FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
So you only study the best lines possible, the new grandmaster theory that gives you the .3 computer edge. Then what do you do when you are over the board and some body pulls out their pet project they love like the Danish or some fried liver junk or whatever. These are "bad lines", but can you win against them every time. You can't say that you would win every game against some old line. Because opening theory only goes so far. A line may give you a so called advantage, but you still have to be a great player to take that to consistent victories. I've lost many games to "outdated lines" so have you, so has everyone else that is not a top tier master. And even they can have trouble. I think the annoying thing about your argument is the idea you think it's wrong to learn "old lines", and that some average player will just destroy that old school crap. Pure nonsense. And I post this fully aware of the response that's coming. Someone posted this:
he is always right and will always have the last word.
Why does anyone study history?
Does a surgeon perform brain surgery before learning the head bone is connected to the neck bone?
I'm gonna win the tour de france, and I never rode a tricycle or had training wheels.
"How come can't get into Harvard?" said the eight grade drop out as he opens "Godel,Escher, Bach" for some casual reading.
Hey, I'm gonna land a plane on an aircraft carrier, glad I didn't study lift and drag and just went straight for hitting the third wire.
Mmmmm. a tasty souffle sounds like the bestest hardest egg dish to make, who needs to know basic cooking skills.
I could go on forever. It seems obvious. If we ever play you'll smoke me with current theory, but I won't be anywhere near those lines. As won't most of the people you play chess against.
If you as a surgeon and dont go to training , to keep you up to date, your old method may be hazard to the patient and you are not even allowed to operate.
Second we are talking about the french not a less known opening, if you study the french you probably know the ins and outs. Real study isnt just learning the moves but learning the poisitional and strategical ideas.
We are not talking about an unknown opening, the french is well known.
Ofc even grandmasters lose to old lines, even Kazimdzhanov used some old lines from someone who knew that stuff already. Does it mean you can just duplicate it and just take any random old line??? Besides people even lose to the grobe now and then, do you now want to play the grobe?? because its a marvelous opening??
Than there is the computer evaluation, what does 0.3 mean?? It could be an overwelming positional advantage, it could be a position where there is no life in your position and the only one with winning chances is the opponent. Not to mention who knows if the 0.3 is even accurate, maybe its often way bigger than you say, also not to mention that computers dont understand openings that well, or even some closed positions. Even Aronian played lines his computer said were not good.
I cant really judge the danish gambit, but for a weak player like me it seems black gets a really good game if he plays e5 and there is not much fun for white, even though its not worse position.
And all your other assumptions are incorrect, you dont learn the basics with old opening books, you learn incorrect and obsolete information mostly.
Do you remember Capablanca saying: i dont read opening books, they are all full of errors and even losing.
Well, i got these books cheap from a second hand bookshop, they are pretty old so i dunno if they are any good. I'm pretty new at playing chess anyway.
These are the books:
Bobby Fischer teaches Chess YES
Logical Chess - Irving Chernev YES
Open Games - Ludek Pachman YES, but maybe not until you're rated +1600
French Defense - Max Euwe MAYBE (but certainly not for up-to-date theory) , but for you NO - specific opening theory is the last thing you need to focus on right now
500 Traps at openings - Aguilera ? I never read it but it probably can't hurt to read to get general ideas about how to play and how not to play openings in general
NimzoRoy, no no no no no!! Your overall positive assessment of these old books must be CLEARLY WRONG because Mr. Know-it-All from Japan says they are obsolete and forgettable.
I wonder what happened if Max Euwe came back from Paradise and played some of his worthless, outdated crap he wrote on the French against Mr. Know-it-All. And whether Mr. Know-it-All might learn a thing or two in the process... Oh wait, I forgot: He's not a strong player but he still knows everything already. And isn't Max Euwe this old fart from pre-Houdini days who only played less stupidly than his peers?
I also wonder what Mr. Know-it-All had to say if suddenly Fabiano Caruana came on here and said that Max Euwe's book was the best book he read when he started to study the French more in-depth. And also said that having read Euwe's book first made it so much easier to grasp the more modern concepts of the French from "The New French" by GM I-don't-know-whom, eventually enabling him to develop his own ideas about the French...
I highly doubt that Caruana has read that book.
but i have to thank you anyway, now im much more motivated to train and now its even more fun like it already was.
japanese dont call themselves san, so i have to call you mr ;)
@TomHaegin Thanks for setting me straight!
Capablanca's quote: (was your version a paraphrase or did he actually say that?)
Ninety percent of the book variations have no great value, because either they contain mistakes or they are based on fallacious assumptions; just forget about the openings and spend all that time on the endings. - Jose Capablanca
Chess books should be used as we use glasses: to assist the sight, although some players make use of them as if they conferred sight. - Jose Capablanca
Memorization of variations could be even worse than playing in a tournament without looking in the books at all. - Mikhail Botvinnik
Contrary to many young colleagues I do believe that it makes sense to study the classics. - Magnus Carlsen
well he said they were bad and he ones tried it and they were planely wrong. I dont know the exact quote, but he once said something like that. But ofc the quote your mention i know as well.
Ok Magnus says he likes to study the classics, does it mean he likes to study the old opening books??? I guess not, because masters even tell me they are outdated and they contain weird stuff.
Like some say you cant play the scotch because d4 is too early and you need first to develop. Man if someone only told Kasparov. I know that actually still makes sense, but it just something of the top of my head now.
Well, someone had to do it...
You know, what cracks me up the most is that about 50% of the contributions to this thread are from this clown. Posting and deleting, and posting oneliners and one minute later the next oneliner. I will give him the benefit of the doubt however and assume that in his version of the chess.com forums they forgot to include the edit button and only implemented the delete button. Although deep down I have the suspicion that it is all his sinister plan to force everybody who is subscribed to the thread to come back 50 times a day and endure his latest cerebral ejaculation.
Never thought I'd find myself defending TetsuoShima guys, but he is just a kid. Granted, an adolescent suffering from the twin curses of arrogance and ignorance even more than is the norm, but still just a dumb kid. Let's hope he grows out of it...