PerpetuallyPinned a écrit :
Problem with Najdorf as a beginner, you'll never get to play it.
Well said.
Best first opening repertoire for beginners to improve
Sort:
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
my advice would be.
1. dont just play systems. Its' fine if you like the london and the stonewall, and the colle ex cetera but try to not always rely on systems. You want to be exposed to a wide variety of positions.
2. If you have aspirations to become a titled player, establish a certain threshold of soundness, from which you rarely if ever deviate from. It doesnt have to be all mainstream openings but your opponent should not be able to wipe the floor with you with 30 minutes of computer preparation agaisnt your opening of choice. A good rule of thumb which i use is:
- never be worse than 0.00 or very close to it as white, your opening should at least lead to a healthy equality with black's best play
- Try not to play anything that is worse than 0.5 advantage as black or so. IF its a 0.55 position in a specific sideline where you think black has some vindicating features the engine doesnt take into account, its fine, but otherwise, more than half a pawn is dubious territory.
i think it goes without saying that you should avoid dubious gambits and other busted openings.
No love for the Tarrasch or Baltic Defences to the Queen's Gambit by the 0.5 pawn suggestion.
I'm curious: What line against the Tarrasch do you think refutes it?
SwimmerBill wrote:
I'm curious: What line against the Tarrasch do you think refutes it?
If you are asking me, I have no idea ... Stockfish 10 depth 21 is the one issuing the indictment.
Jun 8, 2020
0
#46
dannyhume wrote:
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
my advice would be.
1. dont just play systems. Its' fine if you like the london and the stonewall, and the colle ex cetera but try to not always rely on systems. You want to be exposed to a wide variety of positions.
2. If you have aspirations to become a titled player, establish a certain threshold of soundness, from which you rarely if ever deviate from. It doesnt have to be all mainstream openings but your opponent should not be able to wipe the floor with you with 30 minutes of computer preparation agaisnt your opening of choice. A good rule of thumb which i use is:
- never be worse than 0.00 or very close to it as white, your opening should at least lead to a healthy equality with black's best play
- Try not to play anything that is worse than 0.5 advantage as black or so. IF its a 0.55 position in a specific sideline where you think black has some vindicating features the engine doesnt take into account, its fine, but otherwise, more than half a pawn is dubious territory.
i think it goes without saying that you should avoid dubious gambits and other busted openings.
No love for the Tarrasch or Baltic Defences to the Queen's Gambit by the 0.5 pawn suggestion.
baltic is just bad, Tarrasch is just wrong lol
dannyhume έγραψε:
SwimmerBill wrote:
I'm curious: What line against the Tarrasch do you think refutes it?
If you are asking me, I have no idea ... Stockfish 10 depth 21 is the one issuing the indictment.
If you use Stockfish at 21-ply to evaluate opening positions, then you might as well power the computer down: You will have a more accurate avaluation, AND avoid wasting energy.
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
baltic is just bad, Tarrasch is just wrong lol
Why? I've heard many people who advised to play it to beginners especially.
Jun 8, 2020
0
#49
Colin20G wrote:
darkunorthodox88 wrote:
baltic is just bad, Tarrasch is just wrong lol
Why? I've heard many people who advised to play it to beginners especially.
im just being cheeky on the latter. Im just not one to welcome a IQP as black.
pfren wrote:
Skynet έγραψε:
jacobsperber wrote:
tactical, sharp openings are best for beginners and lower intermediates (like me), because they teach tactics
If sharp tactical openings are what's best for beginners, would the Sicilian Najdorf be good for beginners? Curiously I never see this opening suggested.
The Najdorf is much more than a "sharp tactical opening"- actually there are lines that white may enforce which are not tactical at all.
The same can be said of any opening: there are always some "lines that white may enforce which are not tactical at all". You can not always force a sharp tactical game, but you can increase the probability that you get a sharp tactical game by playing some sharp tactical openings like the Najdorf. I was talking on average, statistically speaking. On average the Najdorf is more sharp and tactical than most other openings.
pfren wrote:
dannyhume έγραψε:
SwimmerBill wrote:
I'm curious: What line against the Tarrasch do you think refutes it?
If you are asking me, I have no idea ... Stockfish 10 depth 21 is the one issuing the indictment.
If you use Stockfish at 21-ply to evaluate opening positions, then you might as well power the computer down: You will have a more accurate avaluation, AND avoid wasting energy.
Yeah, but even though you are an IM and a FIDE-certified trainer --and I hate to pull rank here-- there is this guy on the site who has discovered The Secret of Chess, including every single positional secret that Steinitz, Nimzowisch, Reti, Pachman, and Watson never knew, through his thorough study of Stockfish, and now he has surpassed it and can beat it when it is at full-strength with unlimited cloud-core processing. He is like the human form of Alpha-Zero ... and then he can tell me why the Baltic "is just bad [and the] Tarrasch is just wrong" (~NM darkunorthodox88, a few comments ago)
dannyhume έγραψε:
Yeah, but even though you are an IM and a FIDE-certified trainer --and I hate to pull rank here-- there is this guy on the site who has discovered The Secret of Chess, including every single positional secret that Steinitz, Nimzowisch, Reti, Pachman, and Watson never knew, through his thorough study of Stockfish, and now he has surpassed it and can beat it when it is at full-strength with unlimited cloud-core processing. He is like the human form of Alpha-Zero ... and then he can tell me why the Baltic "is just bad [and the] Tarrasch is just wrong" (~NM darkunorthodox88, a few comments ago)
Lol! Yes, I admit all these serious facts never entered my mind...
