Any Opening Suggestions For A 1000-1200 Player?

Sort:
Cherub_Enjel

But I want to be fair - I'm not sure exactly what "positional play" is, as you've defined.

For me, anything thats unfavorable in activity is bad, and vice versa, and you can usually tell who's more active or not. Also, activity compensates weaknesses, so that allows you to use activity there too.

If kids are having trouble developing, then yeah they need to learn positional play.

But what's far more common, I've seen, I that players who could play very decent positional chess, if they only thought *simpler*, play very weird moves that are positionally bad, because they learned some very specific, and often advanced positional idea, and are trying to apply it. Instead of developing or improving their vest piece, they try to play around with weaknesses or specific trades or something, and end up getting bad positions. I actually do this sometimes.

That's the danger in positional play - it has been heavily convoluted by a lot of advanced ideas not suitable for anyone under a decent rating, say 1600 or something.

I believe Silmans rather not too advanced ideas in his book imbalances is meant for 1400+, and honestly I think he's trying to make the book accessible, and it should be higher.

The_Chin_Of_Quinn
kindaspongey wrote:
The_Chin_Of_Quinn wrote:

Your question was not about reading a whole book? Then it's a waste of money.

Ever encountered advice like this?

"... To begin with, only study the main lines ... you can easily fill in the unusual lines later. ..." - GM John Nunn (2007)

Ok, as long as you're using it as "begin opening study" and not as "begin learning chess." If you're using that to support begin chess by learning main lines then I disagree.

The_Chin_Of_Quinn wrote:

Better to buy a game collection and use the whole book.

So, with regard to reading a whole book of games, it is not a problem that a beginner would "get a lot more out of going over those games if" the beginner "knew basics first"? (#50)

Certainly I would apply my advice to all game collections. My point was just that if you are going over game collections, then make it a variety of games. I still suggest basics first. 

The_Chin_Of_Quinn wrote:

I regret not playing over games? Yes.

My question was about whether or not you expressed regret about not playing over games "as a beginner". (See #26.)
Yes, I regret that.

The_Chin_Of_Quinn wrote:

I also regret wasting my time on opening books.

Could it be that your problem was "trashy database dump" books? (#32)
I read Kosten's English book and most of Watson's French book. I think they're regarded as good ones. I would have rather started with a tactics book and something like Pachman's Modern Chess Strategy.

The_Chin_Of_Quinn wrote:

Do I think people are 7 years olds wanting to be pro? No, but the point is what kind of training is most useful, and what kind is just for fun.

Are "most useful" and "for fun" the only two categories? Doesn't "useful" depend on the person doing the training?

Sure, "useful" depends on the person doing the training. Not to the extent that bad training works, but like I said before if you're studying openings ostensibly by studying  entire games, then sure, IMO that would work.

The_Chin_Of_Quinn wrote:

Sure I could suggest to the OP the elephant gambit. ...

Has anyone here proposed suggesting the elephant gambit to DeathTank3?
No, but that would be an opening I'd suggest if I felt like giving him a gambit. That and the scotch gambit. Danish gives black too many options. Same thing for king's gambit.

The_Chin_Of_Quinn wrote:

... I prefer to give advice for long term improvement.

Doesn't it matter how much improvement is sought and at what pace?
Yes. That's why I fully expect the OP to ignore my advice if he doesn't like it, and scroll down to the next guy's comment.

 

Cherub_Enjel

^I just saw Scotch Gambit there, and I approve. Scotch Gambit is one of the best gambits, especially for teaching beginners basic tactics and how to use development lead, and to play active chess.

The_Chin_Of_Quinn

Yeah, Scotch gambit is actually a legit opening. Elephant gambit not so much tongue.png

kindaspongey
The_Chin_Of_Quinn wrote:

... My point was just that if you are going over game collections, then make it a variety of games. ...

It seems to me that, if one is actually trying out a specific "few moves" in over-the-board games, that experience can make it more meaningful to choose games involving those moves. (#24)

The_Chin_Of_Quinn wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
The_Chin_Of_Quinn wrote:

I also regret wasting my time on opening books.

