A Training System and A Question For Opening Specialists Out There

Hello there guys...I'm new on this site...And just to introduce myself I've been playing informal chess games for quite sometime...But fort some reason, the chess fever got into me and now I want to be a regular tournament player.

I've created my own training scheme here. And as most of you would expect from a beginner its based on tactics. I would like to know what you think of it, suggest improvements...I just wann hear you guys out:

Blindfold Training (7 Days a Week)
- 6 Short Games to be played through my mind on a pieceless board.
- 6 Kngiht Moves - guessing where a knight can leap to from a square w/o a board.
- 3 Assorted Stuff - Guessing where a specific square should be placed to attack w/c square; completing the sequences of diagionals etc.

Tactics Training (7 Days a Week)
- Intensive Tactics Course 2 - 15 exercises
- Killer Moves - 15 Exercises

How To Become A Deadly Chess Tactician By Lemoir (5 Days a Week)
- Solve exercises on the board but without moving the pieces.
- Go through examples using the board but only for mainlines...use my chess vision for sub-variations.

Test Your Chess (1 Weekend/Dayoff)
- Go through one game from D. King's book Test your Chess as instructed by King. Write down all analysis.

How To Re-asses Your Chess Workbook (1 Weekend/Dayoff)
- Now on this one, I've decided that instead of going through the problems...I'd view the solutions as lessons. About 5-7 on a day.

Game Assimilation (1 Weekend/Dayoff)
- Play through un/annotated games by Tal, Nezhmetdinov, and Spielmann. about 15-20 games. This was suggested by Ken Smith in his chess improvement course. The idea is to allow the concepts of these masters (especially on tactics)to sink in subconsciously.

Also I've committed myslef to study tactics everytime I'm free...matter of factly I bring 303 Tricky Chess Tactics to work and answer it each time I'm doin nothin'. I've been doin thid for 2 weeks now and I'm really enjoying and learning from it.

Another thing that I would like to ask of you guys: What gambit openings out there are aggressive but has a touch of soundness to it?

Any revisions you can make to the ff??
- King's Gambit: Bishop's Gambit
- Sicilian Defense: Smith-Morra Gambit
- Caro-Kann Defense: Milner-Barry Gambit
- French Defense: KIA (what gambit can you suggest?)

As for Black, I haven't come up with any ideas yet.

I need your help guys...any suggestion would be most welcome.

thechessspartan

"That is an intensive, yet impressive training system that surely will bring results. My only question would be looking to play gambit openings, when traditional play can bring the same tactical results. The Kings Gambit may be the most solid of the white opening gambit systems (Queens gambit is not regarded as a gambit opening), but there is no need for the Smith-Morra in the sicillian when this system presents a lot of tactics within the majority of its' main lines. "

- Creg

Hmmm...I've regarded the Smith-Morra Gambit as a very sound and practical gambit system...But of course I'm open to your opinion Creg...what do you think about it? Any easy to aggressive system against the Sicilian? I know White systems against 1...c5 are attacking by nature (except for Maroczy Bind I think?) But they take up reams of theory...I consider 3 factors when choosing an opening: 1. My Mental Faculties 2. Time And Resources 3. Playing Strength

Time is my arch-rival when it comes to openings. So Creg if you have a suggestion in mind...I would very much appreciate it. :'p

Wow. That's an impressive training system. But how much time are you actually going to be playing and studying your own games while doing all this? I found that I tend to study too much and not play enough, and that hurts my results. So I'm trying to balance about 50/50 playing/studying time, with most of the playing time being slow games and reviewing my games afterwards.

As for gambits, it sounds similar to what I was trying with my repertoire. I wanted to get better at tactics and attacking, so I switched to a bunch of gambits. It's the "learn to attack or die trying" method. So far, I've died in a lot of games, but I'm learning by reviewing them afterwards.

I went for the Vienna Gambit instead of King's Gambit, though, because I figured less opponents would know their defensive lines really well. What I found was that nobody actually plays e5 against e4 above the 1400 level (USCF rating). It's all Sicilian and occasional other stuff, like the Pirc, Alekhine, and Modern. I never even faced a French or Caro Kann since switching to this repertoire, and I had gambits prepared for those. If you're looking for a fun anti-French gambit, look up the Alapin-Diemer Gambit. There was an article about it in chesscafe.com's Gambit Cartel column a couple of years ago, which you can download from their archives.

I also chose the Smith-Morra as my main weapon against the Sicilian, not just because it's a gambit, but more because it gave me only a single line to study, instead of having to learn all the different Open Sicilian lines. I didn't do too well with it my first few games, but I've just reached the point of learning enough about it that I think I could play it better in the future. But at this point, I've decided to give up on 1. e4 instead!

