Do you believe a chess player should learn and play the Scholars Mate at least once in their lifetime?
The Scholars Mate is a Historical Chess line.
No it's not. Little kids play it against little kids, that doesn't make it historical.
A chess player should learn why it's bad, that's a useful lesson.
Do you believe a chess player should learn and play the Scholars Mate at least once in their lifetime?
The Scholars Mate is a Historical Chess line.
No it's not. Little kids play it against little kids, that doesn't make it historical.
A chess player should learn why it's bad, that's a useful lesson.
The Scholar Mate is historical because it was described in a text from 1656.
It’s not a line simply for kids.
Adults have used and played it as well.
————————
Yes, A Chess player could be taught by a coach why the Scholars Mate is bad.
It can be a useful Chess Lesson!
————————
OR A Chess player can decide to do a Hands on approach and Play the line for themselves and see first hand how their opponents counter/stop their attempts of Checkmating them.
That can be a useful lesson too!
—————————
Different types of Learning Exist in the World.
Some people learn by Hearing.
Some people learn by Reading.
Others by Being Hands on.
Me - Telling people to play the Scholar Mate isn’t disgraceful or shameful.
It is meant to help those who learn by being hands on. It is how they get better.
Stonewall Attack... if taken seriously is a pretty good opening
L
black is gonna play c5 and there u go, you lost the game
Probably might want to re-think that statement.
If playing c5 was the "easy answer" to the Stonewall Attack, 3 of the top American champions at the turn of the 20th century would not have played it. Harry Pillsbury, Jackson Showalter and Frank Marshall all played it. (all ranked in the top 20 of the world when they played it)
Playing c5...
If Black plays cxd4 & if White takes with cxd.. play down the open c file happens. There is a lot that goes into how that is done... Often revolving around how the a & b pawns are deployed to include the use of the the DSB and Queen. White often has the initiative in these positions. What if White captures on c5 with dxc5 and then installs a knight on d4? (this happens in many variations) If Black pushes the c pawn to c4 releasing the tension, (a big no no) Black's Kingside usually comes under attack.
If you play against someone who plays the Stonewall Attack seriously, they are adept at playing down both flanks (the stonewall formation checks play in the center)
There are a lot of nuances to the Stonewall pawn structure.
In my previous post I gave lines that I play when someone plays an early c5.. (it's a reverse Noteboom variation where White is playing the Black side with a move (fully playable.) I also gave a line I play that both Pillsbury and Marshall used when Black plays his LDB early. Then there are a lot of lines that transpose into a favorable Queen's Gambit from 1.d4 2.e3 & 3. Bd3.
I'm not advocating the Stonewall Attack is this Uber killer opening. (stated in the direction of advance players , before they go off on saying I'm full of Bull) Yes... All the lines given including the actual Stonewall Attack, with expert play by Black, lead to equality. That said there is a practical side of the Stonewall Attack. It's got a lot of nuances, that if mastered, allow White to play for an advantage in equal positions late in the middle game and it has a lot of tactical play. Outside playing an early c5 (both lines I gave side step the the position that is known to check the Stonewall attack (i.e. pawns at c5, d5 , Nc6 and a the LSB at f5 or g4) And playing the Stonewall formation by Black to counter White's Stonewall Attack... get's as complex as a Symmetrical English... One really has to be versed on the Stonewall pawn formation in these lines...
I put the Stonewall Attack in my repertoire and for me it has paid off...
Black doesn't "have to know how to defend". All black needs is look ahead 1 move and avoid playing horrible 1-move blunders like 2. - g6.
Okay. As Dave Lister (from "Red Dwarf") once put it "Let's tune in to Reality FM" for a moment. You can only go do far with opening traps and zaps. And when you hit that level you have to start all over again because the better players are wise to them. Unpopular thinking, I know, but you improve your Elo by improving your overall understanding of the game. Do puzzles for tactical ability. Play through World Championship games and the games of the great GMs of the past even if you don't really understand them (imho Karpov is especially instructive, ditto Spassky and Keres) because some of it will sink into the unconscious. When you look for openings, look for ones that lead to the "sort of position" in which you naturally find good moves. For me that involves classical lines: I've been trying to force myself to understand "Hypermodern" with but limited success.
Once again, The Scholars Mate resurfaces!
Those Low Elo players love them some Wayward Queen/Scholar mates.
I can’t blame them. If my opponents were not so good, I would try to Scholar mate them as well.
I completely support this!
I have added the Scholars Mate to my 500 ELO Chess Repertoire
You can only go (so) far with opening traps and zaps. And when you hit that level you have to start all over again because the better players are wise to them.
Is starting all over again such a bad thing? You mentioned Keres. In his youth Keres played gambits, for example the Albin Counter Gambit. He never intended the Albin to be an opening for life. He said his main aim was maximum complications. Another example is the first world champion, Steinitz. In his youth his nickname was "The Austrian Morphy". He played gambits. Later he made huge contributions to positional play and played completely different openings.
Here is a skittles game from the club this week, between two very young players. I doubt either of these guys would glean much from going over the games of Ding Liren vs Gukesh Dommaraju 2024. In what "sort of position" would they naturally find good moves? For now, the Englund Gambit is a perfect opening.
@OP You can play whatever opening makes you happy. But if you still don't know, then play gambits! Start with the cheesy gambits and progress to the respectable gambits. Expect to lose as many as you win. Have fun. Back in my youth, it was the Class A players (1800-2000 Elo) who were good at positional openings like the English Opening and the French Defense. The rest of us mucked about aping our betters, but the ones who played gambits progressed faster.
Check out Nigel Davies (2007) Gambiteer I (white) and Gambiteer II (black). Or check out Boris Alterman (2010-2012) The Alterman Gambit Guide series (also in white/black volumes).
P.S. I don't recommend any wayward queen / scholar's mate tries. It's anti-chess. Instead, focus on rapid development and only attack when you are ready. Look at Morphy's games to see how to do it.
I like the Italian.
1. e4, e5
2. Nf3, Nc6
3. Bc4 done for white
This is great because there a lot of traps to learn from in this.
It is a good offensive against almost anything.
This is played from the lowest rated to the highest rated players through out history.
It is one of the earliest chess openings that we got.
And you develop your pieces early and are able to castle by move 4.
@yetanotheraoc Your thought here is to my mind both very valid and a valuable counterpoint.
I guess I might be over-influenced by my own regrets for my own mistakes. I stuck with trappy gambitty stuff too long (ironically, because my first "proper" chess book was Reinfeld's collection of Keres's Ggames and I fell in love with the Albin) and as a result fell behind on where I should have maybe been with some elements of middlegame understanding. But I'll accept I may well have been guilty of the "hasty generalisation" fallacy here.
At 500Elo, on average after move 3 people dont know what to do. For your openings to help you get better you only need to know what to do for a few more moves.
To help the most, it is effective to either
1. pick a system opening (Colle, stonewall, London,...) and study lots of GM vs non GM games in it.
or
2. Pick a player who plays with clarity e.g. Keres, Morphy, Capablanca to study, play thru their annotated games and copy their opening choices.
#1 will help you improve fast then plateau. #2 will help you improve more slowly but to a much greater extent.
- Bill
(And, of course, dont drop pieces-- another discussion.)
Black doesn't "have to know how to defend". All black needs is look ahead 1 move and avoid playing horrible 1-move blunders like 2. - g6.
Lower elos are not 800 elos, they won't know how to defend, and if they move something else, you can develop your pieces.
Long live to Scholar's Mate