Could it be that your problem was "trashy database dump" books? (#32)

... I read Kosten's English book and most of Watson's French book. I think they're regarded as good ones. I would have rather started with a tactics book and something like Pachman's Modern Chess Strategy. ...

I do not know which edition of Watson's French book is involved here, but FM Carsten Hansen wrote that the fourth edition was "well beyond the level of most players rated below 1800". I do not see anything quite so clear in the review of the Kosten book, but, at one point, it is stated that something or other "may not be enough information for some readers." At any rate, neither book seems indicative of the sort of experience that a beginner might get from a First Steps or Starting Out book.

Cherub_Enjel

Umm not really, seeing as how white has multiple good responses, including even 3.d4, and multiple good responses afterwards.

Playable? Absolutely - yes, but relative to other options - very questionable.

The_Chin_Of_Quinn
kindaspongey wrote:
The_Chin_Of_Quinn wrote:

... My point was just that if you are going over game collections, then make it a variety of games. ...

It seems to me that, if one is actually trying out a specific "few moves" in over-the-board games, that experience can make it more meaningful to choose games involving those moves. (#24)

The_Chin_Of_Quinn wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
The_Chin_Of_Quinn wrote:

I also regret wasting my time on opening books.

Could it be that your problem was "trashy database dump" books? (#32)

... I read Kosten's English book and most of Watson's French book. I think they're regarded as good ones. I would have rather started with a tactics book and something like Pachman's Modern Chess Strategy. ...

I do not know which edition of Watson's French book is involved here, but FM Carsten Hansen wrote that the fourth edition was "well beyond the level of most players rated below 1800". I do not see anything quite so clear in the review of the Kosten book, but, at one point, it is stated that something or other "may not be enough information for some readers." At any rate, neither book seems indicative of the sort of experience that a beginner might get from a First Steps or Starting Out book.

A simple example. A few days ago my opponent played the Halloween gambit. I actually had never looked at it, so I didn't know any theory, all I knew was that it's dangerous. So what did I do?

 

And I drew the game.

What makes this story more interesting is we played 2 more games, and I was crushed. Looking over the games afterwards my opponent was using an engine. Typical of an engine, I drew by repeating moves, but I drew an engine out of a dangerous opening in blitz knowing no theory tongue.png

Knowing how to coordinate pieces, read pawn structure, etc lets you play any position. Openings are important too, but comparatively they're of low importance.

dfgh123

"I really find all this [opening preparation by club players] quite amazing, not least because the games concerned are almost invariably decided much later on and often by rather unsophisticated means." - nigel davies

 

 

GodsPawn2016
StupidGM wrote:
The_Chin_Of_Quinn wrote:

Yeah, Scotch gambit is actually a legit opening. Elephant gambit not so much

The Elephant Gambit is quite playable, very annoying, and if White's not booked up for it, he dies.

 

This discssion came up once at the club.  Someone was defending the gambit, and some of us were trying to get an explanation as to what advantage black gets?  After not getting a real answer, his defense of the gambit went from "advantage" to "playable"  

Yorrdamma

Yasser Serawan has a book on openings in which he recommends the Pirc defense as black and the Kings Indian attack as white. I liked StephenCorelli's advice above too. Try to learn lines in which you make the other fellow or lady play your opening. I had some luck with the Gruenfeld defense doing this, and played the Rossolimo attack against the Sicilian defense. As a beginner, try to keep it simple. Work on tactics and endings and analyzing positions. Develop but stay alert! Try to look at all you can before you move (unless the move is forced).

Good luck and good gaming to you! Have fun.

SirFlintstone

I would recommend learning the Scotch game first and play the Scotch gambit very shortly afterwards when you understand the ideas of the Scotch game first.  While reading Cherub's posts I realized that the Scotch might be the best opening to teach beginners or novices.

SirFlintstone

If you like d4 openings, the Queen's Gambit is okay to play as a new student and recommended.  When played properly it will treat you well and teach many principles along the way.

