Kings Indian, Grunfield
Need a Calmer Opening with Black Against e4
Sort:
Dargone wrote:
However, I also think the advice of studying endgames for 75% of your studying time is disingenuous as well. This is a common cry heard from many with roots in the old Soviet chess schools
The old Soviet chess school is Botvinnik ,a world Champion , and one of the greates teachers ever lived.
So let me see if I get thsi straight.According to you (a player around 1500 that still has a lot to learn) , Botvinnik is disingenuous , and Dan Heisman of the new USA school is much better.Very nice!!!!Do you even consider that maybe that is totally irrational?Does it seem to you totally irrational?
You have maybe improved quickly but in chess there are no easy solutions.I don't know what you do , maybe it is correct and maybe it is not but in 3 years when(and if) your improvement will hit a wall ,it will be( maybe) because you didn't follow the "disingenous" study plan of one the greatest teacher ever lived.When the time comes(and if it comes) think about it.I sincerely hope that it never does.
Till then I wish you every sucess.
Hey Anonymous, I´m on the same kind of journey with the King´s Gambit. I know there are better openings as White, but I just love playing it. The point is: I ALWAYS play against players rated +1 - +100. Sure, I lose a lot, but I also learn from the losses! I think the guys who advise you to keep playing the Dragon are right. Have fun!
Dargone wrote:
I don't think I was clear in my original post, for that I apologize. For low-rated amateurs suggesting a study plan consisting of 75% endgame study is not going to produce results. This is just as silly as someone suggesting a study plan consisting of 75% opening study.
Again, a low-rated player needs to focus on tactics, thought process and studying annotated master games.
You are certainly not a low-rated amateur. I am, and after banging my head into a wall I can tell people what has worked for me and countless others. It is certainly not a detailed study of the "Lucena position!"
Low-rated amateur games are not going to be decided by the opening or the endgame. They are decided by tactics and blunders. Period. Correcting tactical errors and a faulty thought process is far more important than studying rook endgames for low-rated amateurs.
Jeremy Silman agress with this as well. Hence his highly regarded book that I and countless other improving players are studying.
As far as comparing Dan Heisman to Botvinnik - I didn't. However, Dan Heisman is arguably the best adult instructor out there. I personally know several amateurs at the Las Vegas Chess Club that have follwed his teaching advice and have improved greatly.
Again, to be clear, endgame study is important. For strong intermediate players it may be that a 75% endgame study is what they need. However, to suggest that a low-rated player should spend 75% of his/her study time on endgames is disingenuous.
Dear Dargone , you can't even imagine how important is the detailed study of Lucena position is. I understand what you say.You are talking about immediate results while I am talking about a serious long-term study plan that can create very strong players/champions.
I can imagine your frustration when you lose and lose and lose again.Again I don't know Heisman's study plan so maybe it is good and maybe it is not.That many players improved doesn't really prove something.I helped a friend here in chess.com and from 900+ he is now at 1600+ after only 9 months.Does that make me a teacher?Certainly not.
If you don't pay the attention you must in endgame , you will pay for it it sooner or later.You may don't care.Maybe you only care in having fun and improve if possible.Fine by me.But don't ever be sure that you do the right thing because you are winning.If you do a mistake , you may realise it in 5 years when suddenly against better players it will be impossible to understand what you do wrong and when you will start losing again and again.I will repeat what Capablanca said:
In order to improve your game, you must study the endgame before everything else, for whereas the the endings can be studied and mastered by themselves, the middle game and the opening must be studied in relation to the endgame.
Maybe you find that disingenuous too.Maybe Heisman knows something Capablanca and Botbvinnik adn Nezhmetdinov and many others don't know.I don't have all the answers, I would be happy if I did, do you?
Şince,there are many who read this it may help them to know that ,both Greeks are 100 % right. I can tell that from my personal experience. Did a topic on "How to learn chess properly" (proces or the way of learning) trying to avoid hard work but it just doesnt go easy way. Endings first- Opening last. The rules it self first,of course. Since I play blitz with strong players I did ask( two ex Cro Champs ) and they tell me the same. Its just the way it goes.Tactic ex of course but the learning of the game is logically starting from the end anyway. First we must learn why are two bare kings on the board a draw, then what happens when you put a single pawn.When and how you can promote, opposition, triangulation. Even one single pawn is to much for someones. Then Strategy: how to judge a position from the basic strat. elements Dynamic strat.and Plan: development, initiative, attack, using of weak-strong squares,lines,diagonals... And only that deep look into openings.We all know that is the way to learn and understand the game and its principles. And,yes its easyer to memorize 10 moves of 10 lines then to understand the idea of a single one. I can confirm thet from my own experience but ,again, who am I to coment.
you have pretty sharp line with the french and wiyh the Caro : check for example
1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 Cc3 dxe4 4 Cxe4 Cf6 5 Cxf6+ gxf6
I always played 1...e5 and I had reasonable success with it (I have played 296 tournament games, in 88 of them I was black and faced with 1.e4. I replied 76 times with 1...e5, 11 times with 1...c5 and 1 time with 1...d6). If you study the opening carefully you will see this: after 1.e4 e5, anything white will try other than the Ruy Lopez is a kind of a bluff, a gambit/trick/trap hoping to catch you unprepared or a quiet harmless line with no hope for an advantage. Then you have to study the strategic plays in the Ruy Lopez, where you have many good lines to choose from as black.
