"... This book is the first volume in a series of manuals designed for players who are building the foundations of their chess knowledge. The reader will receive the necessary basic knowledge in six areas of the game - tactcs, positional play, strategy, the calculation of variations, the opening and the endgame. ... To make the book entertaining and varied, I have mixed up these different areas, ..." - GM Artur Yusupov
Focus on openings
Sort:
Oct 3, 2017
0
#3
Capablanca never studied openings? What gives you that idea. Here's what he says in his first example game in his 1921 book, Chess Fundamentals:
"Janowski vs Kupchip, Masters International, 1913:
1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 Bg5 Be7 5 e3 Nbd7 6 Bd3 dxc4 7 Bc4 Nb6
Of course the idea is to post a Knight at d5, but as it is the other Knight that will be posted there this maneuver does not seem logical...The normal course 7...O-O followed by ...c7-c5 is more reasonable. For a more beautiful illustration of how to play White in that variation, see the Janowski-Rubinstein game of the St. Petersburg tournament of 1914. - J.R. Capablanca"
Clearly, Capablanca had an encyclopedic knowledge of openings.
Personally, I don't learn reams of opening variations but I learn the ideas behind the openings and the middlegame attacks that are likely from them. I play the Vienna Game and Bishop's Opening with the hopeful idea of getting in an early f4 and possible castling Q-side, then launching a K-side pawn storm.
I play the Caro-Kann and Slav defenses with the idea of getting my QB outside the pawnchain before ...e6 blocks it in. If White plays Advance versions, I expect to strike back by posting a N on d7 and the ...c5, ...b6, or f6.
Note that the Caro-Kann, Slav and, for White, the London System all involve similar moves - though the London System has a move in hand and allows a lot more choice in attacks.
Oct 3, 2017
0
#5
Capablanca certainly knew the theory current in his time & contributed to it.
DeirdreSkye wrote:
... Capablanca studied more openings than anyone else in his time but he believed that studying endgames first was extremely beneficial ... did you become an expert in endgames as Capablanca instructed?
Is "expert" Capablanca-language or DeirdreSkye-language?
"... 'Chess Fundamentals' ... does not deal so minutely as this book will with the things that beginners need to know. ..." - from Capablanca's Primer of Chess
Indeed, there was some endgame discussion in the Primer, but there was also:
"... The whole structure of the game may be the result of the first few moves. For the sake of experience and practice it may be well to vary the openings, but for the sake of efficiency it might be better to stick to one single opening for the attack, and one single opening or method of development for the defence. This system may be followed until the one opening in question has been mastered. Then the player may take up a new opening, and thus gradually reach the point where he feels familiar with half a dozen different openings. Half a dozen different openings, well learned, are about all the average player needs to obtain good results. ..." - from Capablanca's Primer of Chess
Hi everyone.
I am a big fan of former world champion Capablanca. He never studied openings seriously so i myself never did it. But recently i started to think that maybe to have a good repertoire with white and black could be helpful instead to go on to solve tactics or study endgames. What do you think about it? Because there are a lot of people(like actual world champion Magnus Carlsen) who can play every opening and win. But if i focus my attention to build a repertoire of mine,it is time wasted or it can be a good choice?
Second question(less important).
In my opinion chess is only classical chess,but there are other variations like chess960,crazyhouse,now also 4playerchess etc. To get improve in classical chess,is it possible to play also other variations or i should focus only on classical variation? Thanks in advance!