"On 1. b3, g3, Nc3, simply take the center with pawns and you get large advantage."
oh boy.
Best books to learn the "classical" approach for Black against the flank openings
Sort:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
Hi Danny.
Studying openings mainly makes not much sense.
There 50-100 theoretical books on the English and Reti, and most of them would differ on specific points, or even totally contradict each other.
So, instead of reading all of them, I would simply replay Fischer games.
What does later Fischer pick on 1. c4? 1...c5
What does he pick on 1. Nf3? Again 1...c5
If Fischer says those are the right moves, then those they are.
Fortunately, my understanding and theories completely agree with Fischer's opening choices.
My book says c4 attacking the empty d5 square and c5, respectively attacking the empty d4 square, are a major and very frequent strategic asset, valid almost exlusively in the opening.
Look at it: Fischer's moves do precisely that.
The linear historical approach is: getting familiar with the game(the Romantics), firstlings of chess theory/generalisation(Steinitz and Nimzovich), the concrete approach then, followed by most moderns, based on statistics derived from large databases of games, and the, at some point, you need to generalise again, but at a higher level.
If you want the game to develop, of course...
Minor openings are a waste of time.
On 1. b3, g3, Nc3, simply take the center with pawns and you get large advantage.
I don't necessarily disagree with most of what you said, and I don't think what I am about to say is particularly controversial, but it might be interpreted as controversial ...
I have a hard time seeing how studying GM games can help an amateur, especially at my level. The only argument I see is a well-annotated game that has a lot of words to help someone learn the basic concepts of positional play/strategy (the non-concrete side of chess), however there are too many exceptions and nuances at the GM level. Better might be games against people who are slightly higher in rating, but there are few books on 1600 versus 1400 level players (even "Master vs Amateur" type books are often GM against Expert/CM/class A). An amateur needs to work most on his crudest and simplest concrete mistakes, while trying to keep an eye out for the more abstract ... this is where introductory opening books might be better than annotated game collections, though analytical exercises (simple ones like tactics and basic endgames) are best. The beauty of an engine when analyzing tactical mistakes is that an amateur's mind can wander ("wait, why couldn't I do this? how would he respond if I did that? etc.") and see all of his/her oversights ... GM games don't uncover the source of the amateur's low-level skills and frequently they obscure it.
So then why do I ask frequently about opening books, and difficult ones at that? Because when I do play, I like to have a resource to go to for analysis. Without a repertoire, I won't be able to link general themes and plans to moves actually played in my low-level game. I won't realize that the configuration in one case calls for Ne5 and a kingside attack while a slightly different setup in the same opening calls for c4 and attempting to open a file on the queenside instead. I can pretend like those are my options, but often there are simple (tactical) refutations.
Jun 22, 2018
0
#84
i think most class players are better off seeing the game of experts and lower masters, then those of GM's,
Would love to see accurate demolition of mistakes from the crudest to the more subtle in a given type of position, insofar as this is possible or there are resources available that show this ... If an amateur sees the many ways that a misplayed position can lead to a concrete advantage for the opponent, whether a forced mate, material gain, or an overwhelming or plainly solid positional advantage, then s/he better sees what constitutes an “ideal setup” in a given situation and, more importantly, why.
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
"On 1. b3, g3, Nc3, simply take the center with pawns and you get large advantage."
oh boy.
Indeed, I should have said: and you win. 
1. b3 e5 is very strong, black is already better.
1. b3 g6 - fully equal.
Other answers are weaker.
1. g3 c5 is also slightly superior for black.
Well, maybe 0.0
1. g3 d5 and then supporting the center with c6 is also almost fully equal.
1. Nc3 d5 and black is already better.
Randon flank openings are not recommendable to anyone.
The Fischer-Larsen features b3 + f4, but black can prevent that setup with an early e5.
dannyhume wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
Hi Danny.
Studying openings mainly makes not much sense.
There 50-100 theoretical books on the English and Reti, and most of them would differ on specific points, or even totally contradict each other.
So, instead of reading all of them, I would simply replay Fischer games.
What does later Fischer pick on 1. c4? 1...c5
What does he pick on 1. Nf3? Again 1...c5
If Fischer says those are the right moves, then those they are.
Fortunately, my understanding and theories completely agree with Fischer's opening choices.
My book says c4 attacking the empty d5 square and c5, respectively attacking the empty d4 square, are a major and very frequent strategic asset, valid almost exlusively in the opening.
Look at it: Fischer's moves do precisely that.
The linear historical approach is: getting familiar with the game(the Romantics), firstlings of chess theory/generalisation(Steinitz and Nimzovich), the concrete approach then, followed by most moderns, based on statistics derived from large databases of games, and the, at some point, you need to generalise again, but at a higher level.
If you want the game to develop, of course...
Minor openings are a waste of time.
