... You rely on quotes too much. Why not form your own opinions on something instead of nodding your head to the last one you read? ...
If I nodded my head to the last opinion I read, that would be to AllTheCream. We seem to be in agreement that it is not necessarily a good idea to nod one's head to the last opinion one has read. A link to a My System sample is in post #38, in order to help people see for themselves.
... you need to have a basic understanding of chess before you start it. The OP is 1400. He is more than ready for Nimzowitsch.
So who wrote this (in post #34)?
"... I do not believe for one second that you have even opened any of pandolphini's books, let alone read them from cover to cover. Your games are public record sir. They are available for all to see. You are what we call in the chess world a 'fish'. ..."
Here is the game I'm talking about:
Seeing 13. .... Bxg6 requires some chess understanding and that requires reading and studying. There is no shortcut. Don't be fooled by all the ads about no-theory opening books about grand-prix, london system, black lion and other crap.
I disagree with allthecream. My System should not be the first book. Any beginner book is fine as long as it isn't obviously bad (just read some customer reviews).
Tactics and combinations should be first because you can reduce your blunders. One move blunders and missing simple tactics are the most common mistakes beginners make so this should be adressed first before moving on to advanced strategic concepts.
I played one daily game. My opponent took a while to reply, so I don't know how much time he spent. I made my first 6 moves fast. Then he locked in my position with his knight. That was when I knew I had to put in some thought.
I learned that most positions have 20-50 possible moves per side, and that 6-12 immediately address the one move threat or material change. Often the best move does not immediately address any one move threat.
I considered 12 moves that looked at first like they would help, and saw refutations for 10. 2 looked safe, but 1 was safer, so I played it. I won the game soon after, with a few more carefully played moves, getting a resignation after 12 moves. I guess my opponent was no longer putting in time.
I later ran computer analysis of that tough position and the one before it. The computer disagreed with me in many ways. It found a 13th move I had missed and would not have played even if I had seen it, since it did not chase the knight away fast. Of the top 2 I considered, it said the one I chose was the 3rd best move. It also said that chasing the knight away was not important, that I would drop a pawn if I did, and that accurate play would prevent me from being checkmated by the knight. It also showed that my combo I had planned to win back a pawn if the knight took mine would have worked but left the other side with a better position.
So, even though the computer finds better moves, they sometimes much more require accurate play in order to work. Even my 3rd best moves are often rated by the computer as excellent moves, even if 2 pawns worse than the best move.
Also in my defense, I've only been doing the 25 problems per day for at most a month now. I feel I should be focusing on my career instead. Perhaps the reason not many people are great at chess is not because they are not capable, but because they have other priorities that take up their time. Still, I'd like to find an efficient way to become noticeably stronger than the average adult tournament player.
If you are really serious about improving you should go to the website Chessable, register and take some books there. Some are for free, some you have to pay. The cool thing about Chessable is that you can learn everything by spaced repetition. This will allow you to memorise basically everything you've learned: opening, endgame and tactics. Another aspect of the books is that you can ask the authors of the books questions about moves you didn't understand. And finally: the website is good for staying motivated to train. Since I am there I didn't miss one single day there. Have a look and tell me later what you think about it.
... The london system is not bad but I have the feeling that people who play such openings tend to be more lazy than let's say 1.e4 players who are exposed to a wide variety of positions which is beneficial for gaining experience and learning.
After exposing yourself to different ideas you will be able to play "automatic" openings like the london system in a more creative manner.
Just look at Magnus Carlsen's games. ...
I don't think there is much doubt about the benefits of versatility, but is that any reason to call anyone "lazy"? How practical is it for the typical player to try to be like Magnus Carlsen? Everyone has their own reasonable choice to make about how much work to put into chess and about where that work is likely to do the most good.
"... 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
"... Overall, I would advise most players to stick to a fairly limited range of openings, and not to worry about learning too much by heart. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2008)
I'm not saying that everyone should play like Carlsen. This was the point of my post at all.
My point was that you can't improve if you don't study at all. That's what books and online resources are for.
OP was asking for advice so he was obviously willing to learn something and therefore invest some time in it.
I've seen and played so many people on and offline and from what I saw I can say that most people who play the london system don't have much skills in other areas because they were only focused on studying the opening itself instead of practicing basic tactics and strategies.
If this is what they want then it's fine but if they say they want to improve themselves there is no other way than to study maybe not hard but a little.
Nothing to do while taking the train to work/school? Solve some tactical puzzles.
Also all the books you recommend are written by masters. So by studying them you actually try to benefit from their experience. It doesn't mean that you will eventually reach that level of play but you will improve by learning from them.
In my opinion, choosing LS or openings like the philidor can cause you to become lazy and don't think about your moves anymore because these openings are just a bunch of "automatic" moves.
If this is what they want it is fine I accept that.
