Ten "System" Openings

The pros and cons of systems were acknowledged above.  For beginners, the time used memorizing an extensive opening repertoire is better spent understanding general opening principles and working on tactics, tactics, tactics.

Acknowledging them does not address the quote, which implies that beginners should play a system because they can just memorize the system and they don't need to try to understand or even care about their opponent's moves.  Knowing a few catch phrases like "connect the rooks" or "knights on the rim are grim" is not actually understanding general opening principles.

If a beginner is playing the London and cannot answer, say, a simple question like "why is the bishop played to f4 before the knights are developed?", then they are not learning anything, and all you are really avoiding is them trying to play Scholar's Mate all the time .

As I mentioned, systems are fine.  Telling students to just mimic a position for white without any deeper understanding so they can get to the tactics will work okay for scholastic students that aren't going to ever reach a title, but as I said, teaching them this "shortcut" worded that way just passes the buck on to the next coach to unravel the damage for the players that do get good...

"Okay, I know what your old coach told you, but it's time to go past the London, or, if you want to keep playing the London, then we need to go back to square one and you need to learn the reasoning behind it.  You're bogged down at 1300, and you won't go past it until you stop doing what you are doing now."

"But Kamsky plays the London and he's been US champ so many times..."

"Do you think Kamsky just memorized the London without understanding why the moves are made?"

"What about Pogchamps?  The coaches there say the London is good."

"Pogchamps doesn't have any good chessplayers, and the London is the easiest way to prepare bad chess players to play a semi-presentable game.  That doesn't mean the London itself is bad, it just means it's being misused in this case.  The London is not intended to allow you play the opening without understanding or calculating anything."

There are many more systems e.g. hippopotamus
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1106728 

Very true.  Beginners develop into stronger players, and understanding deepens over time, with study and experience.  IM Waitzkin talks engagingly of how strategies he employed as a younger player became ineffective as he faced tougher opposition.  Of course we should seek to understand our opponent's moves.  But your example proves my point -- if a beginner knows why, in the London, the bishop goes to f4 before the knight moves, I would strongly suspect that the beginner is inefficiently using their limited chess study time memorizing opening nuances (of which there is no end) that are irrelevant at his level, when there are much better ways for a beginner to employ limited study time and increase chess strength.  Let's ask Dan Heisman!

I disagree.  Understanding why the bishop goes to f4 early is part of general opening principles...i.e. sometimes you want a strong pawn chain, but if you get a bishop trapped behind it, it is a big problem that often lasts well into the game.  This reasoning is key for many openings, not just the London...the French, the Slav, etc.  This is not beyond the grasp of a beginner...rather, it is very easy to teach with just a few examples.

Scholastic programs are designed to teach masses of kids to play reasonably well, and to cull the best players out over time.  That is, to make the job easier for the teachers and to serve the most kids adequately with limited resources.  That doesn't mean it's the optimal approach for an individual student's best and most rapid development.

Your Heisman reference proves *my* point .  His best student topped out at the high school championships, but he's known for setting up programs that teach masses of students well.

This is completely the wrong way to teach a beginner.  None of these "systems" are usable all the time, and you actually need to understand what Black is doing and why one "system" might work in one case and be no good in another.

For example:

Colle System (Koltanowski or Zukertort - Doesn't Matter) - The whole point behind this, along with others like the Catalan or certain systems against the French, is that e6 is played specifically with Black's Light-Squared Bishop BEHIND the pawn chain.  If Black places the Bishop OUTSIDE the pawn chain, Black is better if White proceeds in Colle fashion.

For example - 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 and now after 3...Bf5 (or 3...Bg4), a move like 4.Bd3, trading your good Bishop for Black's bad one, gives Black a slight advantage.  In fact, either Bishop move is called the Anti-Colle, as the Colle relies on Black's Bishop being BEHIND the pawn chain.  The ONLY good move is 4.c4, and you will usually wind up in a slow slav.  Once ...e6 is played, Black's light-squared Bishop is stuck outside the pawn chain, and cannot come back to d7 or c8, and White attacks Queenside, NOT the b1-h7 diagonal.  The Colle is also no good against Fianchetto Defenses as the d3-Bishop bites on granite.  The Bishop should go to e2.

Rules of thumb for those "System" lines:

Colle System - Usable only when Black's LSB is blocked BEHIND his pawn chain, like 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 e6 4.Bd3 or 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.e3 b6 4.Bd3.  Otherwise, it is garbage and Black can even claim a slight edge in some cases, especially if White tries to play it systematically against the Anti-Colle or King's Indian.

