Yeah tactics is to me the step then pieces development & opening prep.
Should I teach gambits to avance beginner kids?
Sort:
jambyvedar wrote:
jambyvedar wrote: Should I teach gambit openings to avance beginner kids?
Should I teach gambit openings to avance beginner kids?
Apr 23, 2016
0
#24
Endgame technique is quite often neglected because people think it's boring.
Apr 23, 2016
0
#25
Like most things useful to learn, endgames are boring. But losing isn't so exciting either.
jengaias wrote:
That's surprising, I rarely see so many supporters of endgames.
Of course we are still outnumbered around 50 to 1, but I thought it was much worst(something like 1000 to 1).
What are you talking about? Everybody knows that learning endgames is important.
I agree with Max Euwe, who wrote in The Development of Chess Style (1966):
"The history of chess--under its present rules--is the study of the growth and gradual change of the strategic ideas of leading players of succeeding generations, Taking note of this evolution and thoroughly grasping it is the very thing which makes for better judgement and an increase in playing strength. The development of a chess player runs parallel with that of chess itself."
In the light of this assertion, I think that Euwe would tell the OP that a young player should learn through study and practical play how Greco, Philidor, Anderssen, Morphy, and others following them handled the King's Gambit.
I am not sure Euwe meant by this "beginners must learn King's Gambit"".
Probably he meant "study the masters of the past".
I don't find any evidence in Euwe's writing that he advocates study without practice. The conclusion is inescapable that he would endorse young players or beginners of any age playing the King's Gambit early in their development. That is not to say, however, that he views it as an opening that one will continue with on the road to mastery.
When Euwe advocates study of Greco and Philidor and Anderssen and Morphy, he also advocates that the student should play like these masters. When one's opponents begin to defend well, one must then move on to playing like Steinitz and Lasker and Capablanca. The King's Gambit may be something that one wants to set aside at that point.
I think , your conclusions are probaly not too accurate.
So what should a player today do?
Play like Greco , then like Andersen , then like Morphy , then continue and play like Steinitz , Lasker , Capablanca, Alekhine , until he eventually plays like Carlsen?
So with every master, players must also copy their openings too?Or that is only for King's Gambit?
Euwe said "study the masters of chess because from the evolution of them , you can discover the evolution of chess and that can help you as a player".
He never said "play King's Gambit when you study Andersen and don't play King's Gambit when you study Lasker".Assuming that he meant something like that is quite a misinterpretation(in my humble opinion).
Your literalism is missing some nuances. Let me be more clear:
Euwe said, "The development of a chess player runs parallel with that of chess itself."
He is not demanding that one play like Greco. rather, he observes that in the beginning one will play either like Greco or more often like his opponents. Playing like Greco, of course, is much to be preferred.
Euwe would not dogmatically assert that a beginner should play the King's Gambit, but he would applaud one who took it up. I think that he would endorse a teacher who thinks his or her "avance beginners" could do well learning the King's Gambit.
Playing the King's Gambit will teach the beginner the difference "between riches and honour" (Euwe's words). That is, the beginner will learn to appreciate the difference between grabbing material (riches) and going for checkmate (honour).
I personally spend more time suggesting that my beginning students take up the Italian Opening and I teach them Greco's variation.* I also play this opening myself, as in this game from a few weeks ago.