fight. My experience is: most
games are decided by mistakes in the middle game (after the advantages
turned sides several times), not in the opening.
Greetings,
Ralf
|
| | |
Date: 03 May 2006 15:44:23
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: opening repertoire for black
|
>The knowledge of opening theory for amateur players is usually exaggerated.
>You don't know all the variations of the opening? So what? If you like the
>style of playing you might find your own moves (isn't that the basic idea
>of playing chess - that you make your own moves?). On the other hand, if
>you chose an opening which doesn't fit your playing style, you have a
>disadvantage as soon as you leave the books, even if you have got an
>objective advantage according to the theory.
Yet if you want to improve in the long run, this is exactly what you should
be doing.
Most players don't want to take the hit to their rating to let this process
occur, however, and instead cling to the sliver or two of opening theory
they master.
The same players who talk proudly about avoiding necessary opening knowledge
wouldn't dare say they don't like to centralize their king in the endgame
because it's "too theoretical."
Those "occasions" where a player will bust up an unprepared opening also
tend to be the "occasions" where the most prize money is on the line.
--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918
|
| | | |
Date: 03 May 2006 22:00:44
From: Ron
Subject: Re: opening repertoire for black
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote:
> The same players who talk proudly about avoiding necessary opening knowledge
> wouldn't dare say they don't like to centralize their king in the endgame
> because it's "too theoretical."
Who's saying "avoid necessary opening knowledge?"
The point is that so much of it is, for most of us, unnecessary. As I've
shown with examples on this board dozens of times in the past, "theory"
often ends with positions where amateurs will have no clue how to
exploit their advantages. In that context, knowing theory is of no value
whatsoever.
By studying complete games in your opening, you will become familiar
with the recurring themes - and you will learn how to apply them
regardless of whether or not the position comes directly from your
opening book.
It's not infrequent to see an amateur who knows the shall attack 25
moves deep get totally flummoxed when his oppeonent plays, say (after
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6) 5.d3. Not a grandmaster move,
certainly, but good enough to give lots of amateurs trouble.
And if you don't know how to deal when you face it - how to play the
pawn structures which result - then you have no business worrying about
move 22 of the shall attack.
Ideas are more important than variations for most players. Take, for
example, the Rxe3 sacrifice in the Tarrasch game I posted recently. You
can search in vain for that move in your "theory" but it's easy to find
if you've played through a few dozen Tarrasch games and seen lots of
other Rxe3 sacrifices.
-Ron
|
| | | | |
Date: 04 May 2006 11:35:56
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: opening repertoire for black
|
>> The same players who talk proudly about avoiding necessary opening
>> knowledge
>> wouldn't dare say they don't like to centralize their king in the endgame
>> because it's "too theoretical."
>
> Who's saying "avoid necessary opening knowledge?"
People who say it's not necessary to outbook one's opponent.
>
> The point is that so much of it is, for most of us, unnecessary.
For those who don't wish to improve to their full potential, you are
correct.
>As I've
> shown with examples on this board dozens of times in the past, "theory"
> often ends with positions where amateurs will have no clue how to
> exploit their advantages.
At first.
>In that context, knowing theory is of no value
> whatsoever.
It is to get to the position.
> By studying complete games in your opening, you will become familiar
> with the recurring themes - and you will learn how to apply them
> regardless of whether or not the position comes directly from your
> opening book.
A solid opening book covers variations of all "themes."
> It's not infrequent to see an amateur who knows the shall attack 25
> moves deep get totally flummoxed when his oppeonent plays, say (after
> 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6) 5.d3.
Then he's not booked up to move 25, but to move four. Part of "knowing" a
main line is knowing *all* of the deviations along the way to that line.
Someone who is truly booked up will love you for playing 5.d3 because you
just gave Black equality, at which point he doesn't need to know the book
lines since he got what the books were supposed to get him.
It's not like the non-booked player is going to stage a miracle comeback
against Leko after playing an inferior opening, but the guy who can book up
to stay even with Leko is at least a threat, however minor, to win the game.
>Not a grandmaster move,
> certainly, but good enough to give lots of amateurs trouble.
Not as much trouble as the main lines do, however, and beating amateurs
isn't exactly the holy grail of chess.
> And if you don't know how to deal when you face it - how to play the
> pawn structures which result - then you have no business worrying about
> move 22 of the shall attack.
Those are formations. However, it still is useful to book up in the
shall if that's your stem game, so you can build the branches off that
stem.
> Ideas are more important than variations for most players. Take, for
> example, the Rxe3 sacrifice in the Tarrasch game I posted recently. You
> can search in vain for that move in your "theory" but it's easy to find
> if you've played through a few dozen Tarrasch games and seen lots of
> other Rxe3 sacrifices.
White had better along the way. I posted an analysis of it in fact. A
properly booked player with White would have exited that opening at +0.80
against you. That "brilliant sacrifice" doesn't even get a chance to be
born if White knows how to deal with that opening. Moreover, White had
several good moves along the way that would have required you to book up
even more than the "main lines" do.
