Instructive Miniature

Imagine if you told a beginner that they didn't need to follow any principles, "don't care about development", just have a plan in mind.

Imagine! Then they'd play bad chess (just like they're going to do anyway with or without principles) but at least they don't think magic principles are going to show the way! They know they need to think about what their pieces are doing for each other, and to the enemy.

The way you're proposing would probably get slaugthered alot more than it actually wins for them.

No way. They might lose eventually from bad position, sure... but they aren't going to get slaughtered -- you get slaughtered when you fail to pay attention to your opponent's threats. Before a single principle is considered the beginner needs to look at his opponent's threats, before and after the move he wants to make.

However some beginners state them as if they are rules set in stone, but it's usually ok for them to do so until they want to get better.

Those beginners have a big block of stone in the way of their progress. Until they realize that the way forward involves calculation and a much sharper understanding of the need to work with the enemy pieces they won't make their best progress.

I don't see howthese guidelines hurt MORE than they help

I've tried to explain: They encourage faulty lazy thinking ("following principles is the way to make good moves"; "I don't need to think about my opponent's moves too hard"). They limit creativity and cloud judgment distracting beginners from important things they need to learn to do, like coordinating one's pieces, limiting the opponent's options, seizing initiative by attacking weaknesses, etc.  

I don't think beginners need to be told to believe in magic in chess. That's not what the principles are about. They would get slaugthered the other way more because (this would be the beginner making useless pawn moves with no direction) the other beginner would be able to exploit them with tactics (this is what usually happens, yes in the najdorf that is an exception, but if the beginner did this in many other openings thinking it was ok, this could quite likely happen) and use his better developed army to try to breakthrough. That's about the only thing beginners could do. Even if they had the technically better position with the pawn moves they probably wouldn't know how to continue and if they did it probably means they werern't learning enough tactics. I'm not saying the beginner just gets a "bad position", I mean he will probably get attacked. That's the only things either beginner principles or not beginner would understand but having the bad strategic position is the least of their worries.

"Those beginners have a big block of stone in the way of their progress. Until the realize that the way forward involves calculation and a much sharper understanding of the need to work with the enemy pieces they won't make their best progress."

They will only have to realize that after mastering the principles and tactics. Some modification would need to be done, but if they had never learned the principles from the beginning it would be much too complicated for them to learn. To learn higher levels of math your brain needs to develop and you have to build on what you've leanred before. Learning when to break the rules is part of this, and I think it's easier than you think unless the player is the kind who is unwilling to think for himself, then he's probably not going to be a good player in any case unless that can be changed, but that had nothing to do with him learning principles or not, because if he didn't learn them he wouldn't want to play chess because he wants guidelines.

Principles are known not to be magical, and JG27Pyth, the thing with beginners is... they can't do anything you mentioned because they're, well beginners. And you can't teach them all of that from square one. The principles are not meant for them to play beautifull chess with them, they're decent rules that give them the understanding they need starting out, patching up that part of the game so that they learn tactics and basic endgames. I eventually threw away the principles or at least knew when to break them as I learned more about planning, it's not that hard. Because they don't

"coordinating one's pieces, limiting the opponent's options, seizing initiative by attacking weaknesses" does not mean the principles are to blame. If they don't know how to do that stuff, they're better off following the principle than trying a rediculous idea and faling miserably. There are alot of things that are more important than getting rid of the dogma in the rules. Just because you don't follow rules doesn't mean you must be a good player obviously. It's when you don't for good reason, which beginners do not have. Learning to not faithfully follow the rules is part of your growth and not even that hard compared to other things, and until then the principles serve well for certain, like a "strategy substitute". Seriously, in tactical games sometimes weak players get away with good tactics and the strategy is deep as "attack the king". That's why they strive for those positions starting out. Tactics comes first, and your ideas contradicting the principles are more for strategy, which, yes, can get slaughtered if you're bad at tactics.

Sure to an extent they limit creativity, but that's a good thing because if a beginner was completely on his own he would certainly pick a terrible idea but the principles at least make him do something more reasonable like put a rook in the center. This seems extremely obvious to us, but if the beginner didn't learn the principles it really wouldn't be. So they're worth mentioning, you just have to say "these rules are meant to be broken sometimes".

I agree with Elubas here. I think JG's frames of reference are fundamentally wrong; he speaks in terms which might make sense to experienced players, but are meaningless to beginners. Limiting creativity? Interaction of pieces and goals of the enemy? No no, all much too complicated.