But after so many years of 1...e5, I now believe that 1...c5 is perhaps the best choice (actually I believe that those two moves are the two best replies, and that they are equally good). 1...c5 is also a broad opening with many many lines to choose from. There are quieter lines than the one you are playing right now. So for you perhaps it would make sense to pick one of them. If you have a lot of time, study 1...e5 also for a more positional game.
Any other opening except 1...e5 or 1...c5 is not worth studying IMO, because it will not suffice by itself and you will always need more openings.
exquisitus wrote:
If you study the opening carefully you will see this: after 1.e4 e5, anything white will try other than the Ruy Lopez is a kind of a bluff, a gambit/trick/trap hoping to catch you unprepared or a quiet harmless line with no hope for an advantage. Then you have to study the strategic plays in the Ruy Lopez, where you have many good lines to choose from as black.
What about the Scotch ? It seems to have gained some attention from high ranked players in recent years.
The endgame of learning the endgame before anything else was touted by players who were not good teachers nor understood teaching beginning players or how the brain learns either. People will also point to that russian schools do the samething as well but thats because by the time players were accepted to the Russian school of chess they were already masters. The idea of endgame before anything else is because this is where those master players lost-won-drew games. Their mastery of tactics and other aspects were strong enough that the endgame was the most important part of the game for them!
This comment comes out of a lot of masters watching amateurs players focus too much on openings and exclude endgame study but the same can be said for excluding anything else. tactics , endgame or openings... thing should be in balance. What is important is what occurs in your own games. If games are lost in the middlegame then endgame knowledge is meaningless. Practice those things where your chances are missed not where you might hope they occur.
Another final point, endgame study is a lot of rout memorization and easy for coaches to teach and IMO lazy! It can easily be done on your own but over kill isnt necessary. Silman's book provides a great lesson template for what players should know for their rating. Learning more endgame theory is not going to be as effective as spending that time studying tactics or middlegame patterns.
Before the endgame the gods have placed the middlegame. - Tarrasch
Lets quote another champion Do not permit yourself to fall in love with the end-game play to the exclusion of entire games. It is well to have the whole story of how it happened; the complete play, not the denouement only.- Lasker
Please listen to what they are saying.
They do not say .... study the endgame because it is the endgame. They say study the endgame because in that fase you can learn best how pieces work and how they can work together (or when they dont). This knowledge is essential in the middlegame and opening too.
Yes you can learn these concepts from the middlegame or the opening too if you really want. But why do it the hard way when the best way is shown to you right here.
Yes Jeremy Silman says that a beginner rated under 1000 should spend very little time on the endgame, should just learn basic checkmates (i.e. not two bishops), but instead gain as much tactical strength as possible.
The balance of tactics, endgame, middlegame, and opening theory is more important than ever. Of course anyone can study endgames very in-depth if they want to. What he's trying to say is that everything should be at a balance.
I'll read you guys the quote right out of my book:
IM Jeremy Silman, "Every player should receive well-rounded training. The correct study of chess calls for balance. Fr example, a beginner needs to spend very little time on the endgame. (Basic mates are all he or she needs.) Instead, the beginner's main efforts should be devoted to gaining as much tactical acumen as possibble. On the other hand, a tournament player in the 1500 range needs quite a bit of critical but easy-to-learn endgame knowledge if he or she wants to move up the rating ladder. However, such a player shouldn't indiscriminately study random endgame positions. The balanced study of tactics, strategy, opening theory, and appropriate endgames is more important here than ever."
There you have PROOF from an International Master!
You should play less commonly know replies to 1. e4, just to confuse the opponent!
Against 1. e4, I would play 1. ... f5 (Duras Gambit).
After playing around with it around a while, I am confidently enough to play against anyone!
I know the book Pfren and its a good one.
The problem with most endgame study is that its dry! there is a lot of maneuvering that goes on behind the scene that takes a lot of understanding to get why move X was played over moves A - W. This takes experience. ...
A lot of endgame study was done via late night analysis for adjourned games, now we have to know things at the board. Practical study would involve a natural progression with what happens in games you as a player will achieve OTB. if you want to study endgames Mednis has asome great books as Chernev's capcblancas best endgames show a natural way endgames are created and why certain things are avoided for those of us that are ignorant about certain lost endgame positions.
Silmans book breaks it down for the U2200 level pretty well and Dvorestky endgame manual takes it from there to 2500.
Play the cousin of the Dragon -- The Modern Defense!
After 1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nc3 d6, the 2 most common moves are 4.Be3 and 4.f4. The latter leads to play similar to an Austrian Attack, but with the N still on g8 instead of f6, the e5-threats are not nearly as potent for White. The former is actually the most common, and after 4.Be3 a6, White can steer the game one of two ways. He can play an early Nf3 which leads to Classical Lines, which are plenty Sharp but slightly safer than the main line dragon. The other option is f3 and g4, going all out on the Kingside with extreme similarity to the Sicilian Dragon.
Michael-G said it all ,but who am I to comment.