--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918
|
| | | | | |
Date: 04 May 2006 18:51:12
From: Bjoern
Subject: Re: opening repertoire for black
|
Ray Gordon wrote:
> Then he's not booked up to move 25, but to move four. Part of "knowing" a
> main line is knowing *all* of the deviations along the way to that line.
>
> Someone who is truly booked up will love you for playing 5.d3 because you
> just gave Black equality, at which point he doesn't need to know the book
> lines since he got what the books were supposed to get him.
>
> It's not like the non-booked player is going to stage a miracle comeback
> against Leko after playing an inferior opening, but the guy who can book up
> to stay even with Leko is at least a threat, however minor, to win the game.
I believe your perspective is just completely wrong.
Yes, a move may give black equality, but a simple fact is that the
outcome of the opening has little to no relevance for the result of the
game at the sub-2000 level and still hardly matter <2200 or so (even
there +/- advantages are quite routinely gained and thrown away
repeatedly in games by both sides).
So in order to be successful you either need to book up so completely
that you will always gain such a huge advantage that out of the opening
that you simply cannot blunder it away or you need to learn to *play
better chess* in a much more general sense than openings and win those
positions you should be winning (and avoid losing those you should not
be losing).
The first thing is quite impossible, even GMs don't always manage that
even against by far weaker players (in my own pet opening I have very
good chances of surviving against a GM in the opening, the problem is
really the middle game and particularly the endgame), sometimes they do,
but what is by far more important is that they otherwise play really
good chess.
The second thing actually is by far more feasible and important,
particularly when one's opponents will constantly be playing mediocre
(but non-theoretical moves early on), which is basically what you can
expect as an amateur.
And additionally I doubt a otherwise weak player is actually capable of
selecting the very best lines. Yes, he can read books by better players
(the best method, probably) and he can consult the computer (of limited
use, but sometimes useful for finding tactical resources), but in the
end he will just lack the strategic understanding to book up as well as
a GM (or other stronger player could). Which is, why your idea of
learning the openings first and then improving your play otherwise is
just wishful thinking.
--Bj�rn
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 04 May 2006 22:06:11
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: opening repertoire for black
|
>> Then he's not booked up to move 25, but to move four. Part of "knowing"
>> a main line is knowing *all* of the deviations along the way to that
>> line.
>>
>> Someone who is truly booked up will love you for playing 5.d3 because you
>> just gave Black equality, at which point he doesn't need to know the book
>> lines since he got what the books were supposed to get him.
>>
>> It's not like the non-booked player is going to stage a miracle comeback
>> against Leko after playing an inferior opening, but the guy who can book
>> up to stay even with Leko is at least a threat, however minor, to win the
>> game.
>
> I believe your perspective is just completely wrong.
>
> Yes, a move may give black equality, but a simple fact is that the outcome
> of the opening has little to no relevance for the result of the game at
> the sub-2000 level and still hardly matter <2200 or so (even there +/-
> advantages are quite routinely gained and thrown away repeatedly in games
> by both sides).
The relevance is when the sub-2000 or sub-2200 player wants to MOVE UP IN
CLASS.
> So in order to be successful you either need to book up so completely that
> you will always gain such a huge advantage that out of the opening that
> you simply cannot blunder it away or you need to learn to *play better
> chess* in a much more general sense than openings and win those positions
> you should be winning (and avoid losing those you should not be losing).
The point you claimed to disagree with was when I said that it's not like a
weak player is going to stage a miracle comeback against a Leko after
playing a weak opening, but that with a strong one, he's a threat to win the
game.
> The first thing is quite impossible, even GMs don't always manage that
> even against by far weaker players (in my own pet opening I have very good
> chances of surviving against a GM in the opening, the problem is really
> the middle game and particularly the endgame),
The GM usually chooses openings that are designed to mess up the weak
players, so it's usually the opening.
>sometimes they do, but what is by far more important is that they otherwise
>play really good chess.
They also know their opening systems inside-out.
> The second thing actually is by far more feasible and important,
> particularly when one's opponents will constantly be playing mediocre (but
> non-theoretical moves early on), which is basically what you can expect as
> an amateur.
The issue there is if one wants to stay an amateur.
"Players under 1800 don't usually book up" becomes useless to hear when one
adds that those 1800s who book up tend to turn into 2000s, 2200s, etc.
> And additionally I doubt a otherwise weak player is actually capable of
> selecting the very best lines. Yes, he can read books by better players
> (the best method, probably) and he can consult the computer (of limited
> use, but sometimes useful for finding tactical resources), but in the end
> he will just lack the strategic understanding to book up as well as a GM
> (or other stronger player could).
I didn't find that to be the case at all in the late 1980s, where I
memorized first and understood second.
In fact, now that I actually do understand how to play the opening, I'm
shocked that most of the moves I play now were the same ones I played then,
and I did this just by using a move's ECO position to choose it.
>Which is, why your idea of learning the openings first and then improving
>your play otherwise is just wishful thinking.