... I've seen and played so many people on and offline and from what I saw I can say that most people who play the london system don't have much skills in other areas because they were only focused on studying the opening itself instead of practicing basic tactics and strategies. ...
Do you really think you can tell how a player spends study time just from a game? In any event, if a player is lacking in skills in other areas, is it necessarily good advice to spend more time on opening study?
"... teachers all over the world suggest that inexperienced players begin with 1 e4. ... You will undoubtedly see the reply 1 ... e5 most often when playing at or near a beginner's level, ... After 2 Nf3, 2 ... Nc6 will occur in the bulk of your games. ... I recommend taking up the classical and instructive move 3 Bc4 at an early stage. Then, against 3 ... Bc5, it's thematic to try to establish the ideal centre by 4 c3 and 5 d4; after that, things can get complicated enough that you need to take a look at some theory and learn the basics; ... Of course, you can also play 1 d4 ... A solid and more-or-less universal set-up is 2 Nf3 and 3 Bf4, followed in most cases by 4 e3, 5 Be2 and 6 0-0. I'd rather see my students fight their way through open positions instead; however, if you're not getting out of the opening alive after 1 e4, this method of playing 1 d4 deserves consideration. ..." - IM John Watson in a section of his 2010 book, Mastering the Chess Openings, Volume 4
I disagree with allthecream. My System should not be the first book. Any beginner book is fine as long as it isn't obviously bad (just read some customer reviews).
Tactics and combinations should be first because you can reduce your blunders. One move blunders and missing simple tactics are the most common mistakes beginners make so this should be adressed first before moving on to advanced strategic concepts.
Yeah. A more beginner friendly book is Chess Strategy Work Book by Bardwick.
https://www.amazon.com/Chess-Strategy-Workbook-Blueprint-Developing/dp/0976196220
lol Where do I say that someone who lacks skill in other areas should focus on opening. I'm actually saying something different. Just read more carefully.
Also if a player makes obvious blunders or makes strategically dubious decisions I can say that he didn't spend the right amount of time on a specific area. Also I'm not playing these players once but multiple times. this happens at the club and at tournaments. online it doesn't happen that often.
Well, I am certainly saying that it isn't necessarily a good idea to encourage a London player to spend more time on openings. Perhaps we agree.
... I've seen and played so many people on and offline and from what I saw I can say that most people who play the london system don't have much skills in other areas because they were only focused on studying the opening itself instead of practicing basic tactics and strategies. ...
Do you really think you can tell how a player spends study time just from a game? In any event, if a player is lacking in skills in other areas, is it necessarily good advice to spend more time on opening study?
"... teachers all over the world suggest that inexperienced players begin with 1 e4. ... You will undoubtedly see the reply 1 ... e5 most often when playing at or near a beginner's level, ... After 2 Nf3, 2 ... Nc6 will occur in the bulk of your games. ... I recommend taking up the classical and instructive move 3 Bc4 at an early stage. Then, against 3 ... Bc5, it's thematic to try to establish the ideal centre by 4 c3 and 5 d4; after that, things can get complicated enough that you need to take a look at some theory and learn the basics; ... Of course, you can also play 1 d4 ... A solid and more-or-less universal set-up is 2 Nf3 and 3 Bf4, followed in most cases by 4 e3, 5 Be2 and 6 0-0. I'd rather see my students fight their way through open positions instead; however, if you're not getting out of the opening alive after 1 e4, this method of playing 1 d4 deserves consideration. ..." - IM John Watson in a section of his 2010 book, Mastering the Chess Openings, Volume 4
This excerpt confirms my opinion. As Watson states he doesn't rule out 1. d4 completely but he prefers 1. e4 for his students because the positions are much more complicated so that you have to put some effort into it and learn some basic stuff. So you have to work harder after 1. e4 but in the long run you will benefit from it. Just because White chooses a tame opening doesn't mean he can avoid tactics and complex battles later in the game.
Choosing the "lame" option is perfectly fine but he prefers 1. e4 for the beginning player. Also the reason why some players don't survive 1. e4 is that they don't study it enough or don't know basic tactics.
Also we have to bear in mind that we're talking about people who want to improve. We're not talking about players who are satisfied with their level of play and just want to have fun.
Also I wanted to say that I didn't want to attack anybody. I just criticize people who say openings doesn't matter at all and therefore recommend openings which can lead a beginner to take up bad habits and actually limit their thinking because all the opening moves seem to be set in stone.