London System - Usable against MOST lines, but fails to the Modern Defense.  After 1.d4 g6, both 2.Bf4? And 2.Nf3 Bg7 3.Bf4? Are bad for White.  The whole idea of the London is to dominate the dark squares and to put a stranglehold on e5 and to attack Black on either the Kingside or Queenside while trying to hold Black at bay in the center.  Here, Black gets in e5 way too quickly and White is already losing time.  After 1.d4 g6 2.Bf4? Bg7 3.e3 d6 4.Nf3 Nd7 (or 4...Nc6) 5.h3 e5!, Black is already slightly better.

Torre Attack - Fails against early ...d5 lines.  After say, 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 d5, 3.Bg5?! Is highly dubious (3.c4, 3.e3, or 3.Bf4 are better) because of 3...Ne4!  The Torre is most effective against 1...Nf6/2...g6 or 1...Nf6/2...e6.

Trompowsky Attack - Fine against 1...Nf6, somewhat dubious against 1...d5 (because of ideas found with 2...f6!), OK against 1...f5, bad against basically anything else.

Stonewall Attack - like the Colle, only effective with Black's Bishop hemmed in.  If it is hemmed in, White needs to play Bd3 and Qe2 early to stop Ba6 and Bxd3.  Otherwise, too easy for Black to get the winning ending Knight vs Dark-Squared Bishop.

Some of these other "systems" aren't even worth discussing at all.  The Blackmar-Diemer Gambit is unsound, and while it may work vs 1400-rated wannabes, you are just going to have to start all over again when you face players that know what they are doing!  So not worth going there in the first place!

Colle also works with ...Bf5
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1007871
Colle also works against ...g6 and ...Bg7
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1036730 
Colle also works if black frees his light square bishop with ...e5
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1036682 

Man, you guys are rough!  Ease up a little and try to remember that the original intent is targeted at middle schoolers.  You're never, ever going to keep the interest of that demographic with too much Grinding on the Depths of The Why (TM) for all your more-advanced stuff.  If they have to unlearn some things if and/or when they progress beyond where they started, then that's OK.  You don't expect the ones that do advance to continue to play with their starter set of pieces either, do you?

And this is an example of how not to write for a beginner. I'm not completely against using hyperbole, but you really need to first define what do you mean by "biting on the granite."

Chess-wise this thread probably has useful information, both for the beginners in chess and for the beginners in teaching chess. Language-wise this thread is descending into figurative hell of figures of speech.

Just because White wins a single game against each does not make it a good idea for White.

Nice try though thinking I'd surrender to cherry picking!

I can bet $500 each time that the next card is higher than a King.  Occasionally, I will be right and an Ace will show.  That does not make it a good strategy!  Most of the time, I will lose $500 doing that!

You've got to look at the big picture, not the exception!

If you don't know what biting on granite means, then literally take a bite on something granite and you ought to get the message!  LOL!

Disclaimer:  I take no responibility and will provide no coverage of costs for dental services required after attempting this activity.  Proceed at your own risk!

With my own teeth or with the bishop's teeth? Previously you wrote that it was the bishop who was supposed to bite, not the reader.

If you think that that sarcasm or irony are synonymous with intelligence then you are wrong.

#30
I illustrated the virtues of the Colle System with 3 wins by Edgar Colle himself over strong grandmasters. White voluntarily hems in his own Bc1 with e3, but then frees it by preparing e4 with c3, Bd3, Nbd2, O-O, Re1 etc.
The main drawback of the London, Trompovsky, Torre is that white commits Bc1 too soon and thus abandons the defence of the dark squares on the queen's side, especially pawn b2. Black can often attack those e.g. with ...c5 and ...Qb6.

You can teach systems just fine without telling students the quote I originally replied to.

Would you be okay if a coach told your kid "always trade your bishops for knights, because new players don't avoid forks very well, and they can't properly leverage the bishop pair, and that makes knights more powerful"?  No?  Why not?  It's true for beginners, and it works.  But you don't teach that, because those kinds of preferences get locked in, and even when you say "don't do this anymore" later, they will still lean that way, to their detriment.