Jun 10, 2020
0
#53
pfren wrote:
dannyhume έγραψε:
Yeah, but even though you are an IM and a FIDE-certified trainer --and I hate to pull rank here-- there is this guy on the site who has discovered The Secret of Chess, including every single positional secret that Steinitz, Nimzowisch, Reti, Pachman, and Watson never knew, through his thorough study of Stockfish, and now he has surpassed it and can beat it when it is at full-strength with unlimited cloud-core processing. He is like the human form of Alpha-Zero ... and then he can tell me why the Baltic "is just bad [and the] Tarrasch is just wrong" (~NM darkunorthodox88, a few comments ago)
Lol! Yes, I admit all these serious facts never entered my mind...
lol..pfren is awesome!
A-mateur wrote:
PerpetuallyPinned a écrit :
Problem with Najdorf as a beginner, you'll never get to play it.
Well said.
This is not a problem with the Najdorf since the exact same thing could be said of any defense. Beginners will most of the time not let you play the Gruenfeld, the Nimzo, the QID, the Berlin, the Open Ruy Lopez, etc. Sure, if you choose the Najdorf you'll also have to be prepared for the Moscow, the Alapin, the Closed Sicilian, the Smith-Morra Gambit, etc. But if you choose for example the Open Ruy Lopez you'll also have to be prepared for the Italian, the Scotch, the Four Knights, the Ponziani, the Vienna, the King's Kambit, etc, and also some Ruy Lopez deviations like the Exchange, the Anderssen (5.d3), the Wormald (5.Qe2), etc. Same thing. And the word you use, "never", is a huge exaggeration. When I was a beginner, after 1.e4 c5, my opponents let me play the Najdorf one third of the time.
Jun 15, 2020
0
#56
Skynet wrote:
A-mateur wrote:
PerpetuallyPinned a écrit :
Problem with Najdorf as a beginner, you'll never get to play it.
Well said.
This is not a problem with the Najdorf since the exact same thing could be said of any defense. Beginners will most of the time not let you play the Gruenfeld, the Nimzo, the QID, the Berlin, the Open Ruy Lopez, etc. Sure, if you choose the Najdorf you'll also have to be prepared for the Moscow, the Alapin, the Closed Sicilian, the Smith-Morra Gambit, etc. But if you choose for example the Open Ruy Lopez you'll also have to be prepared for the Italian, the Scotch, the Four Knights, the Ponziani, the Vienna, the King's Kambit, etc, and also some Ruy Lopez deviations like the Exchange, the Anderssen (5.d3), the Wormald (5.Qe2), etc. Same thing. And the word you use, "never", is a huge exaggeration. When I was a beginner, after 1.e4 c5, my opponents let me play the Najdorf one third of the time.
Which is why you SHOULD play the london and the stonewall. So no matter how weak your opponents are you can still get familiar positions
Jun 16, 2020
0
#57
Steven-ODonoghue wrote:
Skynet wrote:
A-mateur wrote:
PerpetuallyPinned a écrit :
Problem with Najdorf as a beginner, you'll never get to play it.
Well said.
This is not a problem with the Najdorf since the exact same thing could be said of any defense. Beginners will most of the time not let you play the Gruenfeld, the Nimzo, the QID, the Berlin, the Open Ruy Lopez, etc. Sure, if you choose the Najdorf you'll also have to be prepared for the Moscow, the Alapin, the Closed Sicilian, the Smith-Morra Gambit, etc. But if you choose for example the Open Ruy Lopez you'll also have to be prepared for the Italian, the Scotch, the Four Knights, the Ponziani, the Vienna, the King's Kambit, etc, and also some Ruy Lopez deviations like the Exchange, the Anderssen (5.d3), the Wormald (5.Qe2), etc. Same thing. And the word you use, "never", is a huge exaggeration. When I was a beginner, after 1.e4 c5, my opponents let me play the Najdorf one third of the time.
Which is why you SHOULD play the london and the stonewall. So no matter how weak your opponents are you can still get familiar positions
you have this all wrong. You should play the bird's.
Please tell me why you don’t think the Russian (Petroff) Defence is good for beginners? I am wondering because I have heard others suggest it to beginners because it leads to open positions, piece play, less to deal with than 2...Nc6 (after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3), and is sound to the GM level. All of this seems to fit what many coaches recommend for a developing player’s repertoire.
And what do you recommend a beginner play against 1.d4, if not the QGD or QGA?
And what do you recommend a beginner play against 1.d4, if not the QGD or QGA?
my advice would be.
1. dont just play systems. Its' fine if you like the london and the stonewall, and the colle ex cetera but try to not always rely on systems. You want to be exposed to a wide variety of positions.
2. If you have aspirations to become a titled player, establish a certain threshold of soundness, from which you rarely if ever deviate from. It doesnt have to be all mainstream openings but your opponent should not be able to wipe the floor with you with 30 minutes of computer preparation agaisnt your opening of choice. A good rule of thumb which i use is:
- never be worse than 0.00 or very close to it as white, your opening should at least lead to a healthy equality with black's best play
- Try not to play anything that is worse than 0.5 advantage as black or so. IF its a 0.55 position in a specific sideline where you think black has some vindicating features the engine doesnt take into account, its fine, but otherwise, more than half a pawn is dubious territory.
i think it goes without saying that you should avoid dubious gambits and other busted openings.