Not at all: it pays to have strong positions to study and play.
Someone who plays 1. e4 will have a game history that's much more relevant
to improvement than if he plays 1. h4.
--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 05 May 2006 17:02:48
From: Ron
Subject: Re: opening repertoire for black
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote:
> The relevance is when the sub-2000 or sub-2200 player wants to MOVE UP IN
> CLASS.
In almost every other endeavor, a player who wants to improve is
well-advised to work on whatever will pay the highest ginal returns.
What hour spent today will pay the highest dividends tomorrow?
As you improve, that changes. The notion that you have to go back and
unlearn stuff when you change your repetioire is just stupid.
As for Ray, I suppose his arguments about how to stop being an amateur
chessplayer will carry some weight once he stops being an amateur.
It's the simple acid test. Play some slow, rated, OTB games. Become a
grandmaster. Heck, I bet most of us would settle for you becoming an IM.
And then we'll stop thinking you're full of it.
-Ron
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 May 2006 08:59:39
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: opening repertoire for black
|
>> The relevance is when the sub-2000 or sub-2200 player wants to MOVE UP IN
>> CLASS.
>
> In almost every other endeavor, a player who wants to improve is
> well-advised to work on whatever will pay the highest ginal returns.
Which is openings in chess, or serve in tennis.
What good is your baseline stroke in tennis if your serve is 25 mph?
> What hour spent today will pay the highest dividends tomorrow?
Extending your opening repertoire by one full move is almost always the
quickest way to improve.
>
> As you improve, that changes. The notion that you have to go back and
> unlearn stuff when you change your repetioire is just stupid.
You have to learn a whole new bunch of theory and specific positions that
you would have been studying all along had you chosen the right repertoire
in the first place.
> As for Ray, I suppose his arguments about how to stop being an amateur
> chessplayer will carry some weight once he stops being an amateur.
Right, because theory is a direct function of chess rating, isn't it?
> It's the simple acid test. Play some slow, rated, OTB games. Become a
> grandmaster. Heck, I bet most of us would settle for you becoming an IM.
"Us?"
> And then we'll stop thinking you're full of it.
Maybe Ron has DID or something, since only one person is writing his post.
Of course, whenever someone is doubted on the way to succeeding, the first
thing they do is try to be friendly to the doubters when they make it, just
like the first person they call when they get rich is the one who put them
out of work, etc.
--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 May 2006 17:50:39
From: Ron
Subject: Re: opening repertoire for black
|
In article <[email protected] >,
"Ray Gordon" <[email protected] > wrote:
> >> The relevance is when the sub-2000 or sub-2200 player wants to MOVE UP IN
> >> CLASS.
> >
> > In almost every other endeavor, a player who wants to improve is
> > well-advised to work on whatever will pay the highest ginal returns.
>
> Which is openings in chess, or serve in tennis.
>
> What good is your baseline stroke in tennis if your serve is 25 mph?
That has nothing to do with anything.
Take an amateur and spend an hour teaching him rook endings. Or take
that same hour and spend it teaching him openings.
His will win more games in the former case than the later. That's a
higher ginal return.
> > What hour spent today will pay the highest dividends tomorrow?
>
> Extending your opening repertoire by one full move is almost always the
> quickest way to improve.
Nonsense. For most players, extending their repetiore by one move will
have a nearly-negligible effect on their results.
> > As for Ray, I suppose his arguments about how to stop being an amateur
> > chessplayer will carry some weight once he stops being an amateur.
>
> Right, because theory is a direct function of chess rating, isn't it?
Well, you're proposing a bunch of unorthodox theories. And it would
help if you had some evidence to support them.
Since nobody else is going to take a flyer on your theories, it's
really up to you. The fact is that the vast preponderance of the
evidence, as well as the advice of almost every major chess teacher in
the history of the game, fliers against what you're saying.
So make with the evidence already.
>
> > It's the simple acid test. Play some slow, rated, OTB games. Become a
> > grandmaster. Heck, I bet most of us would settle for you becoming an IM.
>
> "Us?"
>
>
> > And then we'll stop thinking you're full of it.
>
> Maybe Ron has DID or something, since only one person is writing his post.
It's abundantly clear that I'm not the only person in r.g.c.a who
thinks your theory about chess improvement is close to worthless.
-Ron
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 May 2006 10:14:51
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: opening repertoire for black
|
Ron <[email protected] > wrote:
> Ray Gordon <[email protected]> wrote:
>> What good is your baseline stroke in tennis if your serve is 25 mph?
>
> That has nothing to do with anything.
>
> Take an amateur and spend an hour teaching him rook endings. Or take
> that same hour and spend it teaching him openings.
>
> His will win more games in the former case than the later. That's a
> higher ginal return.
Depends on how bad the guys openings are. If he's still pushing
random pawns around and bringing his queen out on move two, there's a
good chance he'll never get to a rook ending.