You mistake my intent in posting.  I don't care about "keeping the interest" of the 50 kids that are going to drop off long term anyway.  I'm talking about not screwing up the 1 kid that has talent and is not going to lose interest anyway.  It's like the justice system.  If you convict 50 criminals, that's not a justification for convicting 1 innocent person .  Don't teach bad habits/principles.

You're hyperbolizing.  Here is the quote you originally responded to:

Usually you don't have to react to what your opponent is doing. You memorize a certain piece and pawn formation, and most games, no matter what your opponent does, you can move the pieces to build your formation and complete your development.

The context is defining what we mean by "system".  Now key on the words "Usually" and "most games."  It should be understood that exceptions are legion, i.e. if Black responds to 1.d4 with 1...e5, we adjust.  And the beginner can do so, if they understand and are learning to apply good basic opening principles.  Of which system openings provide reasonable examples, with the caveats mentioned above.

It's only understood that exceptions are "legion" when you understand chess .

Why even use the phrase "no matter what your opponent does"?  Why would any chess coach say this to any chess student, in any context, ever?  That's the problem.

Not sure if the debate or the information is more interesting...  As a learner (~1050) with limited time, here's what I found.

I spent ages learning an opening, with all the why's and what ifs etc, but my opponent doesn't let me play it very often. So then I get stuck a lot of the time, just trying to apply the principles I do know.

In this context, a system is nice.  When good players go off on a specific line discussion, I get lost and too much detail to learn it all at this point.

I feel like my journey goes:

1. learn some principles
2. learn a couple of systems that use them
3. learn some more tactics
4. learn how to win endgames

Then, once I get to 1300 with that, and still want to improve, but am now losing due to a lack of depth of knowledge, I can go back and start to really understand the whys of things.  I don't think I'd have to "unlearn", just increase the depth of learning.

Everyone will have different weaknesses, and if I have 30 mins a day, what am I going to do first?  I could learn a bunch of specific openings with the why as well, but that would take a while.  I should probably work on whatever is the main reason I lose, which will vary over time.  With a system I might lose on tactics, then on endgame, then on openings.. back to learning more about that when I reach that point.

It seems you're debating the difference between a generalised teaching method, and identifying/teaching the next world champ.

That's my whole point.  You owe it to every kid you teach to assume they *are* the next world champ and teach them accordingly until they prove otherwise.  You don't have to lavish each one with personal attention, but you definitely don't take shortcuts and teach methods/ideas that may cause damage down the road in the name of expediency.

This would be like saying "I teach chemistry, but I don't teach it as if any of my students will ever be in the field of chemistry".  If you teach that way, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy .

Actually, I would argue respectfully that your examples agree more with what I was trying to articulate.

In Chemistry which my kids have started 9 months ago, they teach about atoms and weights, and the periodic table basic concepts etc etc... they don't start with 100% of human understanding of hydrogen and how it can decay, and what quarks are etc etc.. before moving on to the next thing.

In "sport" this is even more so, you evaluate kids as a coach by looking at they're overall game.  You don't watch them each take 10 penalties and then pick the one who can't run cos they scored 10.... 

In my opinion, which is just that, you would not teach an opening, say main line, to 80 moves depth, an have them know nothing about forking, pins, or checkmate.  You would have taught them something that will never come up in a game, where they have to resign when it goes off the line because they know nothing else....

When I wrote the post above, I was 1050, and I was ok in the opening with a system, but losing middle/end game.  I learned some principles/ideas etc, and after a while I started coming up with losing (or worse) positions in the opening, so I then started going deeper on openings... now I am back to losing in the middle/endgame again, but I am hovering around the 1600 mark and now learning more middlegame theory... 

Just seems to make sense to me to have a consistent level which improves throughout the game.  Makes it more fun for me.  I don't know how they teach in places where it looks like no fun!

IM Davorin Kuljasevic is an experienced coach. From his 381 page book How To Study Chess On Your Own (subtitle "Creating a Plan that Works... and Sticking to it!") published by New In Chess (2021), from Chapter 3: Identify Your Study Priorities, he writes:

"For players 1500 -1800 Elo:  Create a simple opening repertoire with both colors, nothing too deep. ... There is no urgency to study the main lines. Sidelines or 'systems', if learned properly, are completely acceptable. ... The primary focus should be on increasing tactical and endgame skills."

Later in the 1800 - 2100 Elo section he writes "The importance and complexity of opening work increases to a small degree. ... There is still no need for big opening work at this stage, like memorizing topical lines and searching for new ideas, because much greater learning potential lies in other study areas."