Pros and Cons of Classical Chess Thinking

I have been reading Neil McDonald's book "Chess: The Art of Logical Thinking"

The first three games in the book follow Classical Chess principles. He quotes Steinitz and Tarrasch as examples of Classical Chess thinking:

"The d and e pawns are the only ones to be moved in the early part of the game" - Steinitz

"Bring all your pieces out" Give them scope! Occupy the center squares" - Tarrasch

McDonald says this is excellent advice but by no means the whole story. He writes that classical chess thinking has severe limitations, and some reasons to break classical chess rules are:

1. It might be better to spend two moves moving a piece to a good square rather than rushing it out as quickly as possibly to a merely reasonable square
2. In certain setups there is a 'star' piece in which a successful strategy can be based. It is often worth spending time to exchange off this piece if it belongs to your opponent, or protecting it from capture if it belongs to you
3. By delaying rapid kingside castling, you might get the chance to castle queenside and start and attack with the pawns against the opponent's kingside
4. Some positions, especially those with a fixed or blocked pawn center are naturally resistant to attack; therefore development can be delayed in favor of a more strategically appropriate move.

It is common for players below about 1400 level to be taught classical chess thinking exclusively or nearly exclusively. Is this a good thing? Should beginners be taught dynamic chess strategy?

too much too soon?

One thing that wasn't said in the context of classical chess, but something I can relate to it, is Levy Rozman said he recommended that players don't play the Sicilian until they are at least 2000.

Well, most players never make it to 2000 level so this advice implies most players should never play the Sicilian.

I have heard the views of a few different chess coaches, most of them cover the Sicilian to some degree but don't put much emphasis on it, generally recommending open games. But if you play 1...e5 you will be playing any opening that white wants to play. They might be strong at the Scotch or the Italian or the Ruy Lopez etc and if you don't know the theory then that's too bad.

Classical chess thinking is extremely good till a point. Below 1200, I think they should know this and follow this. The reason is simple. Below that level, you don't usually memorize all the lines nor understand them properly. The instinct of good move has not build on them. I have done so much puzzles that I always have a feeling of there is any sacrifice available. They do not have that. They do not know if this bishop should be traded or not in the opening. But if you ask me about playing Sicilian, of course you can play, but it is not easy to play without knowing 20 moves of theory. Therefore, I love playing against it b cause most people do not know the theory , and my kinda dubious approach can't be punished by them

This is just down to Levy's own coaching philosophy and preference when it comes to openings.  Eric Rosen for instance taught one of the PogChamp folks the Sicillian Dragon, and the guy brought up Gotham's viewpoint on the Sicillian for intermediate players and that he thought it was to be avoided and Rosen said this was just a difference of opinion and he recommended it.

When I started playing the Najdorf around 1200, I only prepared against the 6.bg5 line, and sort of winged it against any other move based on the general middlegame ideas I knew.
As I grew in strength I gradually layered on prep against 6.be3, bc4, h3, and so on.
Point is, no one needs to learn the entire opening before trying it out - especially at lower levels.
Even at 2000 level, at least in blitz, most games still tend to branch out to a 'new game' early on and you're relying on basic tactics, middlegame fundamentals and endgames to carry you through!

Yes I think for the most part learning an opening is by trying it out, especially at the lower levels. You can read a book like Modern Chess Opening and memorize stuff but then when you play against 1000s none of those moves are played and so that study was mostly useless, you just have to figure it out there and then.

I am pleased to see 1...c5 if played by <1000 player but not pleased if it is played by a 1500+ player

Hi

#1

"Should beginners be taught dynamic chess strategy?"
++ No, beginners should be taught endgames and then play games and learn by losing.

What are the downsides of learning dynamic chess strategy? At what level is it appropriate to study it?

No particular downside as such...

The "downside" of learning it as a beginner is that you can invest your time in other areas that will net you faster improvement (ie. principles, tactics, endgames, etc). If you have all the time in the world, by all means, review it all, but it can be a bit info overload.

Different people will say different things, I'd say you want to study strategy once you have a handle on the other things, and it'll help you most through the intermediate ranges from around 1400/1500+.

Hello Kevin, I disagree with you when you said you should not play Sicilian until you are at 2000 level. Below 2000, You can play Sicilian defense too but you have to read Sicilian defense book to know its content on how to play against e4 as Black. Even if you are Chess Beginner you can make your own strategies which is short term or long term.

That wasn't my opinion that I was stating, it is IM Levy Rozman's opinion.

"If I'm being completely honest, what I always tell people is you should not be playing the Sicilian until you're at least 2000 which might sound completely different than something you've been told before or crazy but it's one of the most complex and interesting and crazy systems that's out there"

The reason why I mention it in the context of classical chess thinking is the opening goes against Steinitz advice "The d and e pawns are the only ones to be moved in the early part of the game".

Come to think of it, the Caro-Kann, English. Dutch, Pirc and King's Indian openings also go against Steinitz advice.

The downside is if you don't understand classical then you won't understand anything more dynamic, and most players don't understand classical so they don't need to bother with anything else.

What rating is that? It probably depends person to person. I'd guess something like a 1600 OTB rating.

But you are defining wrongly. Sicilian or Caro-Kann or this types of opening are not considered to be modern opening because black does control the center(d4) with the c pawn. In modern opening like KID, black commits no intention to anything in the center in the first couple of move. Steinitz's advice is not the definition of classical thinking. Sicilian was popular for a very long time for that reason

What is a good or better definition of Classical Chess Thinking?

On Wikipedia it says Siegbert Tarrasch and Emanuel Lasker took Steinitz's ideas and improved and made them more rational and accessible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_chess#Classical_school

I thought classical chess thinking is defined by the principles. 

1. control the center

2, develop the pieces

In modern opening, one side gives full control to the other side. Therefore KID or other modern opening are not classical opening. But opening like sicilian or Caro-kann, black doesn't give the center control to white