On 1. b3, g3, Nc3, simply take the center with pawns and you get large advantage.
I don't necessarily disagree with most of what you said, and I don't think what I am about to say is particularly controversial, but it might be interpreted as controversial ...
I have a hard time seeing how studying GM games can help an amateur, especially at my level. The only argument I see is a well-annotated game that has a lot of words to help someone learn the basic concepts of positional play/strategy (the non-concrete side of chess), however there are too many exceptions and nuances at the GM level. Better might be games against people who are slightly higher in rating, but there are few books on 1600 versus 1400 level players (even "Master vs Amateur" type books are often GM against Expert/CM/class A). An amateur needs to work most on his crudest and simplest concrete mistakes, while trying to keep an eye out for the more abstract ... this is where introductory opening books might be better than annotated game collections, though analytical exercises (simple ones like tactics and basic endgames) are best. The beauty of an engine when analyzing tactical mistakes is that an amateur's mind can wander ("wait, why couldn't I do this? how would he respond if I did that? etc.") and see all of his/her oversights ... GM games don't uncover the source of the amateur's low-level skills and frequently they obscure it.
So then why do I ask frequently about opening books, and difficult ones at that? Because when I do play, I like to have a resource to go to for analysis. Without a repertoire, I won't be able to link general themes and plans to moves actually played in my low-level game. I won't realize that the configuration in one case calls for Ne5 and a kingside attack while a slightly different setup in the same opening calls for c4 and attempting to open a file on the queenside instead. I can pretend like those are my options, but often there are simple (tactical) refutations.
That is the reason why "Logical chess" by Chernev is so popular.
It features short games mostly, so that less advanced players don't get lost.
And, most importantly, it features classical games of weaker players and simpler plans.
Many of Capablanca's and Tarrasch's games are much less complicated than those of Fischer and Kasparov, for example.
However, the theory that one could possible learn from well-annotated games of lowly amateurs is simply wrong.
How low-rated should those amateurs be?
1600 to teach a 1400 one?
1800 to teach a 1600 player?
Do you know what the chess content of a 1600 player is?
In a game lasting 30 moves(weaker players play shorter games) that 1600 player has made 10 big mistakes and 15 inaccuracies.
Simply no chess content there, nothing to learn from.
Or, do you want that you are taught wrong chess with wrong moves, plans and executions?
The trick is that every move is CAREFULLY explained, so that everyone can understand it.
Obivously, only very few people are able to do that.
That is where Chernev excels, although, to tell you the truth, many people learn WRONGLY from what he teaches/repeats.
For example, he says: "Never/avoid pushing the pawn from your pawn cover."
Wrong.
In 70% of cases, optimal play requires PUSHING the pawns from the own king cover early on.
They are an asset which should be used.
If you don't use it on time, the opponent will do so and take clear edge.
So that, good rule, people learn it and pass it on, but in actual fact it is a bit misleading.
So that, it is best learnt following the knowledge of the strongest players/chess science.
The trick is to make that knowledge easily accessible and that requires a lot of effort.
One question to everybody here.
You have a 1400 player.
A 1600 player teaches him 2 daily hours for 2 months.
Then a master teaches him 2 daily hours for 2 months.
Finally Kasparov teaches him 2 daily hours for 2 months.
From whom do you think he will gain the most knowledge?
I best Kasparov will teach him 3 times MORE than a master and 5 times MORE than the 1600 player.
And what is more important - will teach him much more correct.
So I don't know where this mania to learn from weaker players comes from.
The point is to be able to communicate the knowledge.
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
i think most class players are better off seeing the game of experts and lower masters, then those of GM's,
Why would that be so?
They will learn the WRONG concepts and variations from them.
The stronger the player, the more you learn.
dannyhume wrote:
Would love to see accurate demolition of mistakes from the crudest to the more subtle in a given type of position, insofar as this is possible or there are resources available that show this ... If an amateur sees the many ways that a misplayed position can lead to a concrete advantage for the opponent, whether a forced mate, material gain, or an overwhelming or plainly solid positional advantage, then s/he better sees what constitutes an “ideal setup” in a given situation and, more importantly, why.
65% of all lines cited in GM-written books are wrong.
Why?
Because they reflect the world of a 2500-2600 player.
These players miss A LOT of optimal variations and setups that SF, for example, could show you.
And SF misses a lot of even better variations and setups only a 4000 player can see.
Your best choice is to learn from the best.
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
One question to everybody here.
You have a 1400 player.
A 1600 player teaches him 2 daily hours for 2 months.
Then a master teaches him 2 daily hours for 2 months.
Finally Kasparov teaches him 2 daily hours for 2 months.
From whom do you think he will gain the most knowledge?
I best Kasparov will teach him 3 times MORE than a master and 5 times MORE than the 1600 player.
And what is more important - will teach him much more correct.