Thing is, Ray's set up a complete strawman. The tennis player who
serves at 25mph is hardly going to clear the net so of course it's
worth teaching him a bit about the serve.
Once a tennis player has an OK serve and a chess player is OK in the
opening (pushing central pawns, centralizing the pieces, castling),
there are other things that have a much higher ginal return.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Revolting Homicidal Spoon (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a piece of cutlery but
it wants to kill you and it'll turn
your stomach!
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 May 2006 16:11:47
From: Bjoern
Subject: Re: opening repertoire for black
|
Ray Gordon wrote:
> If your openings aren't played by world championship contenders, they
are
> already holding you back, more likely than not. I also doubt Tiger's
> changes to his swing were as dramatic as those a beginner might make.
Well, almost anything has been played by world championship contenders
and/or world champions. And some of it I wouldn't really recommend to
friends, but in the end it doesn't really matter so much whether an
opening is fashionable and quite honestly the range of good openings is
really broad. Or would you honestly claim that e.g. against 1.d4 any of
the QGD, the Slav, KID, NID, QID, Gr�nfeld or Dutch is objectively
better than the other? And then there are so many other openings that
are slightly frowned upon but not really worse (like the Modern Benoni,
and by your criterion I'm allowed to play that, too). These things
really are just a matter of taste and fashion.
> So you want to be a stable, working man type during the week, but also a
> wannabe Fischer on the weekends. I say the latter because you use
the fact
> that you work a day job as some type of justification for not giving
a level
> of analysis that a professional would give. I ran into these types
all the
> time, who used to deride me for devoting 75 hours a week to chess,
yet at
> the same time who wanted to be taken as seriously as me, as if they were
> training as hard as me, even if their ratings were lower than mine.
Any person should be taken as seriously as any other, unless he/she
behaves in such a way as to not deserve it. Why should you deserve extra
respect for working hard on your chess, when in fact you are getting
nowhere? Being good at moving pieces quickly in bullet games isn't
particularly impressive.
> This is why I quit at age 24. Even now, I train at chess priily
to write
> my own book. I'm just improving fast enough that I'll hit GM at age
45 if I
> don't slow down, but at my age (39), that's an awfully big IF.
Well, quite frankly my opinion is that you just won't make GM. Nor IM.
Nor FM. Beyond your age (which is a serious handicap, which one may or
may not be able to overcome, but the strength you reached before
quitting indicates that you are not one of the rare amazing talents, so
you probably won't be able to) your concentration just learning opening
theory and lack of ability to critically appraise yourself are by far
too serious a flaw to allow you any serious progress in your overall
chess understanding and ability.
>>>The relevance is when the sub-2000 or sub-2200 player wants to MOVE UP IN
>>>CLASS.
>>
>>In almost every other endeavor, a player who wants to improve is
>>well-advised to work on whatever will pay the highest ginal returns.
>
> Which is openings in chess, or serve in tennis.
>
> What good is your baseline stroke in tennis if your serve is 25 mph?
Nonsense, really.
Firstly in tennis against strong players a good service will just put
them a bit under pressure and if you cannot follow that up with good
tennis it's just worthless. On the other hand if you don't put them
under quite as much pressure and instead can outplay them that's really
worth something. Okay, yes, a 25mph service would be a serious problem,
but even a vaguely reasonable amateur has a better serve than that.
Additionally the strength of a good service in tennis (i.e. you can
easily score lots of aces against weaker players) is in no way
comparable to the usefulness of a bit of extra opening knowledge in
chess. By far too often even non-theoretical and inferior moves don't
concede much.
Once you want to get somewhere at the above 2200 level, then you totally
ignore your openings, but there is still a lot to be gained by improving
your general play, while one just needs to make sure one's opening
knowledge is adequate for one's level of play.
>>What hour spent today will pay the highest dividends tomorrow?
>
>
> Extending your opening repertoire by one full move is almost always the
> quickest way to improve.
See above. Doesn't really help at all.
How many times have I won games against players who complained
afterwards that I had deviated from what I usually play? "Oh, but I had
been booked up in the Meran main line to move X, but then you played
this minor sideline! My book says I have good chances of getting
equality there as black!"
Maybe so, but if they are just outplayed that doesn't matter.
>>It's the simple acid test. Play some slow, rated, OTB games. Become a
>>grandmaster. Heck, I bet most of us would settle for you becoming an IM.
>
> "Us?"
>>And then we'll stop thinking you're full of it.
>
>
> Maybe Ron has DID or something, since only one person is writing his post.
>
> Of course, whenever someone is doubted on the way to succeeding, the first
> thing they do is try to be friendly to the doubters when they make it, just
> like the first person they call when they get rich is the one who put them
> out of work, etc.
Don't worry, I won't get friendly to you even if you succeeded
miraculously in becoming a GM (and yes, even IM would probably do to
seriously surprise me). You are by far too agressive and insulting to
other people for that.
|
| | | |
Date: 03 May 2006 23:15:43
From: Ralf Callenberg
Subject: Re: opening repertoire for black
|
03.05.2006 21:44, Ray Gordon:
> The same players who talk proudly about avoiding necessary opening knowledge
> wouldn't dare say they don't like to centralize their king in the endgame
> because it's "too theoretical."