I'm still sticking with the idea of an attacking repertoire, but I decided to switch to the Blackmar Diemer Gambit as white. This way, I can learn one gambit really well that's actually going to come up in 75% of my games, instead of trying to keep up with 5 different gambits against different responses to 1. e4. Also, I play the Soller Gambit as black against d4, which is pretty much just the BDG with a missing tempo, so learning the BDG will help me with that. The BDG is pretty much sound (it's not blatantly unsound, anyway), so playing it with a tempo missing definitely isn't. But the Soller Gambit is a good surprise weapon at the class level, and I've done pretty well with it so far.

Against c4 as black, I learned enough about the gambit lines in columns 3-6 of the Gambit Cartel archives to use the Bellon Gambit and related "wing" gambit system on the rare occasions that my opponents play 1. c4. I don't really have a specific response to e4 as black. For now, I'm just playing e5 and going into typical lines, so I don't have to spend too much time studying the openings. There are some openings that catch me a little off guard (I need to study the King's Gambit), but I'm mostly ready for anything. If anyone has any good recommendations for stuff to try against e4, I'm open to suggestions.

--Fromper 

That's a good suggestion Fromper...Thanks a lot for that.

As for the BDG, where do you think I can find information about that? Not really looking to go in depth with analysis and variations...I'm using my intuition a lot more now (as LeMoir suggests in his book How To Become A Deadly Chess Tactician, which I think is starting to benefit me w/in 2 weeks!). I'm more into games that show how the gambit should be played and should not.

An explanation of plans and ideas would also be very helpful...See ya again Fromper!

I bought a book called The Blackmar-Diemer Gambit Keybook II by Tim Sawyer. It's got 100 main games, plus another 2700+ games in the side notes and variations. I don't actually intend to read and play through all of them. I'm just looking at the main lines first and playing through some of the representative main line games to get a feel for the opening. Then I'll use it as a reference to see how my games vary from what's listed as I play the opening.

--Fromper 

Are those games annotated?? Havin' concrete variations to back up plans and ideas are all nice...but I prefer starting off with ideas...verbal explanations and all that before getting into detail. Though I don't have problems finding the plan, idea, and compensation (since this is one swashbuckling gambit!) myself.

BTW, I've checked Tim Sawyer's articles...they're a mine of gold! His first 2 articles against the Caro-Kann are very much worth the admission (as said on some reviews). I'll check it all out and see what ideas I can take from it.

As for playing, I have to agree with you...matter of factly, I'm planning to go to our national chess club to check out when and where rated tournaments are gonna held.But before I get into the battlefield, I would like to have an idea what openings to try on.

That BDG book I mentioned has a few pages of explanation of the main ideas behind the opening at the beginning of the book, and a little bit at the beginning of each chapter explaining the ideas behind the main line of that chapter. But most of the annotation within the example games is in the form of giving different lines to play instead of what was actually played - not much verbal explanation there.

Thechessspartan, I wasn't just refering to tournaments when I said you need to play a lot. In the intro to his 5000+ puzzle book, Laszlo Polgar recommends playing EVERY DAY to improve, and he's not talking a couple of moves in correspondence games like on this site. Go log on to freechess.org or some other site and play the slowest game that you have time for every single day, whether it's just 5 minutes or a 2 hour game. As I said, shoot for about a 50/50 ratio of play to study if you're serious about improving. Those at master level can probably adjust that ratio some, but for us mere mortals, sticking to about that is essential.

Anaxagoras, I used to think like that. I just wanted to survive the opening with material equality and focus on playing the middle and ending properly.  I used to drift through my games, playing sound defensively and only winning if my opponents messed up. If your opponent develops with a plan from the first move, then they'll have the upper hand the whole game, even if you can maintain material equality in the opening. Developing with a plan from the very first move is stronger, and it's a habit you should make a point of getting into as early as possible in your playing career.You don't necessarily have to play a gambit, or memorize book openings 15 moves deep, but playing the same openings over and over, and comparing your games to how masters play the openings, is a good way to make sure you're always in middle games that you're comfortable with. And that makes it easier to play the middle game well and win more games.

--Fromper 

The reason I, along with <anaxagoras> refer to solid plans and openings is based on your intensive training program. Why go through all that if all you prefer to play are some semi-sound at best gambit openings?

The Smith-Smora is an easy system for black to neutralize against. This doesn't mean that black comes out ahead, it simply means that any decent player can come out equal against white rather easily compared to other systems. 

What you don't seem to understand is that white has the advantage of moving first, thus it is white who should be striving for a win. Black is trying to equalize/neutrilize white's first move advantage. Whenever you make it easier for black to accomplish this, then you are helping the 2nd player not the the 1st player. 

