Instructive Miniature

Lasker has been one of my favorite players for a while. I love his games I think he was a really great man. It's funny that you say you got your version of chess history from Emanuel Lasker, because if I'm not mistaken these opening principles we've been discussing, come from Lasker -- in his chess teaching I think he was the first to popularize the idea of "opening principles" we've been discussing. I have no doubt Lasker knew miles more about chess than I ever will. That doesn't mean I think he's the greatest chess teacher ever and it doesn't mean that I have to take all his ideas uncritically -- or that I have to take your "facts" uncritically. It's not that I "don't believe history" -- It's that I don't recognize your version of events, which are about a time we have no record of... so I wonder where it comes from. You don't do your case for command of the facts any favors when you cite, 'Lasker chess world champion for over 30 years' -- He was champion for 27 years.

JG27Pyth, if you were teaching a beginner and they played 1.e4 e5 2.Qh5, how would you explain to them why it's a bad move? In my opinion just telling them "bringing your Queen out early is generally bad" is far more easy to understand than anything else. So, before Morphy came along you think everyone was playing fine in the opening without worrying about any "principles"? What's stopping the beginner using the generally reliable principles and also looking for threats etc?.. The good teacher would tell them that they can be broken if there is a strong enough reason..

ARRRGH... long post lost to timeout!!!! damn.

Nuclear... it's a great question, very clear.

1.e4 e5 2.Qh5 is a one of the most comprehensible lessons there is and every beginner learns it. I honestly doubt you really teach "don't bring your Queen out early" and leave it there -- everyone I've ever seen teaches this idea with a reason... a correct reason,one which refers to the other player's moves:

"don't bring your queen out early... you give your opponent a target to work with -- you give him an easy plan to activate (develop) his army -- Remember your Queen is the most powerful moible piece you have -- trading it for a N or B or even a R is basically a guaranteed loss -- your opponent knows this, so he knows he can push your Queen around and it's not that hard to find moves that push the Queen around while at the same time moving his pieces to good spots, active flexible space grabbing positions -- while you are forced to just keep repositioning your queen -- and she does't really have anywhere good to go, yet." 

That isn't hard to understand -- it's appropriate for an adult just-learned-the-moves beginner. If I recall correctly, this sort of thing Yasser Seirwan discusses very early in his beginner books on the opening. It's a really great starting point for understanding the opening and I only wish everything in chess openings were that easily digestible! 

The real question is what do you say when your slightly advanced beginner says, "but lookee, here's GM Hikaru Nakamura playing 2.Qh5!? If it's ok for a strong GM why not for me."  I had an answer, but it got lost when I timed out and I don't feel like typing it all out again.

I have never advocated throwing out all opening principles. My complaint is that they don't teach how to think, just how to find a move. It's the old, "give a man fish he eats for day, give him a fishing pole..."  Current opening principles are a fish, I think we can make fishing poles.  2.Qh5 is a great example. That's one of the clearest ones there is, thanks for bringing it up.

I strongly believe that principles that don't refer to the opposing army in some way teach wrong lessons even as they help in other ways. I also believe that current OP's are an inadequate tool-kit... that there are many many (too many) exceptions to current basic OP's -- something is missing -- perhaps there are some additional guidelines that would help. I believe trying to explain almost everything in terms of "development" and "the center" is confusingly vague. Beginners could improve faster with guidelines that help them think their way to better moves. 

If only it were all as easy to do as it is with 2.Qh5!

I look at your live ratings and over some of your games and it is strange how differently you play live chess than turn-based (where you are very very strong)...it almost seems as if in your live games all the knowledge you have in turn-based is lost. 

I say this in reguard to this discussion.  As you are 2300 or so turn-based and 1300 or 1400 in blitz it begs the question, do you really even understand the basic principles of chess to even have this conversation.

You give examples like Alekhines defense, but it doesn't break opening laws in the slightest.  Black stays close in development and castles just as well as many other defenses for black.

I just think you don't perhaps understand to deeply the openings you are referencing, as proof that certain opening principles are important, and this is evidenced in your own play.