... "... teachers all over the world suggest that inexperienced players begin with 1 e4. ... You will undoubtedly see the reply 1 ... e5 most often when playing at or near a beginner's level, ... After 2 Nf3, 2 ... Nc6 will occur in the bulk of your games. ... I recommend taking up the classical and instructive move 3 Bc4 at an early stage. Then, against 3 ... Bc5, it's thematic to try to establish the ideal centre by 4 c3 and 5 d4; after that, things can get complicated enough that you need to take a look at some theory and learn the basics; ... Of course, you can also play 1 d4 ... A solid and more-or-less universal set-up is 2 Nf3 and 3 Bf4, followed in most cases by 4 e3, 5 Be2 and 6 0-0. I'd rather see my students fight their way through open positions instead; however, if you're not getting out of the opening alive after 1 e4, this method of playing 1 d4 deserves consideration. ..." - IM John Watson in a section of his 2010 book, Mastering the Chess Openings, Volume 4
This excerpt confirms my opinion. ... Choosing the "lame" option is perfectly fine but he prefers 1. e4 for the beginning player. Also the reason why some players don't survive 1. e4 is that they don't study it enough or don't know basic tactics.
Also we have to bear in mind that we're talking about people who want to improve. We're not talking about players who are satisfied with their level of play and just want to have fun.
I don't think that there is much doubt about the benefits of learning open positions. Nevertheless, IM Watson seems to see the 1 d4 thing as an alternative to 1 e4 that "deserves consideration" by some. If a person has a problem with "basic tactics", it might not work out so well if the person spends more time on opening study, even if improving is the goal.
Also I wanted to say that I didn't want to attack anybody. ...
Words like "lazy" and "lame" seem to me to have sort-of an attacky feel to them.
I chose your most recent win and loss (from games that were at least over 30 moves).
Two main issues IMO:
1) You're not committed enough to following the opening principals. I'm sure you know them, but you need to make a bigger effort to follow them.
2) Sometimes you'll see a beginner who plays with only 1 or 2 pieces, then when they're traded off they use another 1 or 2, etc.
Then when they get a little better it's 2 or 3, then 3 or 4.
I get the feeling you're at the tail end of it... you're nearly using all your pieces, but you seem to want to start the fist fighting when just 1 or 2 guys still aren't included in the action.
Sort of the middlegame equivalent of the opening principal of development.
This is the best response here. And and thank you for the treasure trove of articles:
https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-principles-of-the-opening
The right navigation bar goes to tons of stuff.
A player at 1400 (which is his online rating, so he'd be even lower rated OTB) needs to do lots of basic tactic puzzles, and play slow games to get used to looking around on every move to avoid blunders. Everything else is secondary. Why are we even talking about openings? Or atheism? Stay on topic, people!
That doesn't mean that anyone should neglect openings completely. But nobody below 1800 OTB (2000 online) should be reading whole opening books. Just pick an opening to try, play it in a few games, and then compare your games to a database afterward to figure out how you varied from what the masters play. Here's a free web site to use for that: https://www.365chess.com/opening.php
As for My System, or any other books on strategy like the Pandolfini book mentioned in the first post, that type of study won't help if you're dropping pieces to simple one move tactics. This is why tactics has to come first.
Play longer time limit games...like 15/10.
Also, I think you might be doing it for the wrong reasons if you want to impress some club players...It should be about self-fulfillment.
... nobody below 1800 OTB (2000 online) should be reading whole opening books. ...
"... the average player only needs to know a limited amount about the openings he plays. Providing he understands the main aims of the opening, a few typical plans and a handful of basic variations, that is enough. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2008)
"... Everyman Chess has started a new series aimed at those who want to understand the basics of an opening, i.e., the not-yet-so-strong players. ... I imagine [there] will be a long series based on the premise of bringing the basic ideas of an opening to the reader through plenty of introductory text, game annotations, hints, plans and much more. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2002)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627055734/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen38.pdf
"The way I suggest you study this book is to play through the main games once, relatively quickly, and then start playing the variation in actual games. Playing an opening in real games is of vital importance - without this kind of live practice it is impossible to get a 'feel' for the kind of game it leads to. There is time enough later for involvement with the details, after playing your games it is good to look up the line." - GM Nigel Davies (2005)
Absolute nonsense. People who say My System is hard to understand have never read it. It's basic stuff. ...
I guess one can believe AllTheCream or GM Davies, IM Pfren, etc.
Do people even read anymore? So many players who say they don't need theory just buy a book or watch some superficial video about openings like the black lion or london system and expect to win with a primitive kingside attack in every game.
People like that are actually the ones who doesn't know the opening at all because they just copy a certain setup and play the same moves over and over again without asking themselves why the move order is how it is or what the deep ideas behind all this opening moves are.
The london system is not bad but I have the feeling that people who play such openings tend to be more lazy than let's say 1.e4 players who are exposed to a wide variety of positions which is beneficial for gaining experience and learning.
After exposing yourself to different ideas you will be able to play "automatic" openings like the london system in a more creative manner.
Just look at Magnus Carlsen's games. Does he repeats the same lame LS moves over and over again?
No, each game is filled with little interesting ideas.
There was a game where he exchanged his light squared(!) bishop for a knight to secure his knight outpost on e5. I'll post the game if I find it.