It's not that these openings can never be played, and please note I didn't bash any of them. You just don't want these being your main repertoire. If however time is of concern, and long analysis is not your preference, though to play the BDG you better study all the lines, then stick to these off beat lines. You just won't find many wins past a certain rating level, that is all I'm saying.  

When I play through my chess games, I find sooooo many errors it's scary.   Sometimes I can't even figure out how to attack down a half-open file, and I've been at this for years and years.

So, in agreement with Creg, follow the KISS guidelines for your chess openings if you're starting out: Keep It Simple Stupid.  If you have a choice between the objectively best move and something less, then there is no choice: e.g. 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3! or f4?!...  Seriously, let's come back down to earth.

Did you read your own post? You said to concentrate on middle games and endgames. How is someone who doesn't study openings supposed to learn about planning in that stage of the game? I'm not saying that opening study should be the top concern. Tactics and endgames are clearly more important until you get good at them. But picking certain openings to stick with and learning them well will certainly improve your results.

And what's with everyone insisting that the theoretical best opening moves are the only ones to even consider? The original poster stated that he's a casual player who's trying to prepare to start playing in tournaments. At the master level, playing the best openings is important. But in games between two intermediate players, whoever knows more about the particular opening being played will have an advantage, even if the opening is unfit for master play. And playing gambits is a good way to improve your tactical and attacking ability - it's the "learn to attack or die trying" method. 

I know I'll only get so far with some of the unsound openings that I play. When I get up to 1800 or higher, I'll probably have to learn better openings that are strong enough to use against better opponents. But for now, as a 1400 player, I've won both of my USCF tournament games against higher rated opponents where I've responded to 1. d4 with 1. ... e5. Gambits don't get much more unsound than that, but it's worked for me so far. Any gambit is about answering the question "What's a pawn worth?". At my level, getting my opponent out of their comfort zone is definitely worth a pawn. 

--Fromper 

Focusing mostly on tactics is a good idea,  but it's odd you spend so many words on your opening repertoire and not a word on endings. After tactics, endings are probably the best area to study for improvement. In fact, many great players began by studying endings. You need to have some idea how to at least survive pawn and rook endings.

Hmmm...I hope the guys here aren't about to have a heated argument.

Abyway, I really appreciate you guys commenting here. And yes...I don't see anything wrong with playing sound moves in the opening...nor I have anything against gambits, though I'm more inclined to play one.

I was also playing solid openings before...and I find myself winning especially against weaker opposition. But with stronger players, sometimes solid isn't enough and you have to add tension (with a sacrifice or positional concession for dynamic forms of compensation) to increase my practical chances.

That's just an opinion anyway.

As for playing everyday...I won't have a problem with that. Many of us think that such a system (like mine) is intensive (even impressive as Creg and Fromper said...Thanks guys BTW athat's encouraging). But believe me, in those routines I only spend 40 minutes (recommended by K. Smith) on each of them.

I still have time to play, jam with mya gang, and even drink during weekdays/working days!

So back to the idea of playing constantly, where can I play (online for now, not much tourneys here in the country but I'll seek one :p) at slow time controls? I do believe that playing G/60 with 1 min. increment being the fastest is REALLY essential. Do we have a club on the site that advocates this type of time control?

As for endgames...I have some foundation on it. And Silman's book does cover endgames too with thorough explanation. But I appreciate your reminder Likeforests. What book do you recommend BTW?

I play at FICS (freechess.org). Finding games longer than 30 or 40 minutes is sometimes difficult, but I can usually find a couple of longer games every week. Feel free to challenge me if you see me there. There are also a couple of leagues you can join that play with time limits of 60 15 or 45 45 (the first number is the base time in minutes, and the second is the increment in seconds). 

As for endgames, I'm currently going through Silman's Complete Endgame Course. I like his teaching approach of just giving you enough material at a time to teach you something. Most endgame books give you every possible position involving the same types of pieces all at once. Eventually, your eyes glaze over and you don't remember the differences between the various similar positions or remember how to play each one when they come up. Learning in chunks the way Silman teaches is definitely easier.

--Fromper 

The book you'll actually read is the best one.  ;-) 

 (PS - I assume you mean Silman's Complete Endgame Course. If you mean you studied the couple endgames in How to Reassess Your Chess... then you really, really need to pick up an endgame book. The above mentioned book, or Pandolfini's Endgame Course, or Seirawan's Winning Chess Endings are good.)

Silman's Complete Endgame Course only covers one or two positions for each type of endgame, and honestly, you need more practice if you want to be any good. So take his endgames and change them... move the pieces around, change who's turn it is... and play them against a computer. It's a good way to learn. 

For example, the following position is easy to draw with Black to move. But  suppose it's White to move. How does Black draw now?

The Vienna Gambit is another one that is fairly sound.  For black there is the Benko Gambit.

 Crash