And really are you gonna make a straw-man argument at take what I said about Lasker being champ for over 30 years and then throw everything out.  Please.  Easy mistake to make (he was champ for a long time...and I didn't check with wikipedia first)

You're right, I wouldn't have just left it at that. I made that post really quickly this morning and wanted to edit in that bit about also explaining that it allows the opponent to kick your Queen around while developing with tempo etc, but had to go. But still you did explain all of that using general "principles" did you not? I think we're all in agreement that a good teacher would train their students to also consider their opponent's moves..

!! Really, because you totally implied that you were.  And you're right they don't teach you how to find a move from any given position. That's not what they're meant for! Not even beginners, when making a move, say "What principle should I follow next?" before making a move. But the opening is where you can follow the principles and get a good game. Interestingly, in your najdorf example, white had more development, but was not worse because he was developing. In fact, he has chances for the edge. So the beginner would still do well with the white pieces. Then we look at black, who although can get away with it, it doesn't mean he doesn't have to be careful. So even in that example the beginner did fine.

Now imagine that in another game the beginner without principles played pawn moves with no plan in mind (since not having principles doesn't teach strategy!). He would have an AWFUL position. If he played with the principles he would have a decent position more often. Even if the beginner somehow knew what he was doing with the pawn moves, his tactics would probably then be bad (otherwise he wouldn't be a beginner) and the other one will defeat him by centralizing his pieces and attacking with tactics. The way you're going is the wrong order. More advanced concepts are much more easy to grasp after knwoing the basics, and like was mentioned before the principles are not necessarily totally wrong in the alekhine for example, because if black doesn't attack the center, guess what; black will indeed get squashed. He is paying a lot of attention to demolishing or liquidating the center, obviously. But as a beginner is not the time to learn about the concepts you're talking about, which is for much more advanced players. If beginners have a slight fog, so be it. It will slowly go away, but at least they won't lose out of the opening with a well developed army.

your diagram is wrong black plays d6 not e6

 Did you not even read this JG? I would be interested to what your response would be   

wow this is great, i dont have anything constructive to add, as usuall its just my opinion (and that counts for squat).  i will add the disclaimer I AM NOT A GOOD CHESS PLAYER however those who cannot do, teach...i cannot play but i can talk theory (even if i cant practice it).  i was a horrible player (now im just a bad player) until i learned opening theory.  basic opening theory alone brought my play up from a USCF equivalent of a 600 player to a 1400 player.  i should correct myself and say that opening principles helped me more than theory did.  the first two openings i learned and used were QGD/QGA and the italian game.  Kasparov was running rampage with the scotch at that time and i picked up on it soon after (i dont play 1.e4 anymore partly because of my experiences in the scotch).  my first three tournaments i placed next to last, i picked up a book, learned a few basic principles and placed 9th my next tournament (JV section).  i studied a little more placed 7th.  a bit more 3rd. got moved to Varsity section, studied some placed 7th.  then hung around the 3rd-7th place in most tournaments there after, my best result being tied for 2nd-9th in the '97 Wv state championships.  ive lost all the opening theory i learned way back when, but the principles i retained and these basic principles carry me to this day.  i think teaching new players specific openings and theory isnt all good. but how can one say you shouldnt teach a new player the very basic ideas as to why you move your pieces and to where in the first few moves?  what are you going to teach them?  are you going to show them examples of bad opening play that turned out well?  i have a friend on chess.com who playes some of the strangest openings ive ever encountered, but he is a very strong player (better than me by far).  however, he knows opening principles he just chooses to ignor them inorder to complicate the position and confuse the other player.  he can do this because he is such a strong player, a noobie couldnt play this way and expect to win.  as one grows in strength one can break the rules more often, such a tony miles playing 1....a6 against Karpov AND WINNING- Tony can do that because he is a world class master.  a noobie playing a better player cant really have any realistic expectations of winning by playing 1....a6...anyway im rambling now.  opening principles are important in the beggining of ones chess development and as one understands the game better and better one can break the rules more and more frequently is the jist of what im trying to say. 

