Teach him Queen's gambit!
I learned that opening when I was a 600 and it is still my favorite.
Chess openings for beginners/ kids
Sort:
SmyslovFan text might have been long.
However, I believe he should write text like this more often!
I read every word.
I agree 100% with everything he said.
Jengaias is wrong.
I have stated the facts clear as day.
Smyslovfan has wrote a wonderful post demonstrating this!
pfren wrote:
Starting from Alekhine, all the World champions have the very same playing style. It's called universal style. The differences are purely qualitative.
But this is way too much for xpatzer to understand.
He also "forgets" that I am mainly a trainer the last 30 years, a certified FIDE Trainer (second highest official trainer title), while himself can barely teach leaping to a frog.
Pfren is wrong.
I have stated the facts clear as day.
Smyslovfan has wrote a wonderful post demonstrating this!
30 years of being a trainer and you don't even know what "style" is?
Emmanual Lasker played hyper-modern chess before hyper-modern chess was even created by Aron Nimzowitsch!
Aron Nimzowitsch was born on 1886
The below game was played in 1889.
Aron Nimzowitsch was 3 years old at the time of this game.
A game which is considered one of Emmanual Laskers Immortal games.
Well how do you explain the above diagram?
What a complete joke!
Not to disagree with you but I would not bet on Emanuel Lasker against Morphy. Meet Edward.
And M. M. Botvinik played that particular thing as black, if I'm not mistaken. More than once.
ylblai2 wrote:
IM pfren wrote:
Starting from Alekhine, all the World champions have the very same playing style. It's called universal style. The differences are purely qualitative.
But this is way too much for xpatzer to understand.
He also ...
Does somebody out there understand that sentence about "purely qualitative" differences?
jengaias wrote:
... What pfren tries to say and very few can understand is that these players were equally good positional and tactical players. ...
How is that known? Is it possible to measure quality of positional play with any precision? Tactical quality?
depends on style
So what is the precise measrement of Kasparov's quality of positional play?
jengaias wrote:
ylblai2 wrote:
So what is the precise measrement of Kasparov's quality of positional play.
Around 85 kgs.Not higher than the measurement of your nonsense , still quite high.
Is there anything to quote that would indicate that others would give the same precise measurement as you?
jengaias wrote:
ylblai2 wrote:
jengaias wrote:
ylblai2 wrote:
So what is the precise measrement of Kasparov's quality of positional play.
Around 85 kgs.Not higher than the measurement of your nonsense , still quite high.
Is there anything to quote that would indicate that others would give the same precise measurement as you?
Unlike you I don't give a dime about other people quotes , except the very best ones.
Apparently, in this case, you don't have a pertinent "very best one" to share with us.
yiblai2, which is the word that you don't understand and you need translated from English to American? "qualitative" , "purely" , or another one? Please enlighten me.
let the kid study tactics. learn opening principles but don't try to do any deep learning of openings. complete waste of time for anyone but very advanced players.
jengaias wrote:
ylblai2 wrote:
jengaias wrote:
... Unlike you I don't give a dime about other people quotes , except the very best ones.
Apparently, in this case, you don't have a pertinent "very best one" to share with us.
You had never anyone near the very best.You always post nonsense of below average players.Why suddenly now it's a problem?
Having seen things like "... Dvoretsky , one of the greatest teachers today, teaches mainly endgames in his students. ..." and "... important part=mainly", it seems to me to be a good idea to distinguish between assertions with quotable sources and trust-me stuff.
ylblai2 wrote:
ylblai2 wrote:
IM pfren wrote:
Starting from Alekhine, all the World champions have the very same playing style. It's called universal style. The differences are purely qualitative.
But this is way too much for xpatzer to understand.
Does somebody out there understand that sentence about "purely qualitative" differences?
jengaias wrote:
... What pfren tries to say and very few can understand is that these players were equally good positional and tactical players. ...
How is that known? Is it possible to measure quality of positional play with any precision? Tactical quality?
jengaias wrote:
ylblai2 wrote:
So what is the precise measrement of Kasparov's quality of positional play.
Around 85 kgs.Not higher than the measurement of your nonsense , still quite high.
Ylbali2 read the above quotes.
They are so hopeless.
It is sad.
You are trying to have a conversation with people who are so lost!
