Shankland says you should start with the sidelines for many reasons: firstly because it's annoying when you prepare for the main-lines and then some clown throws something garbage as you and then beats you with traps and says: "haha my coach told me to play side-lines because people never learn them!" That's the worst. Also because they are easy to refute and they are more fun to learn, you should be done with the stupid stuff before you learn serious lines. Lastly, if you find yourself struggling against the side-lines then that's an indication the opening is not for you. For example if you have trouble with the Danish Gambit then playing 1... e5 would be tragic for you. Another example is that if you are doing badly against the Old Indian then positional lines like 1. d4 don't make a lot of sense for you
Rare sidelines first?
If the author creates the opening as one big annotated game, the sidelines appear at the top, so maybe it appears more logical to present them first. One virtue of presenting in this order is that if the student recreates the opening as one big annotated game, the order once again is the same as the order in the book/video, which makes it easier to compare them.
I agree there is some value in the order you gave (model games / main lines / sidelines). With a book you are free to read it in any order, but with a video that's much less practical.
I agree that is seems, on the surface, more logical to present the main ideas first, then the sidelines after.
Though, there's also some logic to presenting the sidelines first -- in showing them, the instructor can point to the flaws in the sidelines, then progressively move toward the mainlines. This creates a sense of forward momentum - we see the less popular lines first, where the ideas are less testing, and easier to refute.
Then we move toward the more common lines, where the ideas get stronger, and more difficult to fight against.
In showing it this way, the student can essentially move through "easier" lines first, then progress toward the "harder" ones, once they've been introduced to the basic ideas.
Overall, I think it's likely best to review all the material more than once, regardless . . . in whichever order it's presented.
Hi all
Something that has always puzzled me is that in most books and videos about openings the author/presenter will start out with the rare sidelines and then very slowly move closer to the mainlines and end up with some model games.
It seems to me to be a very, very counterintuitive way to learn.
I would organize it exactly the other way around:
1) Model games and general ideas
2) Main lines
3) Sidelines.
An added bonus of this way of organizing is that even if you only manage to see or read a part of it - you will still walk away with useful knowledge.
Does anybody know how this idea of starting with sidelines came about and why so many stick to it?