why is the Italian opening labeled a beginner opening?

DeirdreSkye

 

Yes , this is a common mistake:Results.

In club level you can have good results with anything.I know a player that had(still has) good results with 1.a3.

      Is there something wrong with 1a3?No, there is nothing wrong with 1.a3.White surrenders the tempo and plays as Black with a move that might(or might not) prove useful. If there is nothing wrong in playing with Black then obviously there is nothing wrong in playing 1.a3 with white. But the problem is not the results. The problem is education. Everything in chess must be a long term plan and if you neglect classical training , if you fail to understand opening principles, then you will pay for it one way or another. 

    So "results" is the most irrelevant thing for a novice.

Another huge misconception in chess is "easy", a word we all use a lot. Nothing is easy in chess but we use that word to describe something that is easier to understood in comparison with the other options.So, Queen's gambit is anything but easy but it's easier to understand than Nimzo Indian, it's more straightforward.

    Italian is not easy.Quite the contrary.It would be easier for a novice to play KIA which is 8-10 mechanical moves that Black can do almost nothing to prevent(except blunder).In fact KIA is the recommendation of a lot low-rated players self-assigned teachers who don't really realise or understand what chess training is.And guess what , their students always have good results but they never improve.

     Novices must develop a thinking process and they must understand the "why" behind every move.So there is no "why" behind 1.a3 but there is a clear why behind "1.e4". Already from the first move novices start thinking and they have a plan.2 moves later(2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4) they learn the optimal piece development and why it is important and one move later , they learn why sometimes they must sacrifice the optimal piece development in order to acquire other advantages.

 

    In a  5 move main line and an 8 move sideline a novice can see all chess mechanism in action and he can start developing his thinking process.He can start understanding what is wrong and what is right. And when he understands all this he will be able to reject them because that is what chess is :

  You reject everything you learn in order to allow yourself to learn new things.

That doesn't mean they lose their value.Oh no , they never do.Everything a novice will learn from Italian or Ruy Lopez will be a trustworthy companion for life.He will just realise that there are more than one ways to play this beautiful and rich game.

 

pfren
DeirdreSkye έγραψε:

 

Yes , this is a common mistake:Results.

In club level you can have good results with anything.I know a player that had(still has) good results with 1.a3.

      Is there something wrong with 1a3?No, there is nothing wrong with 1.a3.White surrenders the tempo and plays as Black with a move that might(or might not) prove useful. If there is nothing wrong in playing with Black then obviously there is nothing wrong in playing 1.a3 with white. But the problem is not the results. The problem is education. Everything in chess must be a long term plan and if you neglect classical training , if you fail to understand opening principles, then you will pay for it one way or another. 

    So "results" is the most irrelevant thing for a novice.

Another huge misconception in chess is "easy", a word we all use a lot. Nothing is easy in chess but we use that word to describe something that is easier to understood in comparison with the other options.So, Queen's gambit is anything but easy but it's easier to understand than Nimzo Indian, it's more straightforward.

    Italian is not easy.Quite the contrary.It would be easier for a novice to play KIA which is 8-10 mechanical moves that Black can do almost nothing to prevent(except blunder).In fact KIA is the recommendation of a lot low-rated players self-assigned teachers who don't really realise or understand what chess training is.And guess what , their students always have good results but they never improve.

     Novices must develop a thinking process and they must understand the "why" behind every move.So there is no "why" behind 1.a3 but there is a clear why behind "1.e4". Already from the first move novices start thinking and they have a plan.2 moves later(2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4) they learn the optimal piece development and why it is important and one move later , they learn why sometimes they must sacrifice the optimal piece development in order to acquire other advantages.

 

    In a  5 move main line and an 8 move sideline a novice can see all chess mechanism in action and he can start developing his thinking process.He can start understanding what is wrong and what is right. And when he understands all this he will be able to reject them because that is what chess is :

  You reject everything you learn in order to allow yourself to learn new things.

That doesn't mean they lose their value.Oh no , they never do.Everything a novice will learn from Italian or Ruy Lopez will be a trustworthy companion for life.He will just realise that there are more than one ways to play this beautiful and rich game.

 

Right on.

I finished a team championship and cup a couple of days ago. I met 1...e5 in the last round, and using the Ruy against a much lower rated opponent and I was lucky to win after I had more or less no advantage at all, until the opponent made a couple of serious mistakes.

A couple of days before that, I played the "Giri Experiment" (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nc6 4.h3!?) which I had already tried with great success in a correspondence game against a fairly strong centaur. This time, it was OTB against an IM rated some 150 points higher than me. I got a pleasant advantage out of the opening, and somehow I managed to win the game (after several mistakes by both players under mutual time trouble).