your diagram is wrong black plays d6 not e6

Shows you how often I play Alekhine's defense (something felt wrong! gimme a break it was 5 am... *wipes egg from face*)

Under time pressure I play worse than badly! My blitz games typically start out halfway strong and as soon as I really feel the time sting they just turn to garbage, many are truly very embarassing to me. Cc works to my strengths (patience, logic, endgame, postional chess, puzzle-like tactics calculated on the analysis board), blitz goes right to my weaknesses (blitz calls for a nimble mind, and sure instincts -- I second guess myself on whether I should use the upstairs bathroom or the downstairs -- blitz loves a guy with a quick eye for sharp basic tactics, nothing describes me less... and ironically, blitz loves a guy who knows book a few moves deeper than the other guy... my book knowledge is quite lean, so I flail between principles (which are inadequate) and calculation which is slow -- it's a formula for losing blitz.)  Personally, I don't think my sucking at blitz is relevant, but if you're looking for an excuse to disregard everything I say without another thought, there, you have one.

I say this in reguard to this discussion.  As you are 2300 or so turn-based and 1300 or 1400 in blitz it begs the question, do you really even understand the basic principles of chess to even have this conversation.  I think so. Do I sound like I don't understand them? (I think I'm a bit better than 1300 blitz... my brief peak was over 1800... If I gave blitz my all and forced myself to actually have a memorized book repertoire I could probably push it back there abouts.)

You give examples like Alekhines defense, but it doesn't break opening laws in the slightest. 

Alekhines defense doesn't break opening laws in the slightest? Interesting... which ones doesn't it break? It's ultra-hypermodern, it couldn't be more wildly anti-classical. It's a cliched example of an opening that contradicts  classical opening principles. The first time Alekhine played that opening people thought he'd lost his mind. Wait. here, I just went to wiki, the remarks below are from the opening paragraph of the Wiki on Alekhine's defense:  the editors of the Fourth Edition of Modern Chess Openings (MCO-4) wrote, "Nothing is more indicative of the iconoclastic conceptions of the 'hypermodern school' than the bizarre defence introduced by Alekhine ... . Although opposing to all tenets of the classical school, Black allows his King's Knight to be driven about the board in the early stages of the game, in the expectation of provoking a weakness in White's centre pawns."^[3]

And really are you gonna make a straw-man argument at take what I said about Lasker being champ for over 30 years and then throw everything out.

I didn't at all throw out everything you wrote. I asked you to back up that history lesson you gave because it wasn't any sort of history I recognized. I've since then realized you are unable to defend it in a satisfactory way. I mentioned your mistake about Lasker because there you were trying to cut me down and being sarcastic and as you did it you managed to get a simple biographical fact about Lasker wrong -- felt like it neutralized your sarcasm pretty effectively.  But that has nothing to do with the problem I had with your earlier content.

Your replies to me are getting less civil, and more ad hominem. I'm here to talk to people about ideas, not fight -- I don't have any deep stake in seeing my ideas proved right -- I'm perfectly happy to hear someone attack my points, and/or sing the praises of opening principles, with reason! ... but increasingly the reaction I'm getting is more like I've insulted someone's mom.  I haven't.

Nuclearturkey and I bickered in another thread recently, oddly enough we've had the most civil, and in my opinion, productive discussion on this topic here. Go figure.

So much is lost in translation and I don't think you will be taught your place by this discussion. My original post was quite logical and well thought through, and you threw it by the wayside.

Please if you will look at the board:

The defense employed is Alekhines.  You see pieces have been developed in a logical sequence even though it is a hypermodern idea, it still does not break opening principles.  Of course it doesn't!  Because the very master who create these wonderful opening which we name after them follow principles based on tens of thousands of games other masters have played. 

The school of hypermodernism did not change the principles of the opening, but found a different way to express the same principles.

Erikido23... I promise I'm reading everything you write. I'm not responding to you directly because while what you write makes sense to me... I think it mostly requires that I just repeat what I've already said.

