he hopes you're not a beginner before delving into queens gambit theory ...
The passage refers to "hoping" that the reader has "improved enough" for "this opening". That does not seem to me to be a general instruction that a beginner should read no opening theory. By the way, did dfgh123 ever produce a specific sentence where Capablanca "says opening books are for experts"? How about a specific sentence, saying that part 2 is not for beginners?
"i have always considered purely technical books on the openings as fit only for experts on near experts" page 153
As we can all see, that sentence refers to "purely technical books on the openings". Also, there is that "or near experts" part. But, most important, the book continued with, "For the average player it is better to have a book dealing with the openings in a more general way." So, does dfgh123 want to claim that a sentence has been produced saying that "opening books are for experts"?
"general way" would be something like fco or back to basics: openings by hansen. are we in agreement?
Those books did not exist in the time of Capablanca. It does not seem to me that we can be sure what Capablanca had in mind, but it would seem to me to be likely that he had some sort of opening book in mind.
probably the book he was going to write and sell
Should there be a clear distinction between what was actually written and theories arising from what Capablanca was supposedly "probably" thinking?
A world champion does not always have to be right. He is a bigger authority than Avni, but that does not mean he is right.
Logically, to master something, you must master every part of it. Capablanca said that studying endgames will teach you chess. It won't teach you important middlegame concepts like attack. It won't teach you opening theory. Yes, Capablanca survived without opening theory but that was his main liability.
Also logically , someone with your(and mine) low understanding of chess is unable to comprehend what a world champion says and means while he can't understand what lower level trainers/players mean.
You want to talk logically?Let's talk logically.
If you talk with someone that just started to study medicine and someone that is an accomplished surgeon, which one you will be able to understand more?The student of course(logically)
And which one you will trust for his medical expertise?The surgeon of course(logically)
Logically, what Capablanca says is beyond the comprehension of Internet Patzers.That is why they try so hard to refute it by present every unknown guy as an expert trainer.
There is evidence that it is wrong. Has any world champion other than Capablanca ever become world champion by just studying endgames?
First a question.There was a player that became a world champion without opening study.Was ever a player that became a world champion or even a top player without a good endgame technique?
I will give you evidence but nothing will convince you.
Hopefully though some kids will read this and a few of them will understand.
The point in studying endgames is to develop your ability to evaluate a position correct and to be able to pick the correct plan and calculate.These are the most important abilities of a chessplayer and endgames is the best way to develop and increase them.
Capablanca's teaching have influenced generations upon generations of top players and have been the foundation of the Chess Soviet school.Yusupow himself(No 3 in the world and one of the top contemporary teachers) calls the basic endgames " one of the secrets of the Russian chess school".Do you know what he means?Read a little more.
Averbakh in his books says that "every beginner owe to study the basic endgames before everything else"(so similar with what Capablanca says , is it a coincidence?).He says that in the first volume of his 5 volume work on endgames(the 5 volumes are basic endgames for Averbakh).Averbakh also says that " a sure indication of a strong player is good technique in complex endgames"(Botvinnik also thought the same according to Seirawan , a coincidence again?).
Here is what Shereshevsky says(Dvoretsky's teacher and second):
"It is no secret that in the preparation of young players many trainers and teachers devote most attention to the study of numerous opening systems and the middlegames resulting.It is evident that their approach is a long way from the truth.The mastery of the player is directly dependent not so much upon his amount of his theoretical knowledge as upon his understanding of the general principles of conducting chess endings."
Svidler commenting on a bad played endgame said "there is no point to know the opening if you don't know the endgame".
Seirawan said that the most important part of the opening preparation of ANY player is knowing the endgames resulting from his openings.Doesn't that mean that basic endgames must be studied first?.If you see another explanation please share it.
As you see some of the best players and trainers see things differently than Amatzia Anvi.
But Amatzia Anvi is not wrong.He is adressing to Internet Patzers(and these are the only ones that believe him).Capablanca and the others were addressing to players with chess future.
Feel free to believe whoever you want.
Endgames are important, I should say extremely important. But you have to study everything. Everything.
You're not going to get to the endgame if you play the opening and the middlegame like a patzer.
... Averbakh in his books says that "every beginner owe to study the basic endgames before everything else" ...
Does anyone see a contradiction between that and this?
"Every now and then someone advances the idea that one may gain success in chess by using shortcuts. 'Chess is 99% tactics' - proclaims one expert, suggesting that strategic understanding is overrated; 'Improvement in chess is all about opening knowledge' - declares another. A third self-appointed authority asserts that a thorough knowledge of endings is the key to becoming a master; while his expert-friend is puzzled by the mere thought that a player can achieve anything at all without championing pawn structures.
To me, such statements seem futile. You can't hope to gain mastery of any subject by specializing in only parts of it. A complete player must master a complete game ..." - FM Amatzia Avni (2007)
... the 5 volumes are basic endgames for Averbakh ...
What is the Averbakh quote saying that?
... Averbakh also says that " a sure indication of a strong player is good technique in complex endgames" ...
How "strong" was he talking about? Does anyone see a contradiction with FM Amatzia Avni?
And I was wondering when you will appear.You are a bit late , you are losing your touch.
Yes we see the contradiction , that contradiction is our discussion.
Here is another contradiction:
Averbakh: Soviet Champion ahead of Petrosian , Korchnoi and Geller and qualified for the 1953 candidates tournament.One of the best endgame theoreticians of all times.
Amatzia Anvi:Nothing.
Were you going to comment on that contradiction or it's bad for business?
So you think he's doing it for business?
You yourself are pretending to be a man on this site when you are a woman. I'm not going to believe everything you say, if that's ok with you.
