1. d4 Defense for Classical Scholastic: QGD or Slav?

Optimissed
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Christopher_Parsons wrote:

The best way for beginners to understand simple Concepts such as how the pieces move and how they work together is that actually just have them play through some games instead of showing them an endgame position and then try to explain to them how the pieces move even though all of them aren't there and you don't have any idea how they work together and then ask them to solve a puzzle. And no matter how much you try to put the end before the beginning it will never change the natural Order of Things.

     

     You remind priests when they talk about homosexuality. Their limited understanding doesn't allow them to understand that what they consider abnormal is actually absolutely normal.>>

That explains everything.

 

     

 

wizardtj
SeniorPatzer wrote:

9-year old son.  I informed him to play d5 in response to 1. d4.  No KID, Grunfeld, Nimzo, Dutch until later.  Want him to start with classical foundation, then branch out later if he chooses.  2 Questions:

 

 

1)  Which is better for the 1000 - 1100 Scholastic to learn:  QGD with 2... e6 or 2.... c6 (Slav)?

 

 

2)  Which one has more flexiblity in meeting the 1. c4 and 1. Nf3 Openings?  I.e., Is the QGD or is the Slav more easily "transferable" to playing against the English or the Reti?  The answer to this question would seem to have some bearing on the choice between QGD or Slav.

 

 

Addendum.  He knows Opening Principles.  He'll soon be playing up against C, B, and A players.  He's also learning e5 as response to 1. e4.   So no French or Caro-Kann.  

 

Which choice would you recommend between the two?

Neither.  A 9 year old needs to have experience in the endings so Grunfeild!

Christopher_Parsons
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Christopher_Parsons wrote:

The best way for beginners to understand simple Concepts such as how the pieces move and how they work together is that actually just have them play through some games instead of showing them an endgame position and then try to explain to them how the pieces move even though all of them aren't there and you don't have any idea how they work together and then ask them to solve a puzzle. And no matter how much you try to put the end before the beginning it will never change the natural Order of Things.

     

     You remind priests when they talk about homosexuality. Their limited understanding doesn't allow them to understand that what they consider abnormal is actually absolutely normal.

     

I don't care to discuss your religious ideas here. It violates site rules. 

Christopher_Parsons
Optimissed wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Christopher_Parsons wrote:

The best way for beginners to understand simple Concepts such as how the pieces move and how they work together is that actually just have them play through some games instead of showing them an endgame position and then try to explain to them how the pieces move even though all of them aren't there and you don't have any idea how they work together and then ask them to solve a puzzle. And no matter how much you try to put the end before the beginning it will never change the natural Order of Things.

     

     You remind priests when they talk about homosexuality. Their limited understanding doesn't allow them to understand that what they consider abnormal is actually absolutely normal.>>

That explains everything.

 

     

 

Were you referring to the anal retentive natural or him not being about to let it go ?

Preggo_Basashi
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Christopher_Parsons wrote:

The best way for beginners to understand simple Concepts such as how the pieces move and how they work together is that actually just have them play through some games instead of showing them an endgame position and then try to explain to them how the pieces move even though all of them aren't there and you don't have any idea how they work together and then ask them to solve a puzzle. And no matter how much you try to put the end before the beginning it will never change the natural Order of Things.

     

     You remind priests when they talk about homosexuality. Their limited understanding doesn't allow them to understand that what they consider abnormal is actually absolutely normal.

     

Probably should relax a little. Such topics are too much for Parsons, who is probably a 12 year old kid.

Christopher_Parsons
Preggo_Basashi wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Christopher_Parsons wrote:

The best way for beginners to understand simple Concepts such as how the pieces move and how they work together is that actually just have them play through some games instead of showing them an endgame position and then try to explain to them how the pieces move even though all of them aren't there and you don't have any idea how they work together and then ask them to solve a puzzle. And no matter how much you try to put the end before the beginning it will never change the natural Order of Things.

     

     You remind priests when they talk about homosexuality. Their limited understanding doesn't allow them to understand that what they consider abnormal is actually absolutely normal.

     

Probably should relax a little. Such topics are too much for Parsons, who is probably a 12 year old kid.

It's ok, I won't hold it against you if you can only count to 12. 

Preggo_Basashi

I'm a horse, if I try to count on my fingers and toes I can only get to 4.

SmyslovFan

I do hope that people who are looking for an answer to the orginal question go back to the first few pages where several coaches with experience teaching scholastic students answered the question. 

Christopher_Parsons
SmyslovFan wrote:

I do hope that people who are looking for an answer to the orginal question go back to the first few pages where several coaches with experience teaching scholastic students answered the question. 

