opening

Oh! X player loves Scotch Gambit. He has written a book about it with title : How beginners Mastering chess with Scotch gambit. The last time FIDE organized open lessons invited X player to teach the Hasko gambit but he overreacted again and started talk about the London system to beginners. FIDE had no other choice to recall his license. Now X player have found a teaching role through chess.com forums.

I disagree with CM Squishey, it's not all about tactics until 2000 rating. If you ask him , before that level he knew several general principles in how to develop pieces in different openings, how to play for an initiative, how to find ways to equalize as black. Generally his positional understanding improved a way before he reach the 2000 level we're learning general principles of the openings helped him a lot.

In fact CM Squishey I believe that after 2000 level, a chess player should study twice tactics than he used before. If he wants to improve...

What he need to change, is the positions were arise Tactics.

You see what I mean.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Who says the London System can not provide instructive information?

There is alot of information which can be provided from the London System.

I have already told you alot of key features the London System offers.

Their is plenty more information on the London System. It is obvious you have never played the London System to even know what you are talking about.

The bishop going outside to f4 is getting outside of the pawn chain so it is active.

That is another example of instructive information which can be learned by the London System.

There are plenty of other examples.

Some coachs tell there students to use chess principles in the opening than figure out what to do in the middle game with middle game planning. Here is an example which someone already said in this forum posted:

^^^ Some coachs teach there students to play the opening like that.

If you was to use London System it follows chess principles and same idea's.

You than can do exactly what other people do use middle game planning to figure out plans in the middle game.

Furthermore, I believe the fact you are using a line such as the London System in your opening your middle game planning will be easier. It will be easier for you to come up with plans since you can look up games on how other people play the same positions.

or

You can ask about information on that line.

If you was to randomly develop to the center it may be harder to find out information in such a position. Simply because you may enter positions which are not the norm. People will than find it harder to give you information on such a position simply because it is not how it is normally played.

Ask yourself the question.

How can a beginner find help for themselves if they develop all there pieces randomly to the center?

How exactly will they find games like that if the position has never been played that way?

I think it was an Australian GM that told me, you rather be positionally bad then tactically bad. A majority of the games at the sub 2000 level ends in some sort of tactical means. By 2000 level, one already has a very strong tactical base and usually further improvement on tactics comes from play and practice. This isn't just my opinion but the opinion of many strong players.

"If you was to randomly develop to the center it may be harder to find out information in such a position. Simply because you may enter positions which are not the norm. People will than find it harder to give you information on such a position simply because it is not how it is normally played."

Since i dont know what you mean by this, can you give me an example?

The problem with people like Bg5 is they forget I was once a beginner.

I was that 500 rated player who went to look up games for help than ended up finding no sources to help me improve.

It was because I was looking up positions and lines which have never been played before.

Which is a major flaw in chess principles.

I will give you an example. I will show you 2 games I will play 1 game using principles and another game with using a line.

Your first example doesnt even follow the opening principles, or what i was trying to say.  It violates the opening principles.

How does it violate the opening principles?

Control the center

Develop toward the center

Castle

Connect your rooks

^^ All of that was achieved in example 1.

Light square bishop is blocked

Dark square bishop was developed to its least active square

...h6 doesn doesnt follow the opening principles

Nbd7 is not the knights most active square - Nc6 is

The example I was showing was for the white side. I made random beginner moves for black in both situations.

The Light square bishop went to d3.

The only bishop blocked for white was his Dark one.

The point was White was the person confused in those diagrams.

And in both examples, white gets a playable middlegame.  Which is the whole point of the opening.

Exactly! However, There is a difference!

It is harder for a beginner to figure out what to do in a rare unique middle game position.

Than it is for a beginner to figure out what to do in a well traveled middle game position.

Simply because he can look up the traveled position and find out idea's on it more easier than in the unique position.

This is the point I am making!

Which is why I recommend lines!

All respectible lines in chess follow chess principles. Why get into a random position with chess principles?

At the end of the day chess is like a journey.

A good metaphor I will use will be like going on a road trip to New York.

Would you rather be lost on your way to New York in Pennsylvania which is 1 state over.

Or

Would you be lost on your way to New York in Mexico which is 1 country over.