You don't believe me because you don't know my gender.
Have you any idea how stupid that sounds?
But who told you I want you to believe me anyway?
It has nothing to do with believing me.
The least you should do , as a person with average intelligence(if you are) is wonder what this man , Capablanca, that in his time was recognised as a chess genious and today as one of the most gifted players of all times , knew that you don't know.
Ask yourself, what are the chances that Capablanca knew and could understand something you don't?None , slim , many or more than a lot?
p.s. Will it help you answer the question if I send you a photo of my passport?
You told everyone that you're a man. The link to your facebook profile is a woman. Faker.
"... the game of chess, for the purpose of study and theory, has been divided in three parts: the opening, the middlegame, and the end game. ... We are speaking here, of course, of a well-fought game where no gross error has been made nor any fundamental principle violated by either side. When either side commits a gross error or violates a fundamental principle, the game is likely to end quickly. ..." - from Capablanca's Primer of Chess
its safe to say if capablanca wrote his third book on openings it would of been thin
My own guess (not necessarily "safe") would be that Capablanca had in mind to write a book to help "the average player" with the need (in order "to obtain good results") to have "well learned" "about" "half a dozen different openings".
https://www.chess.com/blog/CraiggoryC/what-you-should-know-endgames-ratings-1600-1999
... Averbakh in his books says that "every beginner owe to study the basic endgames before everything else"(so similar with what Capablanca says , is it a coincidence?).He says that in the first volume of his 5 volume work on endgames(the 5 volumes are basic endgames for Averbakh). ...
This is what I found:
"... As a whole, Comprehensive Chess Endings will be a basic reference work on the theory and practice of the endgame, indispensible for the analysis of adjourned positions and for correspondence play. It will also be useful as a text-book for rated players wishing to raise their standard of endgame play."
And, in the beginning of Averbakh's Chess Endings Essential Knowledge, I also found:
"... the study of the simplest endings should precede the analysis of the openings and the middlegame."
"I conceived the idea of writing a popular booklet devoted to the endgame back in the early 1950s, when I was working on an encyclopaedic reference work intended for players of high standard. Out of the mass of information on the endgame, I thought it was important to select the minimum which any chess enthusiast should know in order to handle competently the concluding phase of the game. It turned out that it was not necessary to know such a great deal."
Does it sound as though Averbakh was saying "every beginner" should study "the 5 volumes" "before anything else"? What would one think after reading the jengaias post?
... Here is what Shereshevsky says(Dvoretsky's teacher and second):
"It is no secret that in the preparation of young players many trainers and teachers devote most attention to the study of numerous opening systems and the middlegames resulting.It is evident that their approach is a long way from the truth.The mastery of the player is directly dependent not so much upon his amount of his theoretical knowledge as upon his understanding of the general principles of conducting chess endings." ...
This is what I found:
"... It is no secret that, in the preparation of young players, many trainers and teachers devote most attention to the study of numerous opening systems and the forms of middlegame resulting from them. The endgame is always allotted very little time.
Some trainers give their pupils the most elementary conceptions of the endgame, assuming that with the general development of a player his mastery of endgame play will also rise. Others demonstrate long and complex analyses from reference books, although the probability of such positions being repeated in a practical game is slight. It is evident that both approaches are a long way from the truth: the mastery of a player is directly dependent not so much upon his amount of theoretical knowledge, as upon his understanding of the general principles of conducting chess endings."
So, was "a long way from the truth" a reference to
(1) "most attention to the study of numerous opening systems and the forms of middlegame resulting from them"
or to
(2) "give their pupils the most elementary conceptions of the endgame" and "demonstrate long and complex analyses from reference books"?
Was "theoretical knowledge" a reference to
(1) "the study of numerous opening systems and the forms of middlegame resulting from them"
or to
(2) "the most elementary conceptions of the endgame" and "long and complex analyses from reference books"?
In either case, is it likely that possibility #2 will occur to the reader of the jengaias post?
There is none, at least not for people at low enough ratings that openings don't matter. But once you get to a level when your opponents do play the main lines...then you have to do it to some degree.
I knew of a NM that thought as most of you guys did. He amazingly enough reached NM title without studying openings.
I had the opportunity to play with him and here is what happened.
Can someone show the solution ?
These are the moves that were described as taking place between Yuri Senkevich (2000) and National Master (2200) in post #6 about 4 weeks ago: 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 a6 6 Bg5 e6 7 f4 Be7 8 Qf3 Nbd7 9 Bc4 Qc7 10 Bxe6 1-0
Yeah I now it, but why white wins? Could someone show the continuation?
capablancas chess primer is split into 3 parts
part 1 is for beginners (no opening theory)
part 2 is for average players (some opening theory with a suggestion to learn half a dozen openings)
part 3 is for good average players (complete master games to study)
Let's look at some actual quotes.
"... 'Chess Fundamentals' ... does not deal so minutely as this book will with the things that beginners need to know. ..."
Notice that it says, "this book", and NOT, "part 1".
"Part three is not for beginners. By the time the student has reached this part of the book, however, he should be a good average player."
I see nothing about the reader being supposed to have become an average player by the end of part 1. Pages 83-114 (from part 2) are about endgames, including such topics as "passed pawn", "opposition", and bishop-and-wrong-color-rook-pawn.
More stuff from part 2:
"... you may be behind in all three of the other elements, Material, Space, and Time, and yet have a winning position. ..."
"... the centre squares ... are the most valuable squares both in the opening and in the middle game, and often also in the end game. ..."
"It is now time for the reader to familiarize himself with a number of 'Type' positions and combinations that are apt to present themselves during the middle game. ..."