I agree and I hope some people would use common sense also. I am intrigued by how it could elude certain players with their ratings. 

kindaspongey
DeirdreSkye wrote:

... the only certain way not to improve is to acquire a "good repertoire" before you develop your skills to a good level ...

In this thread, is there a sentence advocating acquiring a "good repertoire" before developing other skills? I would imagine that some here are sympathetic to the idea of gradual improvement in a number of areas, including the opening.

kindaspongey

"... Review each of your games, identifying opening (and other) mistakes with the goal of not repeatedly making the same mistake. ... It is especially critical not to continually fall into opening traps – or even lines that result in difficult positions ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2007)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627062646/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman81.pdf

DeirdreSkye
Preggo_Basashi wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Christopher_Parsons wrote:

The best way for beginners to understand simple Concepts such as how the pieces move and how they work together is that actually just have them play through some games instead of showing them an endgame position and then try to explain to them how the pieces move even though all of them aren't there and you don't have any idea how they work together and then ask them to solve a puzzle. And no matter how much you try to put the end before the beginning it will never change the natural Order of Things.

     

     You remind priests when they talk about homosexuality. Their limited understanding doesn't allow them to understand that what they consider abnormal is actually absolutely normal.

     

Probably should relax a little. Such topics are too much for Parsons, who is probably a 12 year old kid.

12 year old? 

I didn't know that.

Preggo_Basashi
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Preggo_Basashi wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Christopher_Parsons wrote:

The best way for beginners to understand simple Concepts such as how the pieces move and how they work together is that actually just have them play through some games instead of showing them an endgame position and then try to explain to them how the pieces move even though all of them aren't there and you don't have any idea how they work together and then ask them to solve a puzzle. And no matter how much you try to put the end before the beginning it will never change the natural Order of Things.

     

     You remind priests when they talk about homosexuality. Their limited understanding doesn't allow them to understand that what they consider abnormal is actually absolutely normal.

     

Probably should relax a little. Such topics are too much for Parsons, who is probably a 12 year old kid.

12 year old? 

I didn't know that.

I don't know either.

But if not a 12 year old physically, then a 12 year old mentally.

DeirdreSkye
Preggo_Basashi wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Preggo_Basashi wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Christopher_Parsons wrote:

The best way for beginners to understand simple Concepts such as how the pieces move and how they work together is that actually just have them play through some games instead of showing them an endgame position and then try to explain to them how the pieces move even though all of them aren't there and you don't have any idea how they work together and then ask them to solve a puzzle. And no matter how much you try to put the end before the beginning it will never change the natural Order of Things.

     

     You remind priests when they talk about homosexuality. Their limited understanding doesn't allow them to understand that what they consider abnormal is actually absolutely normal.

     

Probably should relax a little. Such topics are too much for Parsons, who is probably a 12 year old kid.

12 year old? 

I didn't know that.

I don't know either.

But if not a 12 year old physically, then a 12 year old mentally.

lol , ok got it. In either case I will avoid to enter a discussion with him from now on.

Christopher_Parsons
kindaspongey wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:

... the only certain way not to improve is to acquire a "good repertoire" before you develop your skills to a good level ...

In this thread, is there a sentence advocating acquiring a "good repertoire" before developing other skills? I would imagine that some here are sympathetic to the idea of gradual improvement in a number of areas, including the opening.

Exactly and are all equally important. 

Christopher_Parsons
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Preggo_Basashi wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Preggo_Basashi wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Christopher_Parsons wrote:

The best way for beginners to understand simple Concepts such as how the pieces move and how they work together is that actually just have them play through some games instead of showing them an endgame position and then try to explain to them how the pieces move even though all of them aren't there and you don't have any idea how they work together and then ask them to solve a puzzle. And no matter how much you try to put the end before the beginning it will never change the natural Order of Things.

     

     You remind priests when they talk about homosexuality. Their limited understanding doesn't allow them to understand that what they consider abnormal is actually absolutely normal.

     

Probably should relax a little. Such topics are too much for Parsons, who is probably a 12 year old kid.

12 year old? 

I didn't know that.

I don't know either.

But if not a 12 year old physically, then a 12 year old mentally.

lol , ok got it. In either case I will avoid to enter a discussion with him from now on.

If all of you guys were actually as funny and intelligent as you think you are, we would be being entertained by next years candidates...

BobbyPhisher960
darkunorthodox88 wrote:

you want to bore your child to death?

LOL

Christopher_Parsons
BobbyPhisher960 wrote:
darkunorthodox88 wrote:

you want to bore your child to death?

LOL

That is funny...

BobbyPhisher960

So?