So I don't know where this mania to learn from weaker players comes from.
The point is to be able to communicate the knowledge.
It is not about the level of the teacher but rather the level of material that is taught. A GM ought to be a better teacher, but rarely or reluctantly are they willing to teach a 1400-level player (adult, not a rapidly rising prodigy) those tactics, endgames, strategy, and openings that are around a 1600-level in difficulty.
Garry Kasparov teaching me all of the subtleties of why he prefers a particular move on move 6 of an opening that has about 8 options within a 0.3 pawns value of each other is not going to stick in my primitive chess brain. This is the hallmark of effective teaching... logical progression from simple to more complex and from the more concrete (e.g., checkmate/material gain) to the more abstract (positional imbalances to your preference). You can't just start teaching a 6-year old child calculus without going through arithmetic first.
Now the misunderstanding goes the other way ... I (and many weak players) don't want to "learn from weaker players"... I want to "learn from [the mistakes of] weaker players" that are around my level or slightly higher in order to build skill gradually. There is a strong pedagogical/andragogical reason why a lot of higher-rated players talk about learning tactics and endgames first before diving into strategy and openings. There is a reason why many great chess books are considered awful for players at a certain level. This is not a controversial "chess idea" espoused by weak chess players (that is, to learn from the cruder mistakes of weaker players first before moving onto more subtle mistakes), but a fundamental concept of effective pedagogy/andragogy in any subject. Kasparov does not want to sit around all day telling me 'oops, you missed a 3-move tactic' (well, everyone has a price, but that is one I cannot afford).
"... Just because a book contains lots of information that you don’t know, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it will be extremely helpful in making you better at this point in your chess development. ..." - Dan Heisman (2001)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140626180930/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman06.pdf
"... The books that are most highly thought of are not necessarily the most useful. Go with those that you find to be readable. ..." - GM Nigel Davies (2010)
"... If it’s instruction, you look for an author that addresses players at your level (buying something that’s too advanced won’t help you at all). This means that a classic book that is revered by many people might not be useful for you. ..." - IM Jeremy Silman (2015)
https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-best-chess-books-ever
"... [annotated games are] infinitely more useful than bare game scores. However, annotated games vary widely in quality. Some are excellent study material. Others are poor. But the most numerous fall into a third category - good-but-wrong-for-you. ... You want games with annotations that answer the questions that baffle you the most. ..." - GM Andrew Soltis (2010)
Yes, it is called "Chess Steps" in the U.S. I have enjoyed the series so far (I have gone through level 3, which is supposed to go to level 1600 USCF), so I have restrained and blockaded myself from going to Step 4 (which is for up to 1750 ... my goal rating in the next 20 years) until my OTB or tactical ratings go up significantly.
I have not heard many recommend 1...c5 against c4. Usually, I hear 1...e5 and sometimes 1...Nf6. I think Lev Alburt's Chess Openings Explained for Black covers 1.c4 c5, but I am not familiar with any other titles that cover the Black side of 1.c4 c5.
Thanks for the advice, Klauer!
dannyhume wrote:
... I think Lev Alburt's Chess Openings Explained for Black covers 1.c4 c5, but I am not familiar with any other titles that cover the Black side of 1.c4 c5. ...
Beating Unusual Openings
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627072813/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen107.pdf
Thanks, kindaspongey!
dannyhume wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
One question to everybody here.
You have a 1400 player.
A 1600 player teaches him 2 daily hours for 2 months.
Then a master teaches him 2 daily hours for 2 months.
Finally Kasparov teaches him 2 daily hours for 2 months.
From whom do you think he will gain the most knowledge?
I best Kasparov will teach him 3 times MORE than a master and 5 times MORE than the 1600 player.
And what is more important - will teach him much more correct.
So I don't know where this mania to learn from weaker players comes from.
The point is to be able to communicate the knowledge.
It is not about the level of the teacher but rather the level of material that is taught. A GM ought to be a better teacher, but rarely or reluctantly are they willing to teach a 1400-level player (adult, not a rapidly rising prodigy) those tactics, endgames, strategy, and openings that are around a 1600-level in difficulty.
Garry Kasparov teaching me all of the subtleties of why he prefers a particular move on move 6 of an opening that has about 8 options within a 0.3 pawns value of each other is not going to stick in my primitive chess brain. This is the hallmark of effective teaching... logical progression from simple to more complex and from the more concrete (e.g., checkmate/material gain) to the more abstract (positional imbalances to your preference). You can't just start teaching a 6-year old child calculus without going through arithmetic first.
Right, take My 60 memorable games - absolute classic, absolutely marvelous.
FEW lines, why?
Because Fischer prunes heavily and gives you ONLY the best.
It is easy to read, why would not you read that one, and instead take up some blurry GM book at 2500 level, where it is all stuffed with endless variations.
Why so many variations?