Beginners should learn not to hang their pieces, to take hanging pieces, how to fork etc. This is *separate* from some basic opening principles like developing your pieces, trying to take the centre etc.

If we assume that beginner A and beginner B are both not going to hang their pieces, then beginner A who has been taught some opening principles is probably going to play some Italian type game continuation like 1.e4, 2.Nf3, 3.Nc3, 4.Bb5/c4, 5.0-0, etc. Beginner B, who also won't hang his pieces, might play 1.Na3, 2.Nb5 3.h4, 4.Rh3.

Now, neither of these have given away their pieces, but beginner A is sure on a sounder footing than beginner B, and would more likely manage to make more simple pawn forks and captures on his opponents because his pieces are better placed. He doesn't really know why yet, but he'll learn why eventually, and then he'll see why opening principles make sense, then eventually he'll learn about exceptions, etc etc.

I've been out of town.  I come back to see my post has created some fantastic dialogue.

I have taught many beginners how to play chess (was my paid job, for over a year for many schools in the L.A unified School district in Southern California), I feel like I might have some quality "life experience" to draw from and communicate into this post.

First, I would agree that the term "Opening Principles" cannot be taken as Laws which should not be broken.  Of course there are openings which have long off strategic or tactical aims, which at first glance might seem to be breaking a opening principle.  A good example of this might be the "Scandinavian Defense".  Opening principles would say it is folly to bring your queen out so early in the game, but of course we know from experience, that black can get a strong game with this defense.  So then is the opening principle incorrect?  Absolutely not!

It is very important when teaching beginners chess, to give them good principles in order to best foster their own unique creativity.  For example: The importance of controlling the center squares, knights on the rim are grim, development of the minor pieces early, king safty...ect.

Second let us take a look at chess history.

For hundreds of years chess players had started their games in a happy-go-lucky fashion.  After a few such chance moves, complications arose and in these complications skill and sagacity were displayed; they considered that the start of the game, compared to the importance of the hand-to-hand fight which ensued afterwards, was insignificant.  Then one day some genius, now unknown to us, began to pay attention to the different ways of opening the game.  And if he has done no more--and probably he did not--than to record some of the methods of starting the game and to designate these "Openings" by the names of the eminent players who preferred them, his performance was most estimable.  Suddenly, in the fifteenth century, we find Openings provided with well known names and analysed in books written to that end, and peculiar terms are coined and introduced such as "Gambit" or  "Giuoco Piano."  Furthermore, from that day the problem of openings becomes the point upon which attention has been centered and remains so, one may say, even to the present (this discussion).

To visualise the beginning of this evolution we may surmise that at an ancient date, when players of original talent, whom to-day we call natural players, predominated over all others, some unknown genius, with a penchant for collecting information, made notes of the beginnings of good games, compiled them, classified them, and exhibited his work to a few friends.  As a natural consequence, some of the industrious and intelligent learners would, in the first dozen moves, overcome superior players of that day, by employing the tactical manoeuvres gleaned from the manuscript of their compiler-friend.  One can imagine the surprise of spectators and the wrath of the defeated masters as they observed newcomers, without natural talent, waging a strong fight purely with the aid of a book of compiled information.

Their wrath evaporated of course, but the cause of it endured.  Since those days we have continued to have compilers of "variations," players who fight according to the book, and those with natural talent who, however, can no longer climb to the summit.

There is justification for the compiler.  But can a player hope to become a master merely by studying a compilation?  No.  That were possible if the number of small lines of play were small.  In Chess, however, no matter how critically one may select, and how many feeble lines of play one may reject, goes into many millions. The brain cannot encompass them by a process of mere compilation.  One must therefore search for rules, laws, principles capable of comprising within their compass the result of a thousand, or even better ten thousand different variations.

That, naturally, has been done.  The process is common to all investigation which aims at comprehending a bulk of matter too large to be comprehended in detail. 

In conclusion it is an error to think of the rules, laws, or principles as taking away the natural creativity of a player.  Quite the contrary.  It is these rules which keep players from playing by the book of most recent "compilation".  It is these rules which can help foster "natural ability", by allowing the player to draw from the experience of tens of thousands of games in a single phrase.

I like your example there, marvellosity. Maybe I should make a sample game with two beginners except they don't use principles, but I think the moves you said is probably what would happen. He wouldn't make advanced pawn moves, he would just make stupid ones.

