HEY NOOBS! Forget Openings, Study Tactics (The right way)

Chesslover0_0
kindaspongey wrote:
Chesslover0_0 wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
Chesslover0_0 wrote:

… I challenged you to do research so that you can in the process of doing that,prove yourself wrong, ...

Why do you feel that you can say what others would find out from research?

… do the research and find out what most experts and Chess teachers would tell beginners to focus on, ...

Does "focus" mean to ignore everything else?

*sighs* ......Are you going to question everything we say here? 

What does the word focus mean to you? I'll answer your question though,the answer is NO,BUT yes beginners should FOCUS on tactics and endgames,reason: Because it will help their Chess more then anything else.  

Not once did I say totally ignore openings,middle game themes,strategy and the like,where can you quote that I said that,I said that it is more beneficial for beginners to study tactics and endgames rather then openings,how many times must I repeat myself?  Opening study and strategy is ONLY useful at the higher levels of Chess,again,DO YOUR DAMN RESEARCH! Why is it that you refuse to do that????? or are you just trolling,let me know because if you are,I won't be responding to you any more.  I'm not here to entertain you,I thought we were here to talk about Chess. 

kindaspongey
Chesslover0_0 wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
Chesslover0_0 wrote:

… I challenged you to do research so that you can in the process of doing that,prove yourself wrong, ...

Why do you feel that you can say what others would find out from research?

… Oh and by the way I've done the research so I'm basically coming here telling you what they say,or shall I do the research for you and show you several sources. ...

So far, I do not remember seeing anything but a Capablanca quote.

DeirdreSkye
Chesslover0_0 wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
Chesslover0_0 wrote:

… clearly studying Openings for beginners is simply not profitable, ...

Perhaps of interest to look at the table of contents in the book sample here:

http://www.gambitbooks.com/pdfs/A_Complete_Chess_Course.pdf

lol , where do you find them?

This guy is a 2028 rated guy. 

Is this the new book you are trying to sell?

May I assume we will see it often next to Tamburo's book?

DeirdreSkye this is his version of research,he thinks that I'm supposed to be impressed by reading a book sample I guess.   I asked him to do research into the subject instead of asking me 243 questions about this and questioning my reasoning and logic,uhm yeah my responses are based on sound reasoning and logic and more importantly based on research and not just some lame book sample.  

I have told him what the experts say and I have told him and others here why it's being said but he won't accept it and wants to continue to argue his point,so just let him go on and on.  

   The 243 questions and the 657 links to useless books is the only thing he can really do.

Forbid him that and he has no reason to exist. So we all have to tolerate it.

kindaspongey
Chesslover0_0 wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
Chesslover0_0 wrote:

… clearly studying Openings for beginners is simply not profitable, ...

Perhaps of interest to look at the table of contents in the book sample here:

http://www.gambitbooks.com/pdfs/A_Complete_Chess_Course.pdf

… This guy is a 2028 rated guy. …

... my responses are based on sound reasoning and logic and more importantly based on research and …

Do you have an estimate of the number of days that are likely to go by without the appearance of more specifics from your research?

kindaspongey
Chesslover0_0 wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
Chesslover0_0 wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
Chesslover0_0 wrote:

… I challenged you to do research so that you can in the process of doing that,prove yourself wrong, ...

Why do you feel that you can say what others would find out from research?

… do the research and find out what most experts and Chess teachers would tell beginners to focus on, ...

Does "focus" mean to ignore everything else?

... I'll answer your question though,the answer is NO, ...

So, an instruction to focus on tactics and endgames is not necessarily an instruction to ignore other possible activites?

kindaspongey
Chesslover0_0 wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
Chesslover0_0 wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
Chesslover0_0 wrote:

… I challenged you to do research so that you can in the process of doing that,prove yourself wrong, ...

Why do you feel that you can say what others would find out from research?

… do the research and find out what most experts and Chess teachers would tell beginners to focus on, ...

Does "focus" mean to ignore everything else?

... Not once did I say totally ignore openings,middle game themes,strategy and the like,where can you quote that I said that, ...

Do you see a specific sentence where I claimed that you did say that?

kindaspongey
Chesslover0_0 wrote:

... Opening study and strategy is ONLY useful at the higher levels of Chess,again, ...

"... 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

kindaspongey
Chesslover0_0 wrote:

… DO YOUR DAMN RESEARCH! Why is it that you refuse to do that????? ...

I do not take instructions from you because, for now, it seems to me to be sufficient to call attention to such things as your numerous posts and the number of times that you have reported specific results from your own research.

torrubirubi

I think it depends how beginners learn openings. Learning without understanding is useless. If beginners are interested in openings I advice them to learn a basic opening repertoire, 5 to 6 moves, not more, but also some to check some whole games with the system.