Ruud-Sailo
[COMMENT DELETED]
PawnosaurusRex

 I'm having some luck with the Scotch and I intend to try out the exchange and open variations of the classic e4 games, i.e. Ruy, French, Sicilian and just crash my pieces into Black's position after a quick castle and try to work with what's left standing.

StephenCorelli

Positional play= Study of pawn structure, intense understanding of Bishop-knight, learning how to use the bishop pair, learning how to use a knight pair, concept of weak squares, concept of strong squares. What a hole is, and how to create one, the list goes on...........

kindaspongey

"... [The Guardian Chess Book by Leonard Barden] was one of the most useful chess books I had during my teenage years. It is essentially an introduction to chess in which Barden explains the rules, gives some general advice and some puzzles. But the best part for me was the section on 'Method chess', where Barden presented certain opening systems such as the Scotch Gambit, the Chigorin Defence and the King's Indian Attact. These formed the basis of my early opening repertoire ..." - GM Nigel Davies (2010)

The_Chin_Of_Quinn
kindaspongey wrote:

"... [The Guardian Chess Book by Leonard Barden] was one of the most useful chess books I had during my teenage years. It is essentially an introduction to chess in which Barden explains the rules, gives some general advice and some puzzles. But the best part for me was the section on 'Method chess', where Barden presented certain opening systems such as the Scotch Gambit, the Chigorin Defence and the King's Indian Attact. These formed the basis of my early opening repertoire ..." - GM Nigel Davies (2010)

Looks like it has some bad recommendations like the Von Hennig-Schara gambit (I had to google that) and the marshal (not only is it a massive maze of theory, white has many ways to avoid it).

Anyway, sounds like some annotated games and titling it "method chess" makes me believe it's not just memorization.

kindaspongey
The_Chin_Of_Quinn wrote:

... makes me believe it's not just memorization.

In this thread, has anyone been advocating "just memorization"?

"... I feel that the main reasons to buy an opening book are to give a good overview of the opening, and to explain general plans and ideas. ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)

The_Chin_Of_Quinn
kindaspongey wrote:
The_Chin_Of_Quinn wrote:

... makes me believe it's not just memorization.

In this thread, has anyone been advocating "just memorization"?

"... I feel that the main reasons to buy an opening book are to give a good overview of the opening, and to explain general plans and ideas. ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)

Memorization is the main point though, because that's what makes openings so popular among beginners. They memorize 15 moves and feel like they've accomplished something. Memorization is what most near-beginners mean when they "study" the opening.

I've always said learning the opening in the context of the middlegame is great. It's not just about getting your pieces off the back rank, but learning what you'll be aiming for and why.

And for example I bought Watson's french book after reading a lot of good reviews... but no one said it's for 1800+ and the book was too heavy on theory for my level. So that's another pitfall for newer players.

kindaspongey
The_Chin_Of_Quinn wrote:

... Memorization is what most near-beginners mean when they "study" the opening.

I've always said learning the opening in the context of the middlegame is great. It's not just about getting your pieces off the back rank, but learning what you'll be aiming for and why.

And for example I bought Watson's french book after reading a lot of good reviews... but no one said it's for 1800+ and the book was too heavy on theory for my level. So that's another pitfall for newer players.

Things seem to be changing. In connection with the most recent Watson book, FM Carsten Hansen did write that it was "well beyond the level of most players rated below 1800".

https://web.archive.org/web/20140627015516/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen163.pdf

And IM John Watson himself noted the difference between his 2012 French book and others:
"Over the past two or three years ... numerous books on the French Defence have appeared, ... As is the wont with modern opening works, these books usually centre their recommended variations around an instructive and/or entertaining game, without great depth but with sufficient detail to show the main branches and explain basic ideas. ..."
It seems to me that, if one is concerned about this "pitfall", the thing to do is to encourage newer players to be aware of those modern opening works that differ from the "1800+" books and promote the learning of the opening "in the context of the middlegame".