They don't even have a compass.
ylblai2 wrote:
IM pfren wrote:
Starting from Alekhine, all the World champions have the very same playing style. It's called universal style. The differences are purely qualitative.
But this is way too much for xpatzer to understand.
He also ...
Does somebody out there understand that sentence about "purely qualitative" differences?
IM pfren wrote:
yiblai2, which is the word that you don't understand and you need translated from English to American? "qualitative" , "purely" , or another one? Please enlighten me.
Translating from English to American will not clarify what sort of "purely qualitative" differences, IM pfren perceives. Since IM pfren is here, I wonder if IM pfren would want to proclaim agreement with: "these players were equally good positional and tactical players."
The OP of this thread ( ezamit) has left.
I don't blame him for leaving.
If I was him I would leave as well.
I am happy that I got the chance to help the OP with good solid Advice before others ruined the thread.
Which caused the OP's depature.
I told him to give the Italian Game & KIA a try.
Very good stuff!
ylblai2 wrote:
ylblai2 wrote:
IM pfren wrote:
Starting from Alekhine, all the World champions have the very same playing style. It's called universal style. The differences are purely qualitative.
But this is way too much for xpatzer to understand.
He also ...
Does somebody out there understand that sentence about "purely qualitative" differences?
IM pfren wrote:
yiblai2, which is the word that you don't understand and you need translated from English to American? "qualitative" , "purely" , or another one? Please enlighten me.
Translating from English to American will not clarify what sort of "purely qualitative" differences, IM pfren perceives. Since IM pfren is here, I wonder if IM pfren would want to proclaim agreement with: "these players were equally good positional and tactical players."
If they weren't, then they would have no chance to become World Champions. Notice I've said "qualitative, not "quantitative"- real chesspayers do not put one kilo of tactics into one liter of strategy- they leave this task to booksellers of the de la Maza magnitude.
It seems it's my mistake, and you actually do not know the meaning of the word "universal"- is that so?
ylblai2 wrote:
IM pfren wrote:
Starting from Alekhine, all the World champions have the very same playing style. It's called universal style. The differences are purely qualitative.
But this is way too much for xpatzer to understand.
He also ...
Does somebody out there understand that sentence about "purely qualitative" differences?
IM pfren wrote:
yiblai2, which is the word that you don't understand and you need translated from English to American? "qualitative" , "purely" , or another one? Please enlighten me.
ylblai2 wrote:
Translating from English to American will not clarify what sort of "purely qualitative" differences, IM pfren perceives. Since IM pfren is here, I wonder if IM pfren would want to proclaim agreement with: "these players were equally good positional and tactical players."
pfren wrote:
If they weren't, then they would have no chance to become World Champions. Notice I've said "qualitative, not "quantitative"- real chesspayers do not put one kilo of tactics into one liter of strategy- they leave this task to booksellers of the de la Maza magnitude.
Is there something in there that is intended to clarify what sort of "purely qualitative" differences, IM pfren perceives in the World champions starting from Alekhine?
pfren wrote:
It seems it's my mistake, and you actually do not know the meaning of the word "universal"- is that so?
I see no reason to believe it to be so.
jengaias wrote:
... You and ylblai2 , 2 persons that never set a foot in a chess club
That is false.
jengaias wrote:
and you never saw any good teacher teaching except on youtube.
Have you any idea how kids are trained in good chess clubs by good teachers?If I tell you noone teaches them anything about openings( except the basic principles) for more than 2 years what will you say? ...
I will say that that sort of thing depends on how one decides the identity of the "good teachers".
jengaias wrote:
... Chess training is more difficult and complex than chess itself.
There is a fundamental truth.
Perhaps worth keeping in mind for the next time when we see someone bring up Capablanca comments from about a century ago.
jengaias wrote:
You have no freakin idea what chess training is.Admit it or not , that's the truth.
It seems to me that I have a little bit of a "freakin idea" from reading and my own experience. I can, for example, note the difference between assertions like,
"... Dvoretsky , one of the greatest teachers today, teaches mainly endgames in his students. ..."
and an actual Yusupov quote about endgame study being an important part of a procedure to catapult a talented player from Elo 2200 to grandmaster level in 4 to 5 years.
jengaias wrote:
You are an Internet patzer.That's not bad , I am too. ...
Those last three words also seem like something to remember.
too big story smyslovFan, try again and send a short message from now on.