Nonsense. I never said: "avoid theory", I just told him, that he
shouldn't be afraid if he doesn't memorize the exact variations and he
shouldn't get too impressed by the amount of theory piling up for
various openings. More important is to get a "feeling" for the opening
and getting the basic strategic principles behind it. The latter can be
done by books or other sources. Once you got them it is not too
difficult to keep them in memory even over longer periods of time. It is
a good idea to consult theory, what is overrated is the knowledge of
concrete variations, this "he knows the opening until move 20"-stuff.
So, I for instance don't know many variations in the Sicilian, but by
playing it and seeing games, I know several motives reoccurring in this
system. This is not very memory intensive, as I don't keep the exact
variations in mind. And the centralization of the king is also a
pattern, not a concrete variation.
> Those "occasions" where a player will bust up an unprepared opening also
> tend to be the "occasions" where the most prize money is on the line.
Only few players care about price money, especially amateurs. It's nice
to get a rating price here or there, but the majority is far away from
the big money anyway.
Greetings,
Ralf
|
| | | | |
Date: 04 May 2006 11:30:32
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: opening repertoire for black
|
>> The same players who talk proudly about avoiding necessary opening
>> knowledge wouldn't dare say they don't like to centralize their king in
>> the endgame because it's "too theoretical."
>
> Nonsense. I never said: "avoid theory", I just told him, that he shouldn't
> be afraid if he doesn't memorize the exact variations and he shouldn't get
> too impressed by the amount of theory piling up for various openings.
Because he's already given up any notion of becoming a GM? Otherwise, he
needs to consider how much theory is in an opening.
>More important is to get a "feeling" for the opening and getting the basic
>strategic principles behind it. The latter can be done by books or other
>sources. Once you got them it is not too difficult to keep them in memory
>even over longer periods of time. It is a good idea to consult theory, what
>is overrated is the knowledge of concrete variations, this "he knows the
>opening until move 20"-stuff.
One has to know how to play the opening as well as have variations
memorized. I actually don't play the opening for variations, but rather
formations. That way I can never really be taken out of book.
> So, I for instance don't know many variations in the Sicilian, but by
> playing it and seeing games, I know several motives reoccurring in this
> system. This is not very memory intensive, as I don't keep the exact
> variations in mind. And the centralization of the king is also a pattern,
> not a concrete variation.
It's "theory" and the point is that people who avoid opening theory would
not use the same approach to the middlegame or endgame.
Not knowing specific lines in the Silician while playing it is a good way to
hit a rating wall.
>> Those "occasions" where a player will bust up an unprepared opening also
>> tend to be the "occasions" where the most prize money is on the line.
>
> Only few players care about price money, especially amateurs.
Those "amateurs" who win prizes and learn variations in addition to how to
play the opening, become professionals.
Openings which are "useful at the club level" are touted because it's
presumed that the player doesn't want to move beyond the club level. The
1800-rated player who books up doesn't stay one for very long, so all that's
left in the class are people who don't book up.
>It's nice to get a rating price here or there, but the majority is far away
>from the big money anyway.
And they'll stay that way if they use that as a justification for developing
bad habits.
--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918
|
| | | | | |
Date: 05 May 2006 10:42:48
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: opening repertoire for black
|
Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
> Openings which are "useful at the club level" are touted because
> it's presumed that the player doesn't want to move beyond the club
> level.
You seem convinced that incremental learning is of no benefit. Most
of us prefer not to try to run before we can walk. As for the idea
that one can never change one's repertoire, here's a sporting analogy
for you, since you like them so much. Tiger Woods has remodeled his
swing twice *since becoming a professional*. If one of the world's
best golfers can change something as fundamental as his swing at such
a late stage, I'm sure I can get away with changing my opening
repertoire should I ever find that it's holding me back.
>> It's nice to get a rating price here or there, but the majority is
>> far away from the big money anyway.
>
> And they'll stay that way if they use that as a justification for
> developing bad habits.
I'll stay that way because I don't have the time to work out if I have
enough talent to become a pro. I'm quite happy playing chess as a
hobby and using the day job to earn a living.
Frankly, I'd hate to be a grandmaster, as distinct from a super-GM.
It must be horrible going to tournaments week in, week out, knowing
that you have to win because you need the prize money.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Permanent Newspaper (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a daily broadsheet but it'll be there
for ever!
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 07 May 2006 08:56:40
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: opening repertoire for black
|
>> Openings which are "useful at the club level" are touted because
>> it's presumed that the player doesn't want to move beyond the club
>> level.
>
> You seem convinced that incremental learning is of no benefit. Most
> of us prefer not to try to run before we can walk. As for the idea
> that one can never change one's repertoire, here's a sporting analogy
> for you, since you like them so much. Tiger Woods has remodeled his
> swing twice *since becoming a professional*. If one of the world's
> best golfers can change something as fundamental as his swing at such
> a late stage, I'm sure I can get away with changing my opening
> repertoire should I ever find that it's holding me back.