X player @

This is what I am trying to say. You don't understand what is the right methodology for a beginner to learn chess properly because you never was a beginner who went to a chess school to learn chess from a original chess coach, a teacher. You learned chess with the wrong way and this is why all the people titled or not argue with you in every forum!! You can't learn chess from Google that will provide to you 1000 games in a specific variation were you can compare the games from databases ( another ridiculous habit of yours ) and find what moves are best from your Stockfish ( another MISTAKE of yours ).

A regular trainer or coach will never talk to a beginner for Opening systems, variations or lines. He will talk about general opening principles, about pawn structures, tension between anti- symmetry, when favors one side to capture and when not and basically why!

A regural coach will teach theory of moves. The theoretical base and most of the times EXPLAIN the tactical issues accosiated with that.

A Beginner like you are X player, don't fool your self because you learned twenty openings from Google, you think that you learned chess is that you never had the chance ( for personal social reasons ) to study chess with methodology the same you learned how to read math!

How am I supposed to expect from you to understand why the LONDON system does not provide useful information based on the methodology a beginner should learn chess? How?

@Bg5 I think that positional understanding is very good, but tactics is first priority. If you want to get past 2000, work on that or you won't be able to. It's possible to break that milestone if positional understanding is abit lacking, but definitely not without tactics because you just won't survive enough games for to outplay people.

@Xplayer I wouldn't recommend london system to beginners. I think an open games and tactical position (1. e4 e5) are best for improvement. These systems like the London is usually play by club players (not beginners) who don't have time to learn openings (alot of old guys play it where I am at), it gets them a satisfactory position but doesn't help with improving the same way a dynamic and tactical position does.

Beginners need to learn openings, not systems.  That will come later...

CM Squishey @ Tactics are always first priority, I am not trying to disagree with that. You wrote that for players until 2000 rating , it's enough to study only Tactics. I am disagree with the absolute of your statement. Tactics with out positional understanding will never reach you 2000. It's not enough. Chess players should develop all their chess skills in harmonious way, otherwise we see examples like the one of X player.

He has tactical skills but lack some understanding of position because he learned chess from his engine and Databases. He will never reach 2000 OTB. In chess.com he may achieve 3000 , it's not a big deal.

Im sure X means well, i just think he places to much emphasis on openings, but to each his own. 

2 of my students started learning at the same time.  One fell in love with openings.  He heard kids at tournaments going on how they know openings 20 moves deep, so thats what he wanted to study.  The other, wanted a more well rounded study plan. 

Needless to say the kid with the well rounded study plan has progressed much quicker.  The opening kid has lines memorized, but has no idea why those moves are made.  Neither takes the game really serious, and are perfectly happy do what they do.

Actually, the Italian variation of the Four Knights is considered dubious by many experts, masters, and grandmasters. Nowadays, almost nobody recommends this opening.

The center fork trick is Black's most agressive response to this dubious opening.

I think you and Bg5 will never understand my words.

The well rounded study plan kid might have progressed quicker.

However, chess is not a race.

Sooner or later the opening kid who memorized his lines will start figuring out/understanding why those moves are being played.

When that happens he will start progressing higher than the well rounded kid.

The problem is the well rounded kid will use his chess principles to get to lets say 1800+ or what ever. Than they will start to get the notional/idea that they can do with out opening study simply because they have done with out it for so long and managed to get to 1800+.

Once they begin thinking that they will start running up against stronger players who not only memorize moves but know how to punish inaccuracys. The well rounded kid will than start getting slammed in the opening phase which will give him a bad position which he may not ever recover from.

This same problem will not happen to the memorization kid.

Simply because the memorization kid is not unfamiliar with studying openings. They have come to terms with it.

You may say the memorization kid will suffer when his opponent goes off of theory.

Which you may have justification in saying that. However, think about that for a min.

Wouldn't you love to be in a position when your opponent doesn't play a theory move? An you know there move is inferior?

Bascially that is what will happen to both players the draw backs of a well rounded player and a memorization/opening player.

I will always side with the memorization/opening player simply because I would rather be in a position where I am figuring out how to punish my opponents inaccuracy.

Rather than being in a position trying to untangle my terrible position because I messed up the opening.

I think this discussion just finished! X player while slipping has put an end to all my hopes that he is not a stubborn young man with closed mind. I like you X man but you don't help me out with this. You are dedicated to your strong believes and inaccurate observations around chess. I CANT HELP YOU.

Do you see the bottom of the lake? This were you going day by day. Peace.

Bg5 you never had a point.

You have agrued this whole time with no point.

You than said stuff like my way was wrong because I used the wrong methodology.

How do you know what the right methodology is?