Ok Micheal G, I actualy hate symetrical positions as Black, because white can force a break to his own advantage, I will admit that e5 is in my rep as Black, but I do play the Dutch because it's fun, and I don't have to play the stonewall, I mainly play Classical, sometimes Lenningrad, its a much more tactical opening (atleast according to its reputation) than the QG.
Fine by me.
If you realy think that a beginner should start from Dutch then stop teaching and go back to school(If you really care for your students).
I never said that. I said a coach should be fairly open-minded about what openings his students play.
If you realy think that a beginner should start from Dutch then stop teaching and go back to school(If you really care for your students).
I never said that. I said a coach should be fairly open-minded about what openings his students play.
Then it's my mistake , I apologise for the misunderstanding.
I really like that idea, thanks for sharing. I use the Maroczy Bind some of the time against the Sicilian (sometimes in the Moscow, and against the hyper-accelerated dragon as well). I guess I never realized the potential explosiveness behind all of the compressed pieces!
Advising a newbie to play g3 indian systems is equivalent to putting a new driver to the cockpit of a Formula 1.
Absolutely correct!
The fact that you teach 35 years doesn't mean you do it right.
I have met a lot that teach even more and do it the wrong way.
The fact that Botvinnik agrees with pfren and considers opening completely useless for beginners gives us 2 controversial conclusions:
1)Either you are right or
2)Botvinnik is right
What do you think?
#1.) I think you are trolling and trying to start trouble, and I am not interested in that.
#2.) I think when you have 35 years of teaching experience ... are a chess Master ... and have some of the same credentials and writing awards that I have ... I might consider listening to you or taking you seriously.
Remember ... just one more time ...
MY ORIGINAL POINT?
What is the easiest opening to teach to an absolute beginner ... maybe someone who just learned the moves less than a month before.
Many of you are talking about people - some have been playing tournament chess for more than a year. By this time (hopefully) they are ready for all kind of new ideas!
Probably its as important to talk about how I teach ... as to what I teach.
Oh, it's one of my main books (I do play the taimanov after all!). It's just... Putting the hedgehog in the hands of a 1200 player is insanity. Every sub 1800 player I've been up against that used the hedgehog has fallen for the rc1 nd5 trick with a black knight on c6 and queen on c7.
Also, the line delchev recommends for his quick rep vs english attack is a poor line which commits the king to the kingside too early. The mainline is far superior.
I know this is a bit off-topic, but... would you please share a line, or show a diagram? Just wanting to learn, here...
Sure. I'm sure there are some flaws with the move order, I'm only throwing the move order in to get to the position. It's a theme well worth remembering, I've beaten a 2000er with it.
After 12.Nd5, is the position that hopeless for Black?
I wouldn't be giving up at that point, but may well have missed something.
Inferior, not hopeless.
Inferior, not hopeless.
Right... I read your statement "It's impossible to keep any extra material and whites initiative is unstoppable" and obviously misunderstood.
seems to have turned into a 'play my opening repetoire' thread rather than one about what the easiest opening for beginners each.
I guess this differes depending on ones approach to chess. If, say someone believes that tactics are most important, they will probably begin with the open (e4 e5) game and give that to the beginner.
However if one is of the school of thought that endgames are more important they may be inclined to give a very simple opening that can quickly get into a level end game where you can attempt to outplay your opponents.
There are many other approaches to chess, but this divide in its self should be sufficent to show how quickly these approaches can split. Two people may be of the same school of though, lets say tactical but may offer different openings. Lets say the italian and the ruy lopez, this furthurs the gap and creates many sub divisions in thought making the topic even less agreeable.
Perhaps OP is right and you should just help the student reach a level middle game and let that be the end of opening theory. Personally I believe you, as a teacher should have the obligation to meet the need of the student, each case should be seperate and not approached with the idea that certain openings will be the most beneficial for each.
To each his own.
actually thats not quite right.
The reason people get teachers and coaches is to guide them through a morass of confusion. Each level has its own particular problems and learning issues. The most skilled and most knowledgeable people are not necessarily the best at teaching a subject (remember classes with Grad students as the lecturer(groan))
The simple fact is that some coaches teach material for quick results and because its easy. Usually these are closed systems where players can survive for 10-20 moves with out a major tactical mistake because they are super solid. This stunts growth. Easy to learn and best for development are seperate criteria that do overlap but are seperate.