If your openings aren't played by world championship contenders, they are
already holding you back, more likely than not. I also doubt Tiger's
changes to his swing were as dramatic as those a beginner might make.
>>> It's nice to get a rating price here or there, but the majority is
>>> far away from the big money anyway.
>>
>> And they'll stay that way if they use that as a justification for
>> developing bad habits.
>
> I'll stay that way because I don't have the time to work out if I have
> enough talent to become a pro. I'm quite happy playing chess as a
> hobby and using the day job to earn a living.
So you want to be a stable, working man type during the week, but also a
wannabe Fischer on the weekends. I say the latter because you use the fact
that you work a day job as some type of justification for not giving a level
of analysis that a professional would give. I ran into these types all the
time, who used to deride me for devoting 75 hours a week to chess, yet at
the same time who wanted to be taken as seriously as me, as if they were
training as hard as me, even if their ratings were lower than mine.
> Frankly, I'd hate to be a grandmaster, as distinct from a super-GM.
> It must be horrible going to tournaments week in, week out, knowing
> that you have to win because you need the prize money.
This is why I quit at age 24. Even now, I train at chess priily to write
my own book. I'm just improving fast enough that I'll hit GM at age 45 if I
don't slow down, but at my age (39), that's an awfully big IF.
The freestyle tournaments have shed some light on how "weaker" players can
actually have better ideas than the grandmasters; one of those tourneys was
won by someone whose rating was all of 1700 OTB.
Kasparov's main openings coach at one time was a candidate master.
--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 08 May 2006 10:05:07
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: opening repertoire for black
|
Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
> If your openings aren't played by world championship contenders,
> they are already holding you back, more likely than not.
You are the only person on this group who believes this, as far as I
can tell.
> David Richerby wrote:
>> I'll stay that way because I don't have the time to work out if I
>> have enough talent to become a pro. I'm quite happy playing chess
>> as a hobby and using the day job to earn a living.
>
> So you want to be a stable, working man type during the week, but
> also a wannabe Fischer on the weekends.
No. I want to be a stable, working man type during the working day
and have fun in the evenings and at weekends. Some of that fun
involves playing and talking about chess.
> I say the latter because you use the fact that you work a day job as
> some type of justification for not giving a level of analysis that a
> professional would give.
No, I use the fact that I'm not very good as some type of justifi-
cation for not giving a level of analysis that a professional would
give. You see, the point about professionals is not that they're paid
for what they do but that they're good at what they do. Wolfgang
Unzicker, for example, was not a professional chessplayer but was
still extremely strong.
> I ran into these types all the time, who used to deride me for
> devoting 75 hours a week to chess
If they were deriding you for spending 75 hours a week at chess and
still only having a 1900 rating, they may well have had a point...
> The freestyle tournaments have shed some light on how "weaker"
> players can actually have better ideas than the grandmasters; one of
> those tourneys was won by someone whose rating was all of 1700 OTB.
Plus a pile of computers. Don't forget the pile of computers.
> Kasparov's main openings coach at one time was a candidate master.
Um, you really don't want to mention that. See, what it says is that
you can know so much about the opening that you can teach Garry
Kasparov, probably the best-prepared and arguably the strongest player
in the history of the game, about it and still be bad enough at the
rest of chess that you're not even an IM. Think about that for a bit.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Salted Carnivorous Lotion (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a soothing hand lotion but it
eats flesh and it's covered in salt!
|
| | | | | |
Date: 05 May 2006 01:45:04
From: Ralf Callenberg
Subject: Re: opening repertoire for black
|
04.05.2006 17:30, Ray Gordon:
> Because he's already given up any notion of becoming a GM?
As most amateurs do. He was asking for an opening repertoire with a
minimum of memory. Doesn't sound like the next year's participant at
Linares.
> One has to know how to play the opening as well as have variations
> memorized. I actually don't play the opening for variations, but rather
> formations. That way I can never really be taken out of book.
Maybe, but not everybody is ready to spent years of his life for opening
preparation.
> Not knowing specific lines in the Silician while playing it is a good way to
> hit a rating wall.
Yes, somewhere around 2200-2300. I hit my rating wall not because of my
openings. With some reasonable preparation I would gain maybe 50 points,
it wouldn't make a different player out of me.
> Those "amateurs" who win prizes and learn variations in addition to how to
> play the opening, become professionals.
Like you? Most people just don't head for becoming a professional. 99%
of all chess players just regard it as a hobby.
>
> And they'll stay that way if they use that as a justification for developing
> bad habits.
>
Well, if they enjoy where they are - so what?
Greetings,
Ralf
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 05 May 2006 05:24:15
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: opening repertoire for black
|
>> Because he's already given up any notion of becoming a GM?
>
> As most amateurs do.
Sampling bias; those who don't, don't stay amateurs.