Because they have no clue what is going on.
A single best move in each and every position, but they are analysing 10...
And behold, people are learning from them.
The wrong stuff.
Where they could safely stick with Fischer.
Klauer wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov hat geschrieben:
So I don't know where this mania to learn from weaker players comes from.
The point is to be able to communicate the knowledge.
End of discussion after a good summary.
Yeah, it's maniacal.
People are swearing they have been learning much faster and adding some 300-500 elos in no time after reading Tactics Time, for example, as the book contains ONLY low amateur games(1400-1800).
How come?
Do you know what the only difference between a successful tactics pattern of a 1500 player and 2500 player is?
Right, a good tactics happens in 1 in every 30 games of a 1500 player, and in every 1 in 5 games of a 2500 player.
So, statistically, stronger players simply play more frequent tactics.
That is it - pure fact everyone can verify for themselves.
And yet the mantra that you learn from weaker players better persists...
The patterns are the SAME, obvious, is not it?
Otherwise, Tactics Time is a good book, but for different reasons.
dannyhume wrote:
Now the misunderstanding goes the other way ... I (and many weak players) don't want to "learn from weaker players"... I want to "learn from [the mistakes of] weaker players" that are around my level or slightly higher in order to build skill gradually. There is a strong pedagogical/andragogical reason why a lot of higher-rated players talk about learning tactics and endgames first before diving into strategy and openings. There is a reason why many great chess books are considered awful for players at a certain level. This is not a controversial "chess idea" espoused by weak chess players (that is, to learn from the cruder mistakes of weaker players first before moving onto more subtle mistakes), but a fundamental concept of effective pedagogy/andragogy in any subject. Kasparov does not want to sit around all day telling me 'oops, you missed a 3-move tactic' (well, everyone has a price, but that is one I cannot afford).
Stockfish will sit around for you all day long for no price at all...
Just switch it on and will analyse for you weak and strong moves alike.
Learning from the mistakes of others, learning from WEAK moves, that makes no sense at all.
One thing you and everybody here should understand is that there is NO DIFFERENCE between the winning/losing patterns in a game of a 1100 and 3100.
The patterns, tactical or positional, are simply the SAME.
You need the patterns, understanding their philosophy, and NOT the games of a particular player.
If anything, games of stronger players are FULL of patterns games of weaker players lack.
So, this is simply the wrong philosophy.
Some kind of a collective psychosis, hallucination...
You can NEVER leanr more from a 1500 player than a 2500 one, never.
Take a game of 1500 one ending in 30 moves.
10 blunders, 25 very weak moves and 5 good ones.
What are you going to learn from that(ok, we made it 40)?
What does a flank opening mean?
Is 1. c4 a flank opening and why so?
It would be wrong to call it like that, because it is actually more central than other openings, both in terms of importance and usual central control.
Many flank openings end up being non-flank, for example 1. g3 or the Reti.
So, it is all relative.
I would prefer studying general patterns to decide on my opening choices rather than endless reams of mostly wrong variations.
Btw., not to miss a good opportunity: 'Humans versus Machine' is now available for free reading with Kindle Unlimited: https://www.amazon.com/Human-Versus-Machine-Stockfish-Komodo-ebook/dp/B0768G8R2C/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
Elaborate strategies to overwhelm the best chess engines.
You will not find those in any other chess book.
If you are fan of the KID or English Opening/Bird/Stonewall/Colle, this book is for you.
Btw., Bird, English, but also KID for black and the Dutch count as flank thrusts, right?
Perhaps I should have said the word "minor" rather than "flank" in the title of this thread... I wanted to say "against flank openings, the English, and the Reti", but the title of this thread would be too long and not include all of the letters... therefore I simply left out the English and the Reti, but included them in my first post. My bad, thanks for catching it, Lyudmil.
I am unable to say for sure, but my guess would be that Lyudmil_Tsvetkov was complaining about the way "flank" is generally used, and indeed he may have a point. As I have noted many times, nobody seems to be generally recognized as being in charge of chess terminology, and, consequently, the development of common usage seems to have been somewhat haphazard and not overly logical. Nevertheless, if the goal is to use a single word and have others think of the Reti and the English, my guess is that "flank" would be a better word choice than "minor". Yes, I do know about that book with "Minor" in the title, but it seems to be something of an anomaly. In view of the current frequency of Reti and English usage by over-2400 players, I suspect that many would not think of them as "minor". "Flank", on the other hand, has been used many times in connection with the openings that do not traditionally start with 1 e4 or 1d4. At least for over-2400 players, the Reti and the English are the most common openings in that category.
Which is paradoxical, bearing in mind that 1. c4 sometimes stakes a stronger claim to controlling the center than 1. d4 or 1. e4
But concerning the file those pawns stem from, yes, could be categorised as flank.
Minor is different, offbeat, second-hand.