I explain them the difference between 1.d4 and 1.e4. Usually I show how to play against some common mistakes in the system they like (QGA / Damiano Dfence), and show opening principles using some interesting games, from Max Euwe’s books or from the classical Logical Chess. 

Aftermthey decide which system they want to play, I give some suggestions of opening repertoires, usually from Chessable.

But I have to say that most beginners are not very interested in training. The few people who really want to improve I show how to analyse own games and give further recommendations on books (tactics, endgames).

In my experience people who invest in training will improve faster, even if they train only 20 minutes daily. 

kindaspongey
Chesslover0_0 wrote:

… are you just trolling, ...

I am not trolling.

DeirdreSkye
kindaspongey wrote:
Chesslover0_0 wrote:

... Opening study and strategy is ONLY useful at the higher levels of Chess,again, ...

"... 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

    This is another misleading quote.

First Yusupov said that he mixed the different areas to make the book sell more(that is what "entertaining and varried" means).

Meaning he didn't do that with real life students.So what did he do?

Second Yusupow, in openings examines games , not lines. No one ever said that annotated games are not useful.

Shereshevsky also suggests the study of openings via the endgame. That is a completely different thing.

Third , Yusupow greatly emphasizes in endgame and middlegame. Opening is a very small part of all the series.

 

kindaspongey
DeirdreSkye wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
Chesslover0_0 wrote:

... Opening study and strategy is ONLY useful at the higher levels of Chess,again, ...

"... 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

... Yusupow, in openings examines games , not lines. No one ever said that annotated games are not useful. …

Above, one can see what Chesslover0_0 wrote. Perhaps DeirdreSkye and I agree that it is possible that a not-at-the-higher-levels player might usefully read about annotated games for some opening. Here, by the way, is a quote from the Gambits section in the first book:

"... [After 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Bg5 Be7 7.Nc3] Black should delay castling and first bring the other pieces into the game. For example: 7...c6 8.O-O-O d5 9.Rhe1 Be6 10.Qh4 Nbd7 [with compensation] or 7...Nc6 8.Qh4 d6 9.O-O-O Be6 10.Bd3 Qd7 and Black now even has the choice of which side to castle. …"

Neither of those whatchamacallits took place in the game under discussion.

Chesslover0_0
DeirdreSkye wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
Chesslover0_0 wrote:

... Opening study and strategy is ONLY useful at the higher levels of Chess,again, ...

"... 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

    This is another misleading quote.

First Yusupov said that he mixed the different areas to make the book sell more(that is what "entertaining and varried" means).

Meaning he didn't do that with real life students.So what did he do?

Second Yusupow, in openings examines games , not lines. No one ever said that annotated games are not useful.

Shereshevsky also suggests the study of openings via the endgame. That is a completely different thing.

Third , Yusupow greatly emphasizes in endgame and middlegame. Opening is a very small part of all the series.

 

I give up,clearly the guy is a broken record and a hopeless cause,I'm probably going to ignore him from here on out,he's one of those stubborn human beings that thinks that everything he thinks/says/does is right and you're wrong and he wants to quote quote quote every little thing you say here and call you out on it.  

I mean it's one thing to have a discussion but clearly this guy is wacked in the head and ........

Chesslover0_0wrote:

I mean it's one thing to have a discussion but clearly this guy is wacked in the head and ........

kindaspongey:

I am not "wacked in head" I'm a troll,don't you get it,I don't have nothing else better to with my time then to quote err-little thing you guys say and uh quote quote quote quote quote quote quote. 

Someone needs to quote that your brain is kinda spongey,you're a full blown troll.  Say what you will,I'm ignoring you from here on out.  I know your type,you're looking for attention and I'm sorry kiddo but I'm not going to give you what you so desperately want and that's attention!,see if you were respectful I wouldn't be saying this but you have clearly disrespected me and my opinion.  You refuse to let it go,you won't do the research I told you to do because you're afraid you'll be proven wrong,so what's left for us to discuss,nothing.  So you keep on quoting quote quote quote and I quote you Mr. Troll keep studying your little Openings and I quote you sir wait ..........wait wait I got ..........no wait I got it........

I quote you .....damn it..........someone quote .............quote this guy................wait ..............I quote .........quote quote.   .........Yikes! 































































Pss pss: I forgot to mention something,don't forget to quote me! 




kindaspongey
Chesslover0_0  wrote:

you won't do the research I told you to do because you're afraid you'll be proven wrong, ...

Proven wrong about what? Do you have in mind something specific that I actually wrote? Something that you think that I slightly implied?