>He was asking for an opening repertoire with a minimum of memory. Doesn't
>sound like the next year's participant at Linares.
Unfortunately, even Linares will get a player or two who thinks that way,
just with better positional strength and finishing technique.
>> One has to know how to play the opening as well as have variations
>> memorized. I actually don't play the opening for variations, but rather
>> formations. That way I can never really be taken out of book.
>
> Maybe, but not everybody is ready to spent years of his life for opening
> preparation.
If that's the case, then what they do at chess barely matters at all.
>> Not knowing specific lines in the Silician while playing it is a good way
>> to hit a rating wall.
>
> Yes, somewhere around 2200-2300. I hit my rating wall not because of my
> openings. With some reasonable preparation I would gain maybe 50 points,
> it wouldn't make a different player out of me.
Depends on the variations involved. If they are true main lines of the
Sicilian, booking up will do wonders for your rating because you'll be like
a horse who just gets out of the gate faster.
>> Those "amateurs" who win prizes and learn variations in addition to how
>> to play the opening, become professionals.
>
> Like you? Most people just don't head for becoming a professional. 99% of
> all chess players just regard it as a hobby.
Theory doesn't change for the hobbyists. What works for GMs also works for
lower-level players.
>> And they'll stay that way if they use that as a justification for
>> developing bad habits.
>>
>
> Well, if they enjoy where they are - so what?
If it's "so what" then there's no need to learn anything.
Someone can get a simplistic opening repertoire that is suitable for GM
play, of course.
--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 06 May 2006 06:11:19
From: Ralf Callenberg
Subject: Re: opening repertoire for black
|
05.05.2006 11:24, Ray Gordon:
>
> Sampling bias; those who don't, don't stay amateurs.
Well, the vast majority stays amateur. So, it's surly not a sampling bias.
>> Maybe, but not everybody is ready to spent years of his life for opening
>> preparation.
>
> If that's the case, then what they do at chess barely matters at all.
As I said: for most people chess is just a hobby. So of course, what
they do doesn't matter much. And?
> Theory doesn't change for the hobbyists. What works for GMs also works for
> lower-level players.
Not true. If you end up in positions beyond your capabilities, you might
have an objective advantage, but you might not be able to realize it,
yes it is even possible that you are going down, just because you don't
know or are not able to handle those positions. One has to adjust the
opening to the level of understanding, the level of ability to calculate
variations and so on.
>>> And they'll stay that way if they use that as a justification for
>>> developing bad habits.
>>>
>> Well, if they enjoy where they are - so what?
>
> If it's "so what" then there's no need to learn anything.
No, that's not the consequence. The consequence is, that the time you
spend learning must be in proportion. A GM can and should spend many
hours a day. Most chess players can't and won't do so. I do still learn
stuff, attend courses in the Munich Chess Academy, analyze games with
others, have a look into a book here and there. But it's just a few
hours a week. That's simply what I am ready to give. I am still learning
a bit, but it will not dramatically increase my strength, the majority
of the time I give to chess I actually do so over the board playing. For
me it's just a hobby and it will always be.
Greetings,
Ralf
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 May 2006 08:52:34
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: opening repertoire for black
|
>> Sampling bias; those who don't, don't stay amateurs.
>
> Well, the vast majority stays amateur. So, it's surly not a sampling bias.
The vast majority gives up on the idea of training like a GM to begin with,
so it is a sampling bias.
>>> Maybe, but not everybody is ready to spent years of his life for opening
>>> preparation.
>>
>> If that's the case, then what they do at chess barely matters at all.
>
> As I said: for most people chess is just a hobby. So of course, what they
> do doesn't matter much. And?
So why do they obsess over their gamies as if they mattered?
>> Theory doesn't change for the hobbyists. What works for GMs also works
>> for lower-level players.
>
> Not true. If you end up in positions beyond your capabilities, you might
> have an objective advantage, but you might not be able to realize it, yes
> it is even possible that you are going down, just because you don't know
> or are not able to handle those positions. One has to adjust the opening
> to the level of understanding, the level of ability to calculate
> variations and so on.
That "adjustment" of which you speak often becomes a self-fulfilling
prophecy.
The player who attempts to play strong moves even when he doesn't understand
them is still more likely to win (because he has better positions), and he
is more likely to improve as he gains understanding.
>>>> And they'll stay that way if they use that as a justification for
>>>> developing bad habits.
>>>>
>>> Well, if they enjoy where they are - so what?
>>
>> If it's "so what" then there's no need to learn anything.
>
> No, that's not the consequence. The consequence is, that the time you
> spend learning must be in proportion. A GM can and should spend many hours
> a day. Most chess players can't and won't do so. I do still learn stuff,
> attend courses in the Munich Chess Academy, analyze games with others,
> have a look into a book here and there. But it's just a few hours a week.
> That's simply what I am ready to give. I am still learning a bit, but it
> will not dramatically increase my strength, the majority of the time I
> give to chess I actually do so over the board playing. For me it's just a
> hobby and it will always be.
