... I see no mention of the need to build an opening tree. Nor any mention of ChessBase or Chess Openings Wizard or any other opening software. ...
I see no need for me to mention those things.
_________________________
You post voluminous amounts of clickable websites, etc. Do you think as a courtesy to your readers that even just a footnote, "...Oh by the way opening trees are important..."
... once again by default are you promoting building an opening tree by hand
"... It strikes me as unlikely that all beginners should run out and immediately buy Chessbase. It also strikes me as unlikely that all players should wait until after buying Chessbase to do any reading about openings. Beyond, that, I am, for the moment, content to leave people to assess your commentary for themselves. ..." - me (~58 minutes ago and also ~2 hours ago)
Your response is as invalid now as it was 2 hours ago. You think a valid argument for omitting opening trees information is that it strikes you as unlikely. What happened to leaving people to assess for themselves. It is impossible to assess for themselves information they do not have after reading your voluminous posts.
Don't MEMORIZE openings until 2000.
That's the correct tip. You could even argue that 2200 is the correct rating cap.
Studying openings, at all levels, is immensely useful, because it teaches you new ideas, both tactical and positional. There are a lot of excellent opening books out there that will improve your chess greatly.
BUT.
Knowing openings won't help you break 2000! It's your general chess knowledge that will, and sub-2200 games are almost always decided by something entirely other than the opening. If player A gets a "comfortable advantage" out of the opening, that doesn't mean they're going to win the game at sub 2200-level.
________________________
Please get up to speed with the conversation by reading the last 8 to 9 posts.
Building an opening tree=memorization.
Sure, compile an opening tree from games you've played and analysis of them, if you want. Use a computer to save loads of time. (Though I personally don't have an opening tree, I'll admit that computers are useful wrt that.)
But the time spent on that won't improve you as a sub-2000 player. It's just compiling useful statistics on your past games and, at best, will help point out typical mistakes you make.
That opening tree WON'T win you any games until long after you've reached the goal of 2000. You won't be able to bring it with you to an actual game, and memorizing it won't help you avoid losses.
Don't MEMORIZE openings until 2000.
That's the correct tip. You could even argue that 2200 is the correct rating cap.
Studying openings, at all levels, is immensely useful, because it teaches you new ideas, both tactical and positional. There are a lot of excellent opening books out there that will improve your chess greatly.
BUT.
Knowing openings won't help you break 2000! It's your general chess knowledge that will, and sub-2200 games are almost always decided by something entirely other than the opening. If player A gets a "comfortable advantage" out of the opening, that doesn't mean they're going to win the game at sub 2200-level.
________________________
Please get up to speed with the conversation by reading the last 8 to 9 posts.
Building an opening tree=memorization.
Sure, compile an opening tree from games you've played and analysis of them, if you want. Use a computer to save loads of time. (Though I personally don't have an opening tree, I'll admit that computers are useful wrt that.)
But the time spent on that won't improve you as a sub-2000 player. It's just compiling useful statistics on your past games and, at best, will help point out typical mistakes you make.
That opening tree WON'T win you any games until long after you've reached the goal of 2000. You won't be able to bring it with you to an actual game, and memorizing it won't help you avoid losses.
________________
The issue between Kindaspongey and myself is that he by default, without meaning to, unintentionally is advocating building an opening tree by hand. A process that takes 8-10 years. I know I had to build my opening tree by hand, it took me 8 long years. Having the computer and some ChessBase software building an opening tree only takes 2-3 years.
Fields, you are absolutely right that, if possible and necessary, the aspiring chess afficionado should use a computer and some ChessBase software to build a catalogue of their openings and games.
Kindaspongey however I think is trying to say that all of that is work which doesn't improve one as a sub-2000 player and, with regards to that, he is ALSO right. The level when such things become necessary isn't at beginner-/ club-player-level. You [i]can[/i] do it, and it's useful in the long run, but it won't improve you in the present day.