I teach for progress. I want players to improve. To do this they have to make mistakes. The point is that some openings hinder development because they lead to blocked positions where pieces are maneuvered around to try and create a pawn break. These are important for masters but totally counterproductive to beginners. Let them play with pieces, Let them learn by losing and winning games in 12 moves. Force them to play open positions where not following basic principles are ruthlessly punished and they cannt hide behind a pawn chain. I show beginners the exchange french and caro with c4 not because I believe in it but because i dont want their opponent to hide. Dont fear losing, embrace it. There is a saying in another game, Go, lose your first 100 games quickly! I think it applies to chess as well.
Learn the Italian or Scotch as White. e5 and d5 (tarrasch is a great opening) as black or a relatively simple sicilian such as the taimanov or accelerated dragon as black.
In my humble opinion, a beginner simply needs something to start with. Chances are, the openings they start off with won't be exactly the same ones they end up using for the rest of their chess career, assuming they continue to play. Honestly, anything works, so long as they are taught opening principles, basic middlegame concepts, and endgame fundamentals (not particularly in that order) while not being forced to memorize a series of moves for the sake of following an opening. I have no doubt this can be achieved with the Colle, or with the Italian, or the Scotch. I think part of the learning experience is the novice saying, "What if I tried... ?" and perhaps switching to another opening at one point or another. I don't mean everyone should be switching to a new opening every day of the week, but an eventual change is healthy--simply to taste the other flavors of chess out there. Thus, I believe that in a way, everybody's suggestions have been correct in one way or another.
FLchessplayer: Thanks for sharing your article. It has inspired me to take a look at the Colle system as an alternative to my historic "e4" approach. Thanks!
FLchessplayer: Thanks for sharing your article. It has inspired me to take a look at the Colle system as an alternative to my historic "e4" approach. Thanks!
You are very welcome!
The fact that you teach 35 years doesn't mean you do it right.
I have met a lot that teach even more and do it the wrong way.
The fact that Botvinnik agrees with pfren and considers opening completely useless for beginners gives us 2 controversial conclusions:
1)Either you are right or
2)Botvinnik is right
What do you think?
#1.) I think you are trolling and trying to start trouble, and I am not interested in that.
#2.) I think when you have 35 years of teaching experience ... are a chess Master ... and have some of the same credentials and writing awards that I have ... I might consider listening to you or taking you seriously.
Great way of answering to nothing.But then again , you have no answer , we both know that.
But if you find one(it's a longshot , I know, but life is full of surprises) I might considering listening to you or taking you seriously.
Hi NM FL.
How would you compare the Colle to the London, where your personal system of teaching beginners is concerned?
Colle system and London is a nonsense for beginners.It's one of these kind of systems that gives you the falls impression that you understand chess because you can easily play 10(sometimes more) "simple"(simplistic would be more accurate) moves and get a playable position.The problem is that the middlegame positions that are produced do not help yo to understand chess as they are the same again and again.So let's say , 3 years after , you will know excellently Colle or London but you will be actually at the same level of understanding in a lot of critical points.
Teaching Colle , London or KIA is the easy way of taking money from the students.You do nothing and you get paid.It's like paying a chef to teach you how to fill the pot with water.
Pfren is IM and one of the best teachers in Greece and said that he never teaches more than 5 opening moves to beginners.Botvinnik believed that opening is useless for beginners.Capablanca also believed that beginners should learn first endgame and middlegame before anything else.
But choosing to teach like Pfren is difficult.Needs excellent understanding while teaching Colle is something that anyone can do.
Sorry to say that but it's the truth.
Um, ok?
Still, though. Curious how NM FL compares them in his personal system of teaching beginners.
Colle system and London is a nonsense for beginners.It's one of these kind of systems that gives you the falls impression that you understand chess because you can easily play 10(sometimes more) "simple"(simplistic would be more accurate) moves and get a playable position.The problem is that the middlegame positions that are produced do not help yo to understand chess as they are the same again and again.So let's say , 3 years after , you will know excellently Colle or London but you will be actually at the same level of understanding in a lot of critical points.
Teaching Colle , London or KIA is the easy way of taking money from the students.You do nothing and you get paid.It's like paying a chef to teach you how to fill the pot with water.
Pfren is IM and one of the best teachers in Greece and said that he never teaches more than 5 opening moves to beginners.Botvinnik believed that opening is useless for beginners.Capablanca also believed that beginners should learn first endgame and middlegame before anything else.
But choosing to teach like Pfren is difficult.Needs excellent understanding while teaching Colle is something that anyone can do.
Sorry to say that but it's the truth.
Utter rubbish. If you had something valid to say, I might address it. This is silly ... and not even worth wasting my time on.
Sred
You are very confused.
I stopped reading here. What is it that makes peple lose their manners in discussions on the internet?
No need to answer, I'm out anyway.