Keep that in mind when trying to analyze games then.
--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 May 2006 09:56:21
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: opening repertoire for black
|
Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
>>> Sampling bias; those who don't, don't stay amateurs.
>>
>> Well, the vast majority stays amateur. So, it's surly not a
>> sampling bias.
>
> The vast majority gives up on the idea of training like a GM to
> begin with, so it is a sampling bias.
So, what you're saying is that, although the majority of amateurs have
given up on the idea of ever becoming a GM, if you ask a large number
of amateurs `Are you trying to become a GM?' the answer will be `no'
because of some inherent bias in the sampling? It seems to me that
you don't understand at least one of the words `sample' and `bias'.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Moistened Flammable Apple (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a tasty fruit but it burns really
easily and it's moist!
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 May 2006 15:38:38
From: Ralf Callenberg
Subject: Re: opening repertoire for black
|
07.05.2006 14:52, Ray Gordon:
>>> Sampling bias; those who don't, don't stay amateurs.
>> Well, the vast majority stays amateur. So, it's surly not a sampling bias.
>
> The vast majority gives up on the idea of training like a GM to begin with,
No, it's not the beginning. They don't train like a GM *because* they
have given up the idea of becoming a GM.
>> As I said: for most people chess is just a hobby. So of course, what they
>> do doesn't matter much. And?
>
> So why do they obsess over their gamies as if they mattered?
At the end: what matters at all? Does a game of a GM matter? People just
like the excitement of the competition, they like the game. You don't
have to be world class in order to enjoy what you are doing.
>> Not true. If you end up in positions beyond your capabilities, you might
>> have an objective advantage, but you might not be able to realize it, yes
>> it is even possible that you are going down, just because you don't know
>> or are not able to handle those positions. One has to adjust the opening
>> to the level of understanding, the level of ability to calculate
>> variations and so on.
>
> That "adjustment" of which you speak often becomes a self-fulfilling
> prophecy.
>
> The player who attempts to play strong moves even when he doesn't understand
> them is still more likely to win (because he has better positions), and he
> is more likely to improve as he gains understanding.
Ok, you say so, I say so. Let's leave it here.
>>I am still learning a bit, but it
>> will not dramatically increase my strength, the majority of the time I
>> give to chess I actually do so over the board playing. For me it's just a
>> hobby and it will always be.
>
> Keep that in mind when trying to analyze games then.
>
What are you talking about? I don't understand this sentence.
Greetings,
Ralf
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 05 May 2006 13:28:14
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: opening repertoire for black
|
Ray Gordon <[email protected] > wrote:
>>> Because he's already given up any notion of becoming a GM?
>>
>> As most amateurs do.
>
> Sampling bias; those who don't, don't stay amateurs.
If `most amateurs' had the notion that they would become a GM and
studied hard enough to do so, there would be an awful lot more GMs...
I mean, like, millions of them. Literally.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Surprise Sadistic Puzzle (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like an intriguing conundrum but
it wants to hurt you and not like
you'd expect!
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 May 2006 08:50:12
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: opening repertoire for black
|
>>>> Because he's already given up any notion of becoming a GM?
>>>
>>> As most amateurs do.
>>
>> Sampling bias; those who don't, don't stay amateurs.
>
> If `most amateurs' had the notion that they would become a GM and
> studied hard enough to do so, there would be an awful lot more GMs...
> I mean, like, millions of them. Literally.
Not really. It's a lot of work. Many wouldn't want to do that work anyway.
--
"Google maintains the USENET." -- The Honorable R. Barclay Surrick, Eastern
District of PA Judge
From Parker v. Google, E.D.Pa. #04-cv-3918
|
| | |
Date: 03 May 2006 22:35:33
From: Earine
Subject: Re: opening repertoire for black
|
Ralf Callenberg wrote:
> 03.05.2006 09:43, Julien:
>
>> I'm looking for an opening repertoire for black with a minimum of memory.
>
> An often heard requirement, but I think it's the wrong approach. You
> should choose your opening according to your style, your preferences. Do
> you like more aggressive playing, or do you prefer to defend and counter
> attack?
>
> You might get an opening book with all openings, something like MCO, and
> browse the openings. Look at some of the resulting positions, try to get
> an idea of how the character of the opening is and choose the one you
> like the most. Then study the opening so far, that you get an idea, what
> this opening is all about, what are the main strategic points.
IMO, very good advice from Ralf. I'd like to add that after you have
done the above you should test different openings by actually playing them.
Try to be objective to yourself when you assess different openings. For
example I would very much like to be a great positional player, and
choose my openings accordingly. But in practice I have learnt that I
feel much more comfortable in dynamic positions (e.g. Sicilian,
KID/Benoni).
-Earine
|
| | |
Date: 03 May 2006 12:46:53
From: Julien
Subject: Re: opening repertoire for black
|
Thanks for your answer.
When I play white I'm very happy to play the colle system or the
Black-Diemer gambit.
Juju
|
|