Maybe it's time to employ it more frequantly- why not, after all? I only regret I did not play this instead of the Ruy.

Smositional
poucin wrote:
Smositional a écrit :
poucin wrote:

openings played by beginners can be played by world champions and top players.

That's the case for italian and queen's gambit declined.

Why beginners are playing these openings? Because they are natural.

U don't seem to know what GM play, so i will give u an advice : try to watch top players's games on tournaments online. Then u will see that italian is very popular nowadays...

I disagree. They real reason why beginners play those openings is that beginner books and beginner lessons always start with this opening to illustrate basic principles and ideas. That's why it is more likely that you will encounter such openings on lower levels.

U "disagree" telling something which almost means the same and/or is complementary to what I said.

So we can think that u disagree agreeing. Thank you for your logical point.

Lol. I don't know why I wrote that I disagree. Sorry for that. I of course completely agree with you.

It's nice to see the italian game a lot in high level chess.

Dsmith42

I agree that good results at the beginner level can be a trap, but the basic structure of a starting player's game need not be classical, and an understanding of the classical approach in its entirety is not necessary to the understanding of the hypermodern system.  My hypermodern student understands opening principles very well - he just takes a hypermodern view of them.

 

Classical players try to build a strong stable center to leverage into attacking pressure.  Hypermoderns turn it into a bloody no-man's land to apply attacking pressure across, or else destroy the foundations supporting the classical player's center.  Classical players seek control through occupation, hypermoderns seek control through pressure.  They are fundamentally different approaches.

 

Chess history has proven that extremely strong play can be established using either method - even when forsaking the other style completely.  Certainly, the very best players have found uses for both, but I think the notion that classical principles must precede hypermodern ones is at best an oversimplification.

ghost_of_pushwood

Oh no, another one of these hypermodern guys...

DeirdreSkye
Dsmith42 wrote:

Certainly, the very best players have found uses for both, but I think the notion that classical principles must precede hypermodern ones is at best an oversimplification.

 

    It's anything but that.  

Good coaches recommend that players like Greco , Morphy and Anderssen are the first that must be studied.

There is a deeper meaning in all this. Understanding classical chess means you understand the roots of chess , it means you understand how everything started.The basic principles of classical chess can be found everywerere, in any opening, either hypermodern or irregular. It is important knowledge for everyone , especially novices. 

    Those unable to understand the importance of this are the ones that never really studied chess seriously and they just try to lure others in doing the same mistake.For them , everything they don't understand is "oversimplification". 

ghost_of_pushwood

The term "hypermodern" is 100 years old.  Looks like it's time for an update...

DeirdreSkye
ghost_of_pushwood wrote:

The term "hypermodern" is 100 years old.  Looks like it's time for an update...

Maybe "hyper-classic" or "meta-modern"?

ghost_of_pushwood

or "post-modern" happy.png

JSLigon

The terms classical and hypermodern make me wonder what ever happened to modern. Modern is the missing link of chess. Vanished without a trace?

ghost_of_pushwood

From Horowitz' (or was that Hellmuth's?) collection Golden Treasury of Chess:  "Hereabouts [1890] we arrive at the era of what is called, occasionally in rather a disdainful tone, 'modern chess.'"

DeirdreSkye

Modern existed. It was Steinitz.The modern era of chess probably starts with him.

kindaspongey
DeirdreSkye wrote:

... Good coaches recommend that players like Greco , Morphy and Anderssen are the first that must be studied. ...

I have seen advice somewhat like that:

"... there are major advantages to studying older games rather than those of today.
The ideas expressed in a Rubinstein or Capablanca game are generally easier to understand. They are usually carried out to their logical end, often in a memorable way, ...
In today's chess, the defense is much better. That may sound good. But it means that the defender's counterplay will muddy the waters and dilute the instructional value of the game.
For this reason the games of Rubinstein, Capablanca, Morphy, Siegbert Tarrasch, Harry Pillsbury and Paul Keres are strongly recommended - as well as those of more recent players who have a somewhat classical style, like Fischer, Karpov, Viswanathan Anand and Michael Adams. ..." - GM Andrew Soltis (2010)

However, I do not remember anyone ever saying that one "must" start by studying "players like Greco , Morphy and Anderssen".

JSLigon

Modern players sometimes decline the gambit, even at the risk of being called a sissy. Bunch of bean counters just playing to win, or at least to avoid losing. No sense of style. Where is the beauty in this modern, scientific chess?

But that's the romantic / modern distinction. Whereas classical is contrasted with hypermodern.

kindaspongey
DeirdreSkye wrote:

Modern existed. It was Steinitz.The modern era of chess probably starts with him.

https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/3718.pdf

Rat1960

I always took it to mean where you *begin* rather than when you are a developed player you move away from beginner stuff. See #21 above.