It would help me a lot, and I think it would help you get your points across more effectively, if you quote at me the exact words of mine you disagree withand start your counterargument from there. That way I can't say: oh you're talking past what I said you're not taking on my ideas directly.

Here's an example:

I said:

"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."

The truth is I think I've over-stated my case in that paragraph I quote. "I don't believe in development" is a pretty bold and perhaps assinine thing to say... but what I'm really trying to say is: development is very vague, can't we do better? Can't we give better guidelines than, "develop"? If we can, what are they?

What does development mean? Development means: _________________

Here, I'll take on something you wrote:

But, the reason(as I am sure you know) is because they [someone playing alekhine's defense] are planning on undermining the center.  So in reality it is actually playing by the control the center principle. 

No, they aren't playing the control the center principle! If we mush everything together and say "letting your opponent occupy the center with his pawns is really just the same as fighting your opponent from putting his pawns in the center" we've made the whole business utterly meaningless.

But it's true, a hypermoder opening is playing something related to controlling the center... they are playing a whole 'nother idea about controlling the center.

Here's how I understand, and would explain Alekhine's defense to an advanced beginner: 

All openings have some basic strategies built into them, it might literally be a strategy no more complicated than: ha, bet you weren't expecting THIS!... but most openings involve a strategy about how solid/mobile the pawns will be, how urgent and tactical the opening will be, and how the opening will treat the center (fight for it, or give it up to have strong pawn structure) -- Alekhines's defense uses a now basic idea which was revolutionary in it's time: It's not who controls the center first, it's who controls it last. The hypermodern idea is that those pawns in the center are a bit premature... they are targets. If you know this from the get go. If you recognize the hypermodern idea in an opening you face, you can counter your opponent's plans by playing a bit conservatively in the center. Don't go crashing in with pawns blazing. They are waiting for that, they have prepared for exactly that...  Go solidly forward in the center. Don't over-extend your pawns.  Play to neutralize the fianchettoed bishop (almost all hypermodern openings fianchetto one or both bishops). Slow and steady will win. Hypermodern players can be hard to drag into any really interesting tactics. You must be patient.

Yes, that's too advanced for a real beginner, but so is the whole discussion of hypermodern chess openings. A true beginner has no business playing someone who really knows how to play an Alekhine's Defense in the first place. Intermediate players however will face it, and need a decent theoretical framework to work with.

Yes, that's too advanced for a real beginner, but so is the whole discussion of hypermodern chess openings. A true beginner has no business playing someone who really knows how to play an Alekhine's Defense in the first place. Intermediate players however will face it, and need a decent theoretical framework to work with.

I would agree what you wrote is above the head of a true beginner, but then again a true beginner, if empowered with opening principles of develope your pieces to the best squares, control the center with pawns, get your knights out before your bishops, and castle your king early...would be fine in seeing their way through an opening like "alekhines defense".

 To the point I highlighted with stars at the beginning at the end(I think it may have already been answered.  But, I will try myself as well).  First of all that is not at all what I said.  As you can clearly see I stated they are planning on undermining the center.  It seems you might not understand this concept from your response.  Undermining the center is (usually) accomplished by pawn breaks which weaken the center and make it a great target for attack OR for liquidation of the center.  So you are not just letting your opponent occupy the center without a purpose.  You are letting them occupy it so you can attack it (or liquidate it).  This is in fact controlling the center in an indirect way. 

Immortal... I'm getting fatigued with this thread and am going to drop it for a day or two... I'm not fatigued with the ideas though and I do intend to return to it again, (I wonder if anyone will remain interested) ...  A few points for the interim...

a true beginner, if empowered with opening principles of develope your pieces to the best squares, control the center with pawns, get your knights out before your bishops, and castle your king early...

Yes, these are the classical opening principles. Thank you for putting them out there clearly.

Is this all a player needs, really?

