what the #$%^was he playing and how did he win?

thank you for your concrete suggestions. I will check them out. I've never responded to e4 with a French, and I will look into it. And I've never played the Tarrasch defence. I will look into that too.

There is a difference of opinion though. Some seem to say that closed positions have more learning potential for a beginner, avoiding early tactics and going for more tactical middlegames and endgames later on. And some, the majority, say open positions have more learning potential for the beginner, esp re tactics. The fundamental difference, I believe, is whether to play it safe for the first ten moves, or to let the battle begin within the first ten moves. I'm going to have to ponder this a bit. 

I am in no danger whatsoever of learning 20 moves of theory for ANY line. 

Yaroslavl, nothing posted. try again. I'd like to read what you wanted to post!

I am going to be doing some research this weekend on openings, and I'm going to make a decision sometime this week about a repertoire to commit to. Just so that I can get it out of the way, and focus on pattern drilling and endgame basics. 

All right story time.

When I first playing online chess in high school I spent very little time reading or studying anything.  My openings were a series of experimentations based on ideas that occurred to me while I played predominantly bullet time control.  It's widely known by theory that after 1.d4 d5 2.c4 you can't take that pawn and hold it without losing some serious material in the process.  But of course when I first started this wasn't obvious to me.  So of course the first time I encountered this opening I took it and tried holding on to it.  I can't remember but I probably tried it 2 or 3 times just to make sure.  I learned the hard way that there's no taking this pawn. ^_^

This process of trial and error is really all I needed for a long time in blitz.  The only "opening work" I did was looking up crazy new gambit lines with cool traps I could try out.  This approach is very bad in the sense that it would take you a lifetime to ever reach some conclusions theory could teach you in 5 minutes but I still appreciate knowing that some of the openings I used to play were discovered completely on my own.

Back when I was very low rated people played the Scandinavian as black CONSTANTLY.

I think there is a good reason I saw it so much.  White has about a thousand options against e5 (Open game) and the other very popular response at high level, c5 (Sicilian), requires a very high degree of understanding which beginners don't have.  d5 forces white away from all of that and says "No, you're playing my game".  It's also very obvious what black's objective is:  White has a nice pawn placed in the center on the e4 square and you don't want it there so you threaten to take it off.  And, lastly, black gets to bring her queen out on move 2 which beginners LOVE doing.

So anyway back to the point, of course I experimented with this defense too and I enjoyed how direct it was but what I hated was how white gets this free tempo right after I recapture the pawn.

So great it's only move 3 and white gets his knight out for free and I have to decide where I want to put my queen.  Back then all I cared about was the attack and if I understood one thing is was out to develop pieces and control the center (it's still probably the strongest part of my game).  So one day I thought to myself, "wait a second, what if I brought out my knight first?  I would have two attackers on this pawn so white can't possibly defend it."  So I tried it.

I thought to myself "Wow, this opening is incredible.  I've cheated the system.  I get my queen on a nice square while removing white's e pawn and white doesn't get a free tempo on me!"

Nc3 as played above is what I saw most of the time at the level I was playing back then so I was very happy with my discovery.

But it wasn't very long before someone found this against me:

So I played this a lot for a while and I assumed that I was giving up a pawn very early for nothing.  But as I played it I realized that I was almost guaranteed a nice attack in doing this.  It wasn't until MUCH later that I did some research on this opening and found out that black has more than enough compensation for that pawn.  White never takes the gambit c pawn in top level play.  In doing some research on this opening I've learned against best play it's nothing special but it's not terrible either. 

Chess for me was an adventure when I first started.  I didn't talk on forums for advice or study rook endgames that I would NEVER reach as a noob.  Don't get me wrong, taking it seriously and academically is probably the way to go if you want to improve quickly.  I just wish all the novices I see on the forums here were having as much fun exploring the game as I was back then.

hehe, thanks for the story. It's a nice one. And, I'm having fun!! 

Somebodysson wrote:

UltraLaser wrote:

 As for black the suggestions seem sensible enough, however they completely clash with the opening repertoire for white. If you choose a repertoire that fits together well, then learning an idea in one could mean the same idea could apply to another, so you learn more quickly and more easily. 