And how can the beginner be expected to understand the concepts JG's talking about? They can't, therefore, they either need guidelines, or they're going to play REALLY bad moves. Because the principles have been mentioned so much, they seem extremely obvious, but imagine if you didn't know these and had to figure them out from the beginning, let alone the exceptions!

First... No one is actually trying to argue my ideas on their merits... it's all just, "No no opening principles ARE good." That's not reasoning, that's just contradiction.  I've tried to give you folks something to swing at -- oh well.

And how can the beginner be expected to understand the concepts JG's talking about?

I didn't really give any concepts I said that would be part II, second. Where are these difficult concepts I'm using, I dont' see them!?

Find me the person too conceptually handicapped to understand: You aren't playing alone. The other guy gets to move too. After just two moves, by far the most important item for you to consider is: what threats does my opponent have and how does that change after I've moved.

That's vastly less abstract than "your moves must assault the center" or "develop" your pieces" -- Development isn't easy to understand, it's so vague it's useless.

I don't believe in development, I believe in coordinating pieces, creating threats, answering threats, disrupting enemy pieces and pawns. That's NOT complicated stuff. "Development" isn't complicated either, it's just daft. It doesn't mean anything. 

Let's look at another assault on Orthodoxy:

Alekhine's Defense:

 The first bolded statement is a principle whether you want to call it that or not.  And I would think that would be included and taught to the beginner (that you need to look for your opponents threats-IN THE WHOLE GAME.  That is imop why people don't call that an opening principle.)

As to the second bolded comment.  The answer is yes it is complicated(for a beginner).  If you don't know how to mate with queen and bishop or knight and bishop then how can you know what piece coordination is?  If you don't know what a good pawn structure and a bad pawn structure is for piece play or for endgame play then how do you know how to "disrupt enemy pawns and pieces".  If you don't see a threat then how can you respond to it.  Are you starting to get the drift?   

And for god sakes would you quit showing openings which break the opening principles.  We all know they exist and many have already mentioned they are rules which are meant to be broken.  So stop doing that or be exposed for the troll that you are. 

JG27Pyth wrote: First... No one is actually trying to argue my ideas on their merits... it's all just, "No no opening principles ARE good."

I thought I did exactly that? I made a logical argument, which I believe shows you to be incorrect on merit.

Well, sure I'm saying the principles are good. But the argument I, as many do, is that even though they're not always correct they (because they don't understand strategy yet) are necessary as guidelines. Marvellosity's example could be what happens when both beginners, one with principles and one without plays. A beginner who has no idea what they're doing and makes a bunch of pawn moves and developes his pieces to squares away from the center will end in disaster while a beginner who at least develops toward the center is in better shape. Who says they can't go away eventually? And it doesn't mean you can't be creative; it's not like anybody consults the principles of the opening to find a plan. It has nothing to do with capturing toward the center, developing, etc. It's still not a game primarily about following rules at any level.

A GM, on the other hand who made pawn moves would have a grand plan in mind, but he'd have to take into account the development edge he's giving his opponent which he would.

These guidelines don't necessarily contradict with looking at threats or whatever you were saying, the principles can't be considered in every situation because they won't always be involved.

I can see no one read my reply :(  in this thread.

I skimmed over it, but what was your point?

In a nutshell it was important for "natural players" to combat the overwelhming documentation of chess games and "book players" to create rules/laws whatever which were the concentration of tens of thousands of chess games.  This allowed the natural player guidliness to follow instead of trying to memorized hundreds of variations.  All you need to do is study the history of chess and one will understand these rules/guidelines/laws/principles are to help the natural chess player grow in his creativity without the consultation of current or past chess compilations.

It's a pretty good post.  Should be read

 I read your reply.  I didn't disagree.  I think this other guy is just trolling from his responses though. 

Ugh. I wrote a length reply to you earlier erikido, unfortunately in the middle of it I had to put my kids to bed and it timed out and no longer exists. How annoying. I'm too aggravated to recreate the post, but one thing I do want to say is:

Stop the trolling cracks, stop being rude. I haven't been rude to anyone, I haven't attacked anyone personally. Trolling is trying to provoke emotions (anger, frustration etc.) for the childish pleasure of seeing people get upset. I'm not doing that. I AM trying to have intelligent discussion about a topic that attacks some long held and cherished beliefs. If that makes you uncomfortable you should probably find a discussion that doesn't upset you. But please don't accuse me of trolling or make snide remarks like, "Is this starting to sink in?" It's uncalled for and I do resent it. 