Certainly these principles help people avoid some sketchy moves. But they are so simplistic (or so vague --  "put your pieces on the right square?" um, why not just "make good moves" that's saying the same thing) everyone seems to agree these principle have to be outgrown. Does it have to be that way? I think improved opening principles could last a lifetime... and could be taken right into the middle game.. (is a good move in the opening after move 5 or 6 all that different from a good middle game move? -- Lasker's principles were directed at the first 5 or 6 moves btw, does it have to be that way?)

Do you think they can't be improved on? Do you think they are so perfectly stated that it's just causing confusion and needless complexity to try to improve them?

You know, I have to mention: This entire argument of mine puts me in very difficult position: I'm criticizing some rules that were laid down by bona fide geniuses. Not only were these rules laid down by geniuses of chess; they have been widely repeated by other very chess-smart people. So it would seem that I'm this crazy, pretentious, patzer with delusions of grandeur who believes he's a XXXL super uber-genius that knows better than Lasker how to play chess.... NO! I don't think that!! 

What I honestly think is: You can't overestimate how bad geniuses are at teaching! particularly teaching normal people!  If you want to find a really really bad teacher for a regular person, get a genius. The greatest teachers are never the greatest talents! (There are some exceptions of course).

I've got Lasker's famous Commonsense in Chess here in front of me. I can't believe how bad it is! Now lest you think I'm ignorant or disrespectful, let me say that I adore Lasker's chess and I have played thru, slowly and carefully, every single published game of Lasker's that he won (and quite a few that he lost, and well, not so much with the draws ;) I really respect Lasker -- he's my #1 chess hero and his games are one of my constant inspirations... in terms of chess ability and acheivement I'm well aware that I'm a sputtering wet-match and he's the Sun --

But, that doesn't mean I think he was a great chess teacher!

Here's an example:

Lasker, in the very first game he discusses in Commonsense in Chess, gives:

1.e4 1.e5 2.Nf6 d6 3.Bc4 h6?

"So far, with the exception of the last move, Black has played quite well. He has opened lines for his two bishops and the queen (what?? but his dsb is blocked by d6!?), and now should bring out his N to c6. Instead of that, afraid of some premature attack, he quite unnecessarily makes a move that does not give additional force to any of his pieces.

4.Nc3 Bg4.

A mistake. The Knights should be first developed, then the Bishops...

[WTH? When Black does it it's a mistake, but when White develops his B before the N's  there's no need to mention it? Wha? == Now, no one denies, this guy was super-smart -- So, why the heck does he use this contradictory example?   It continues:]

5.Nxe5 Bxd1

6.Bxf7+ Ke7

7.Kd5#

Okay, does anyone actually think this demonstrates what happens when you screw up opening principles?! Oh come on! I know he's a genius and one of the greatest chess players, ever, but seriously.. anyone who's being honest will admit that Lasker is showing off. That miniature -- the queen-sac to Legal's mate -- is designed to do one thing: impresses the patzerati (under the guise of talking opening principles.) Brother Emanuel is showboating!

ah well, enough, I'll take this up again later... perhaps the dialogue will become more collaborative, less combatitive...

If you want to find a really really bad teacher for a regular person, get a genius.

Wow.  I cannot belive you just wrote this.

Remember Fenyman, Eisnstein?  Pretty amazing teachers and geniuses.  I could go on, but this thread is really just silly now.

You disagree. Apparently when you disagree with things that makes them "silly." Feynman and Einstein were both very cuddly personalities but odd examples... neither of those guys spent much time around anyone who could be called a "regular person" -- their students were always hand picked AAA rising stars. Einstein is a great counter-example, actually... his first job (and his professional training) was as an ordinary High School Math teacher. He was famously terrible at it. He got the job at the Swiss Patent office (where he did his work on special relativity) to get away from failing as a Math teacher.  Of course there are exceptions. J.S. Bach was very successful as an organ teacher for instance. And as usual I overhyped and overstated my case so as to call attention to it (must stop doing that!) ... a better way to have said it, and what I intended was:

There's a tendency to think geniuses are the best teachers in all aspects of their discipline. It's not true. The genius begins with a handicap when teaching: No one has less understanding of the difficulties an ordinary person has grasping fundamentals than a genius, who never struggled with them at all.