______________________________________________________________________

This is exactly what I'm looking for. I've looked at the Exeter Chess Club stuff before, and what people are saying, which makes some sense to me, is that abstract principles only go so far, at some point a person has to learn some details. Jaglavak is defnitely correct in his appraisal that I make mistakes when I fail to look at concrete material conditions, and instead think about some vague principles I've read somewhere. 

So I'm wondering about some openings I could commit to, that will "fit together well" and have ideas that translate one to the other" as you put it, Ultralaser. Do you want to recommend openings that won't clash with each other, and that will allow me to learn and not have to learn too much 'opening theory'? thanks. 

_______________________________________________________________________________

One word, transpositions. Please do not make your learning curve any steeper than it already is. Learning openings as part of your initial repertoire that are part of a system of pawn structures is trying to learn transpositions. Too difficult, given everything else you have to learn.

There is a sense of urgency on your thread to pull you in many directions. Take your time and think things through.

One clarification on the 4 openings I suggested. In the Colle System, stick with just the Stonewall that is part of the Colle System.

hmmm, Yaroslavl, you answered a question that I didn't even ask. I looked up the Colle, and found a book called zomething like Zuke by a Rudel, and read aboyut it online a bit, and learned it was about the Colle-Zukertort, not another kind of Colle, and then I wondered which Colle you were referring to. So thanks for that.

And you answer another question that I didn't have the skill to ask, but that leads me to another question. 

Jaglavak was, I think, referring to pawn structures, and referring to openings that shared similar pawn structures. My guess is that his thinking, and thinking by those of that school, is that learning a set of openings by pawn structure may simplify the learning, because certain patterns will become familiar.

Jaglavak, Yaroslavl, or anyone else, please don't hesitate to jump in if I misunderstood, because this is almost guessing on my part . I'm trying to talk about things I don't understand, in an effort to understand them better, and I want to make it clear that I don't claim to understand them at all at this point.

So, Yaroslavl, are you saying that you disagree that learning a family of openings by pawn structure will simplify the learning? Is this what you mean by 'don't try to learn transpositions'.

Here's my (beginner's) thinking on this subject.

I imagine transpositions occur all the time in chess, in the first twenty or so moves, when made by knowledgeable players.

I imagine transpositions don't occur in games by people of my level, because we make known blunders and known bad moves early on, say in the first 5-8 moves, and so our 'opening' can't be classified as a transposition, but as a 'mistake'. My openings won't transpose, because before they get a chance to transpose they will become error-ridden, and so they won't resemble any other family of opening, just a mess of good moves and bad moves. 

I have been reading a bit today from the introduction to a book by John Cox called "Starting Out 1. d4".  I was reading in this book because 1. I have it  2. It describes itself as a repertoire book and 3. I like the author's tone.

Understand that I have never read this book. (I have never read any openings book, or any chess book for that matter. I think people understand that by now. I have played over a half dozen of the games in Chernev's Logical Chess, and became tired of him. I plan to proceed with Heisman's "Most Instructive Amateur Games", which I recently purchased). I only pulled the Cox book off the shelf today because I wanted to see what was in it. 

In the intro Cox says something very interesting and compelling. He says that a lot of chess instructors say that beginners should find their way on their own in the openings, and they will learn tactics that way. He says he thinks that's rubbish.

He says that he thinks it makes sense to learn to make good moves, even if you don't fully understand why they are good moves and that many grandmasters and other highly ranked players feel that they wasted lots of time NOT playing main lines when they were younger; that playing main lines earlier would have helped them more.

So, if I have understood even a little bit of this correctly, I think that Cox is saying that 1. learn some good opening moves by rote is a good idea, understanding them will take time  2. those good moves should be good moves that are not zany or offbeat, they should be well accepted well-tested good moves, and 3. although he doesn't say this, I do, I think it makes more sense to me to learn tactics by studying tactics, learn openings by studying openings, learn endgames by studying endgames, learn strategy by...we'll see about that later, and, very very importantly, learn from my own games by studying my own games, and learn grandmaster games by studying grandmaster games.

