Spongey's next game on Chess.con will be his first.
He must be a very dedicated OTB player.
Dry, crusty and uninteresting as he is, SmyslovFan happens to be very wise and knows what he is talking about.
I hope I never meet him, as he may turn out to be a nice bloke, which would really spoil my day.
"What if one studies instructional annotated games? Oh, and they happen to be from the same opening? ..." - dannyhume
"... Everyman Chess has started a new series aimed at those who want to understand the basics of an opening, i.e., the not-yet-so-strong players. ... I imagine [there] will be a long series based on the premise of bringing the basic ideas of an opening to the reader through plenty of introductory text, game annotations, hints, plans and much more. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2002)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627055734/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen38.pdf
If you are under 1800 uscf studying the Dragon or Najdorf is a waste of time because these defense require good calculating skills. Under 1500 better concentrate on tactics and endgame, you will benefit greatly. Most players under 1800 lose through of blunders or missing tactical shots;, studying opening or strategy but are very weak in tactics, you will never become a strong player. Penadpaper0089, give an excellent example all low rated players are oblivious to this: W:Kasparov vs. B: Ponomriov require for white to win this game excellent attacking skills which you have to calculate very well, if lack calculating and attacking skills studying opening is useless. To prove my point how many commenting here and you low rated have not gone to at least 1800 fide or uscf, I bet it is your inadequacy is in tactics. I know in chess.com otb 1900 going to 2000 and dropping back to 1900 or 1800, I bet is tactics and endgame that holding them back from staying at 2000 elo. Those who argue never reach 1800 elo where is your proof that what you say is true, you never obtain at least a decent rating. What is holding back most players is that they are incompetent in their tactics and will never have decent rating. Why stay at 1200 or lower do something about it that will give you results, and that is not studying opening; if you want real results start studying tactics and be diligent about it. I can see from my own study when I concentrate on tactics my rating goes up, I am close 2000 in daily and if I continue to study more on tactics and endgame I will go up even higher.
Most here can't even see three moves deep clearly in their mind and you think opening and strategy or positional will help you win more games; its a proven fact those who have higher winning percentage are better in tactics, of course I am referring to amateurs only. The amateur who is tactical beast will beat the so call positional player, that is a fact. Every talented junior was superb tactician and is not the other way around "positional".
@yureesystem You're completely wrong! hahahahhahahhaah
Who has the higher rating? My highest otb 2110 uscf, very few players get to 2000 elo and I am now at 2010 uscf. I enter any rated fide tournament I will be at 1900 and with some study get to 2000 fide in six months.
yuree, you will never, ever win an argument by pointing to your rating. Unless you're Magnus Carlsen, there will always be someone higher rated.
Rating doesn't make an argument strong, logic and evidence does.
btw, I agree with your general point about the relative importance of tactics. I see far too many players rated under 2000 who spend hundreds, even thousands of dollars on opening books but seem baffled that they don't improve.
@yureesystem You're completely wrong! hahahahhahahhaah
Who has the higher rating? My highest otb 2110 uscf, very few players get to 2000 elo and I am now at 2010 uscf. I enter any rated fide tournament I will be at 1900 and with some study get to 2000 fide in six months.
I was joking BTW.
... Under 1500 better concentrate on tactics and endgame, you will benefit greatly. ...
"... For beginning players, [Discovering Chess Openings] will offer an opportunity to start out on the right foot and really get a feel for what is happening on the board. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2006)
... Most players under 1800 lose through of blunders or missing tactical shots;, ...
"... A remark like 'games are rarely decided in the opening' does not really do justice to the issue. ... even if an initial opening advantage gets spoiled by subsequent mistakes, this doesn't render it meaningless. In the long run, having the advantage out of the opening will bring you better results. Maybe this warning against the study of openings especially focuses on 'merely learning moves'. But almost all opening books and DVD's give ample attention to general plans and developing schemes, typical tactics, whole games, and so on. ..." - IM Willy Hendriks (2012)
... studying opening or strategy but are very weak in tactics, you will never become a strong player. ...
Is anyone advocating the negect of tactics?
... Penadpaper0089, give an excellent example all low rated players are oblivious to this: ...
What percentage of low rated players do you know?
... if lack calculating and attacking skills studying opening is useless. ...
"... In the middlegame and especially the endgame you can get a long way through relying on general principles and the calculation of variations; in the opening you can go very wrong very quickly if you don't know what ideas have worked and what haven't in the past. It has taken hundreds of years of trial and error by great minds like Alekhine and, in our day, Kasparov to reach our current knowledge of the openings. ..." - GM Neil McDonald (2001)
... even the "Starting Out" series is geared towards players who already know something about chess and are probably already above average strength! ...
"Starting Out: The King's Indian ... excellent job ... in terms so everybody can understand ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2002)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627055734/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen38.pdf