Do you mean defensive play or passive play? I don't read either of those things from IMBacon's rules.
IMBacon’s beginners advise
Sort:
Do you mean that the rules do not provide guidance on the question of when to attack? It might be because this is a more difficult concept to set out in a few bullets as it gets into the topic of converting a development advantage into a material advantage or an attack on the king via tactics, combinations or a sacrifice.
:tup The advice is aimed at beginners. Conversion of advantages is an intermediate topic (IMO) which is better grasped when a player has more experience. Ive been learning about it by studying annotated GM games selected to teach the topic. IMIBacon's advice is laying the foundations by encouraging opening principles, piece development, and studying tactics.
I'm not bold enough to sacrifice a whole piece yet (unless I've calculated I'll get it back in the next few moves). But I blundered a knight the other day and the engine gave the position as equal which I think was due to my better development and king safety. My lead in development was worth a whole knight. I learned something.
Oct 2, 2020
0
#7
Learning to sacrifice your pieces to gain the edge or extreme advantage in the game is crucial to becoming a strong player. I have no problem, for example, giving up my queen in exchange for two rooks. ( Queen is valued at 8 points in chess, two rooks is a total of 10 points, five a piece.) I'm giving up one piece for two. You'll get the hang of recognizing opportunities soon enough, the more you play. Also, more confident.
Who the heck is IMBacon and where on earth is his highly esteemed advice? Why no links?
It's not misleading. I think you're being unfair. Are your examples representative or exceptions to help prove a point. They are also examples of poor timing. That players mistimed connecting rooks does not disprove the point. It is conflating What and When. The advice is targeted at beginners. If a 1000 player wants to progress then connecting their rooks is good advice, bearing in mind many of their opponents will be of a similar rating. The advice also emphasises the point that rooks are stronger when working as a pair. Again, though it may be possible to find exceptions, the rule is true more often than not.
There are five established learning styles: Visual, auditory, written, kinesthetic and multimodal. Kinesthetic learners have to do something to get it, while multimodal learners shift between different techniques.
Many of those here offering advice I’ll wager have very little actual experience in teaching. Most of it is just repetitive stuff bring repeated from stuff they’ve read.
There are many highly rated players who learned having never read books, done puzzles etc - but simply taught themselves primarily by just playing. It is True. Many won’t believe it as they are set in believing but a single course leads to success - studying this or that aspect of the game.
Find the way You best learn. What works. Someone else’s single minded approach doesn’t cut it.
It's always the case that such guidelines are not a panacea. However, they are usually targeted at beginners in order to encourage a style of play that will help them progress. This is the case for most things, not just chess. By the time a player makes it to an intermediate level, you would expect them to start playing the position not ticking boxes.
I dont think I'm doing either of those things. I am engaging in a discussion about advice for beginners.
Much of IMBacons advice is valid but is not inherently effective or applicable for many people. I would question one thing - his username. Is it intentionally misleading? He is not a IM chess player.
I did reply to your question. it is my previous post. you have to be more patient. I'm a slow writer.
Good points Ripley. People are free with repeating cliche having no real experience in teaching beginners. Very different skills are required than that of a Coach/ Instructor at the next levels.
Mark’s advice is also valid. But he comes across as portraying it fits everyone when it’s likely only effective for a minority.
how is it impossible? I'm neither opposing your OTB experience or asserting that my ideas are of more value. I'm simply offering other ideas on the topic.
I did answer 13. I said I wasnt doing the things you thought I was.
ok
The biggest problem with what Ripley_Osbourne is saying is that he's assuming that beginner = <1600 rating, whereas most of us think of beginners as <1200 rating.
You don't give the same advice to a 1000 rated player as you give to a 1500 rated player.
IMBacon's advice is for people below about 1200 rating, and it's very good advice for people on that level.
Of course, once you move up, you have to start questioning a lot of the things you learn. I play the Sicilian as black and I've been punished for castling too early! Your king is often safer in the middle of the board when you play specific openings like this. And also, there are scenarios where connecting your rooks too early, and "developing just for the sake of developing", are bad things to do.
There are tonnes of exceptions to every rule, and you start learning all of these exceptions once you hit the intermediate level (1200-1800).
But for anyone below 1200 rating, I would recommend following IMBacon's advice religiously. It will help you improve. The advice works in the vast majority of situations, and in the few situations where it doesn't apply, a <1200 rated player isn't going to find the best moves anyway, so they might as well stick to these rules 100% of the time.
I thought my comments were taken too personally. It wasn't my intention. I simply thought that to dismiss the advice as "very, very missleading" was unfair. The guidelines may have mislead Ripley (and others no doubt) but that does not make them inherently wrong. When at school I was taught the "plum pudding" model of an atom. Later on this was revised into the "onion model" with layers. Later still this became a probability model. I'm sure it's more complicated but I never got past probability. Chess is no different. As students learn, simple models are torn up and more complex ideas introduced. The simple model has served its purpose and can be dropped. It's the same for guidelines. There comes a point when the student moves on but this does not make the guidelines wrong or misleading.
Very valuable and every beginner could use this advise as a road map to improvement. I have two remarks, maybe suggestions for improvement of the advise.
The first is simple. I think the way it is written ‘connect your rooks’ is over valued and ‘(king safety)’ is undervalued. Not castling is a common and important beginners mistake and it deserves a bit more emphasis in IMBacons piece. Yes, connecting rooks is nice if you have the opportunity, but it’s stated as if it is the first thing to do after going for centre control. I am almost sure IMBacon doesn’t intent to teach us that.
The second is more complex. The whole set of ‘rules’ lead to defensive play. I think that is exactly what IMBacon wants to tell us: stop attacking like a madman but develop your pieces. And that is wise of course. But that doesn’t solve my issue with the set of rules. If you play by them you don’t loose fast anymore. But you loose slowly because you are to defensive.