So, to get back to Yaroslavl and Jaglavak and R-Tist, and all the others:

Where are we in this bit of discussion? Do we agree that one should learn a complex of openings based on pawn structure or not? Is that the question? Do we agree or disagree that for a beginner--who may want to adopt a limited repertoire that maximizes learning possibilities while minimizing rote memorization--we would ideally choose openings that resemble each other?

Jaglavak pointed out that Fischer played King's Indian formations a lot for White and Black for some of his pre-champion career. (and I am, of course, in my pre-champion career phase). Notwithstanding that Fischer may or may not have done this for the reasons we think (the King's Indian article on Wiki does indeed agree that Fischer did use it quite a bit...and I don't wish to get into a pissing fight about Fischer or about whether or not that's true or accurate...its truth or accuracy about Fischer is beside the point)   is it possible that as a learning strategy it  may make some sense to learn openings within families of pawn structures. 

So, I don't know what 'learning transpositions' means, and I doubt I will be learning transpositions anytime soon...but for choosing a limited openings repertoire does it make sense to choose openings that may transpose to each other, knowingly or unknowingly?

One more thing, Yaroslavl. Don't worry about the sense of urgency. we are all urgently trying to learn as best we can, and we are all having fun doing it. Life is, after all, a dialectic between taking it easy, and taking it.

Good night all. A demain. (till tomorrow). 

I think it's incorrect to claim you must play mainline theory to be on the top.  GM Nakamura is like 10th best in the world or something and he plays offbeat (and sometimes downright dubious) openings pretty often.  Even Carlsen and Anand were playing theoretical novelties fairly earlier on, and neither of these players generally ever make bold decisions in the opening.

Play whatever you think suits you best.  If in two weeks you decide you want to try something else then you are free to try something else.  It's not like you'll be stuck with whatever you choose.  I think there's a lot of wisdom to be gained by having experience in a wide variety of openings.

First, I will answer your questions from your post #82. Second, I will suggest to you a change in your perspective on where you should focus your chess training for now based on reviewing a game that you are currently playing.

The answer to your question is that transpositions are not just moves that shift the game to another opening where the position favors the color you are playing or the color your opponent is playing. Transpositions are also moves that shift the game from one variation in an opening you are playing to another variation in the same opening. Even though the pawn structure is the same or very similar, the relative importance of strategy and tactics may change. The importance of pawn structure (the terrain (mountains, hills and valleys) where the battle is fought) as the determining factor in planning your strategy might diminish. I will use as an example an opening I know very well. In the Sicilian Najdorf there is a variation labeled The Poisoned Pawn. When Black chooses to transpose into that variation, tactics become primary almost to the end of the game and pawn structure takes a back seat. In my years of playing the Najdorf Poisoned Pawn I found it necessary to memorize 400 variations 35 to 40 moves deep which today I know cold,because the variations are riddled with tactics and one misstep would spell inevitable defeat. In this variation pawn structure is in remote control mode, of secondary importance as opposed to being keenly aware of the tactical possibilities in the position.

After reviewing the game you are currently playing I would suggest making a list of everything you need to check before making a move in a game that you are playing:

1.What is the THREAT? What is my opponent THREATENING?

2.Are all of my pieces and pawns defended directly or indirectly?

3.Is the piece or pawn I am considering moving directly or indirectly defended on the square that it will occupy (REMEMBER PIECES CAN CAPTURE BACKWARDS)

4.If it is my move, which of my opponent's pawns or pieces are undefended directly and indirectly? (REMEMBER ENEMY PIECES CAN DEFEND BACKWARDS)

5.If I am considering a pawn move, REMEMBER PAWNS CANNOT MOVE BACKWARDS and any pawn move by me or my opponent permanently alters the position.

6. ??? and so on

Commit this list to memory until you can recite it in your sleep. Keep the list with you whenever you are playing a game.

In addition I suggest you buy the book, "How To Think Ahead In Chess, Irving Chernev and I.A. Horowitz. It is very cheap a few cents for a used copy. Amazon has 61 in stock.

If you would like to know more please let me know.

thank you yaroslavl. yes, I really messed up that game. 