I agree with you. Kindaspongey's posts serve a useful purpose. But given the mentality nowadays of instant gratification. And the need for Chess to win new aficionados as quickly as possible. It is imperative that all chess players be made aware of the need to build an opening tree in 2-3 years with computers and software as opposed to by hand that will take 8-10 years.
______________________________
If you learned anything new here I am glad. But, in case you didn't then you know that building an opening tree is very important. And, having ChessBase is invaluable.
I hope that the next time I speak to you in about 2-3 years you will be what all strong players like to call themselves: a PROFESSIONAL GUNSLINGER
What features does Chessbase offer that make it so good at helping you to build an opening repertoire?
What features does Chessbase offer that make it so good at helping you to build an opening repertoire?
________________________
Take a look for yourself. http://en.chessbase.com/
If you have questions I will try to help. If I don't know the answer I will find out what the answer is.
... You post voluminous amounts of clickable websites, etc. Do you think as a courtesy to your readers that even just a footnote, "...Oh by the way opening trees are important..."
I do not pretend to identify everything that is important.
... once again by default are you promoting building an opening tree by hand
"... It strikes me as unlikely that all beginners should run out and immediately buy Chessbase. It also strikes me as unlikely that all players should wait until after buying Chessbase to do any reading about openings. Beyond, that, I am, for the moment, content to leave people to assess your commentary for themselves. ..." - me (~58 minutes ago and also ~2 hours ago)
Your response is as invalid now as it was 2 hours ago. You think a valid argument for omitting opening trees information is that it strikes you as unlikely. ...
As you can see for yourself, the above response was not to the question, "why do you omit opening tree information?" My answer to that question is that I see no reason for me to include opening tree information. Is my post #109 in your memory bank?
... What happened to leaving people to assess for themselves. ...
For the moment, I continue to be content to leave people to assess most of your Chessbase commentary for themselves. Commentary directed at me has seemed to warrant some attention.
... It is impossible to assess for themselves information they do not have after reading your voluminous posts.
My posts do not have the purpose of enabling people to assess Chessbase. I am sorry if you do not feel that your own posts have been successful with that endeavor, but I am not up to helping everybody with everything.
Fields, you are absolutely right that, if possible and necessary, the aspiring chess afficionado should use a computer and some ChessBase software to build a catalogue of their openings and games.
Kindaspongey however I think is trying to say that all of that is work which doesn't improve one as a sub-2000 player and, with regards to that, he is ALSO right. The level when such things become necessary isn't at beginner-/ club-player-level. You [i]can[/i] do it, and it's useful in the long run, but it won't improve you in the present day.
________________
I agree with you. Kindaspongey's posts serve a useful purpose. But given the mentality nowadays of instant gratification. And the need for Chess to win new aficionados as quickly as possible. It is imperative that all chess players be made aware of the need to build an opening tree in 2-3 years with computers and software as opposed to by hand that will take 8-10 years.
... The issue between Kindaspongey and myself is that he by default, without meaning to, unintentionally is advocating building an opening tree by hand. ...
Not justified by any quote of course.
... use a computer and some ChessBase software to build a catalogue of their openings and games.
Kindaspongey however I think is trying to say that all of that is work which doesn't improve one as a sub-2000 player ...
I am not trying to say that.
... use a computer and some ChessBase software to build a catalogue of their openings and games.
Kindaspongey however I think is trying to say that all of that is work which doesn't improve one as a sub-2000 player ...
I am not trying to say that.
_____________________
What are you trying to say?
... once again by default are you promoting building an opening tree by hand
"... It strikes me as unlikely that all beginners should run out and immediately buy Chessbase. It also strikes me as unlikely that all players should wait until after buying Chessbase to do any reading about openings. Beyond, that, I am, for the moment, content to leave people to assess your commentary for themselves. ..." - me (~58 minutes ago and also ~2 hours ago)