Best books to learn the "classical" approach for Black against the flank openings

dannyhume
Thanks, kindaspongey!
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov
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.

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov
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.

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov
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)?

 

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov
dannyhume wrote:

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!  

They don't, because they are weak.

Replay Fischer games to see the truth(later career).

Fischer is 500-600 elos stronger than them.

They are 2500 GMs, he was 3000+ analytically.

e7-e5 exposes the d5-square too much.

Playing c7-c6 after that is mostly awkward and very difficult.

Playing e7-e6 after c5 is very reasonable, though.

That is the simple explanation why 1...c5 is a better answer on 1. c4.

All lines featuring 1. c4 e5 fail to consider white playing also e2-e4 and that is wrong.

Simply a wrong fashion.

Moves stick, fashions stick and lines stick, but they appear mostly by chance.

 

dannyhume

I have not found a book that skillfully explains at an introductory level the black side against flank openings.  I will likely try to transpose to the QGD against 1.c4 (playing 1...e6) and 1.Nf3 (playing 1.d5) if I see these moves at my next OTB tournament either in October or November... although, truthfully, I have never seen either move in any OTB game I have ever played (only in my last OTB tournament did I play against 1.d4 for the first time ever).

I always appreciate your unique comments, Lyudmil.  I will say this, though: Cognitive science will tell you that one must learn to stand, then walk, before one can learn to run.  Fischer may be 500-600 points higher analytically, but he wasn't always that high and his learning journey didn't begin from resources that high.  He had to take his lumps on his way to greatness, the way many of us have to take our lumps on our way to mediocrity.  One cannot understand great moves before one first understands blunder moves, mistake moves, dubious moves, mediocre moves, and then good moves.  At best, a lower level player can parrot great moves as far as his/her memory and opponents' moves allow. 

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov
dannyhume wrote:

I have not found a book that skillfully explains at an introductory level the black side against flank openings.  I will likely try to transpose to the QGD against 1.c4 (playing 1...e6) and 1.Nf3 (playing 1.d5) if I see these moves at my next OTB tournament either in October or November... although, truthfully, I have never seen either move in any OTB game I have ever played (only in my last OTB tournament did I play against 1.d4 for the first time ever).

I always appreciate your unique comments, Lyudmil.  I will say this, though: Cognitive science will tell you that one must learn to stand, then walk, before one can learn to run.  Fischer may be 500-600 points higher analytically, but he wasn't always that high and his learning journey didn't begin from resources that high.  He had to take his lumps on his way to greatness, the way many of us have to take our lumps on our way to mediocrity.  One cannot understand great moves before one first understands blunder moves, mistake moves, dubious moves, mediocre moves, and then good moves.  At best, a lower level player can parrot great moves as far as his/her memory and opponents' moves allow. 

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know what you mean.

If I had the time, I could make The Secret of Chess 10 times more accessible and then it would be the greatest teaching resource, unfortunately, if one has to comment on 1000 principles, one needs to comment on 1000 example games...

But definitely, chess teaching could be vastly improved, and chess knowledge could be vastly improved too.

We'll be looking to the future.

Maybe the best is a high-level GM book explained at a patzer level.

You get the good rules and you get the understanding.

Logical Chess explains at a patzer level, but 8 out of 10 rules seem to be wrong!