Your major troubles strated when you missed Nd2xc4 on 13

Your position quickly fell apart after that.

yes. That was a critical error. I find, in postgame analysis, that I often take when I shouldn't, and I often don't take when I should. I fear the harmless, and I don't fear the dangerous. It will take a bit more wisdom, and probably a lot more hardnosed calculation and developing accurate visualization of future positions to correct that persistent weakness. 

thank you Jaglavak.

Umm, my ambitions? I liked the way you put it in an earlier post, something like, not going for the quick kill, but making some decent moves and perhaps becoming familiar with some decent moves for me and developing the ability to recognize opponents error in the opening, so that I can get into a fight in the middlegame and possibily make it to an endgame that I can win. I like that picture. It seems to give a lot of room for improving many aspects of my game. 

In the discussion about 'playing mainlines' 'not playing mainlines' I appreciate your clarification of where those grandmasters were probably coming from. It makes sense in light of their perspective.

I also realized that I didn't know what a main line was, so I had to look it up in order to understand better.

I had thought that each opening has ONE main line. It seems to me now that one single opening has many main lines, depending on what particular moves are made at any point. There would be the main line in opening x with 9...Bf6 and a different main line in that same opening x with 9...Bg5. Is that correct? And then  another main line in the same opening with 11. xy2 and another main line with 11. xy4?

a shout out to chess.com member sapientdust who posted this link http://anishgiri.nl/html/eng/anish_articles_026.html on his thread. The quote relevant to our discussion is as follows:

After the match we also saw the reason behind the smile on Magnus' face, which appeared after Anand has mentioned his seconds (see the video from the press-conference before the match). There was almost no use of Vishy's opening experts, as Magnus was jumping from sideline to a sideline, refusing to enter a single critical variation even at cost of his position (e.g. game 9).

In other words, mainlines are mainlines; one of the ways Carlsen won was by sidestepping mainlines so that Anand's probably thorough research was de-fanged. 

Jaglavak, I am going to have to look at this with a board in front of me, and have a long serious look at this. Thank you very much Jaglavak.

Now let me ask you a question, which I understand is probably a stupid question, but it's one I have to ask anyway, in order to have some sense of where people are at.

When you wrote all that above, all about those openings, moves, systems, particular lines, etc., did you write all that from your 'mind's eye', i.e. you could say/write all that without looking at a board or a book...you could just say it, just like that?

These are what beginner questions sound like. I'm not shy to ask.

Thank you for these Yaroslavl. I am committing these to memory for taking with me to my chess club tomorrow evening. 

"2.Are all of my pieces and pawns defended directly or indirectly?"


To comment on this idea I've noticed when watching streams of very good players that often they will stop and think "Wow I REALLY need to do something with this bad bishop" or "My opponent's knight on d4 is a monster.. I'm going to lose if I don't trade it off immediately".  I think it's very good practice to forget about the past moves and just think about the position as it stands, as if you had just walked up to the board and the pieces were already placed how they are in the middle of your game. 

Somebodysson wrote:

Thank you for these Yaroslavl. I am committing these to memory for taking with me to my chess club tomorrow evening. 

__________________________________________________________________________________

There is one more item that MUST go on your list:

6. Are there any CHECKS (THIS INCLUDES DISCOVERED CHECK) available to me or my opponent in the present position? REMEMBER A CHECK MUST BE DEALT WITH IMMEDIATELY IT CANNOT BE PUT OFF TO THE NEXT MOVE

Another item that must go on your list:

7. Is my QUEEN or my opponent's QUEEN in danger of being trapped or taken? (REMEMBER THE ONLY INDIRECT DEFENSES (keeping the initiative/attack) OF THE QUEEN IS A THREAT OF MATE!! , CAPTURING ANY ENEMY PAWN OR PIECE WITH CHECK, OR CHECK

How very true! Having read this yesterday, I promptly blundered in an online game in which I had the worse position but was a pawn up, a position which I could probably have held to a possibly won K+P endgame, having connected passed pawns on the Q-side. There´s a big difference between reading the theory and actually putting it into practice. Especially frustrating that it happened in a 3-day-per-move game in which I have all the time in the world to explore all possibilities. Here´s the position; no comments on possible continuations please (although there aren´t a lot, and they´re all pretty bleak); the game´s still in progress.