Immortal Gamer called this a "fantastic discussion" earlier... I don't know if it's all that... but it isn't trolling.

Openings that completely contradict "opening principles" make a strong case for re-examining opening principles.... clearly something is missing.

Again the very reason we have "Book Openings" at all was because people started to compile data on chess.  Because of this fact masters of the game taught chess principles to students with talent "natural players" in order to combat the "chess compilers".

I think your case is poor because chess principles were born out of chess compilation. 

You quote "alkehine's defense" as proof to make your case.  But alkehine himself would say chess principles, were the reason he was able to create the very defense you use as proof.

 That looked a whole lot like trying to invoke an emotional response my friend....

People keep on stating that the rules aren't set in stone yet you keep on showing us examples where the principles are broken in well known openings(basically either you didn't read the other peoples responses, didn't understand what they were saying or are trolling.  If you aren't trolling then I apologize). 

Immortal, your post is long... So, I've color coded my response to correspond to different places in your post. Red highlight in your post, Red highlight here to respond to it for example.  Make sense? 

Why not? You assert that the Scandanavian doesn't expose something wrong with opening principles... but you don't give us any reasoning why!

If one follows "opening principles" one will never play the Scandanavian... and if someone plays it against you, you will think, "aha here's a raw beginner who doesn't know the first thing about chess, I will trounce this noobie" ... you'd be in for a big surprise. This is what happens with the Scandanavian all the time. People who haven't faced it before get puffed up with false confidence thinking it's a garbage opening.

I'm sorry and please educate me if I'm wrong... but this all strikes me as make believe... where are you getting this? I don't know any of this to be true. Chess had a long history in India and Arabia, it came to Europe an already hundreds of years old game. The first studies of chess openings do not begin in the 15th century.

Bill Wall's brief outline of early chess writings  <---CLICK ME

This is rather confusing, but if I understand you correctly... The basic point, that one cannot become a master simply by memorizing a bunch of variations is quite true, I completely agree.  Abstract conceptualizations about chess, that is Principles, are needed.  But I've never argued otherwise. I will never argue that principles aren't needed. Something as simple as the queen is worth more than the knight is a principle -- and neither humans nor computers can play chess without these kinds of guidelines.  --. My beef is specifically with the principles of the opening, which I think are very poorly formulated, vague, and so plagued by exceptions as to be worthless.

Again, you take issue against a position I don't hold. I haven't said that rules (in general) take away the creativity of player. I said, opening principles -- specifically vague notions of development, coupled with (ridiculous IMO) specific guidelines like "don't move the same piece twice in a row,"  create a kind of brain fog that prevent players from focusing on things that really matter. (The things that matter are different principles) ...Of course, chess must be played with some concept of what a good and bad move are, and that requires principles.  

In summary I don't quite buy your version of history, but otherwise, I don't disagree with what you're saying... but I don't think what you're saying rebuts my points at all. You seem to think I don't believe in principles at all. If I suggested that, I was in error. At one point I said: I don't believe in principles that don't consider what the other player is doing. I think that strongly suggests that I do believe in some principles: the one's that take into account the other player.

Are the value of the pieces not plagued by exceptions as well.  Any general rule you give will have its exceptions. 

Once again.  The opening principles are just there to direct a beginner who has a lack of understanding.  I think your issue is probably with people which teach the opening principles as rigid which can not be broken in conjunction with a poor description of the principles.  Take for example your alekhines defense example which moves the same piece many times a cedes the central control.  But, the reason(as I am sure you know) is because they are planning on undermining the center.  So in reality it is actually playing by the control the center principle.  But, the beginner will have a hard time seeing how the white center can become weak or not even recognize that they need to be undermining it. 

There is a weaker player that I play occasionally that plays a sort of pirc but never uses any pawn breaks to attack the center (and even occasionally locks the center when I hav all the pawn play on the wings) and I gradually gain more space and generally break through with either a pawn or piece sacrifice with pretty brutal attacks.   If my opponent understood one of the principles behind the opening was to undermine the center then he would probably  get out of the opening with a much better position. 

Well if you don't believe history then you dn't believe it.  I got my information from Emanuel Lasker chess world champion for over 30 years.  But what did he know? (sarcasm)