Instructive Miniature

The post was Instructive Miniature. If anyone learns from this then it is what it is.

You just like to argue.  You don't even know when you've completely lost the argument..so it is pointless to continue the discussion, because nothing others say penetrates you.  You just start typing your ridiculous rebuttals.  I'm sure the many students you have will be great players.  Since they will be learning from not a great player, but apparently a groundbreaking teacher.  We all look forward to it.

That's brief, but unfair. If you read what I last wrote it had self-criticism ("I over-hyped my case, as usual, must stop doing that") -- then I rephrased my point to be a less confrontational, and better. And I answered your counter-example, directly... explaining why I thought Feynman and Einstein weren't good examples. And I did it without pointless nastiness, but just trying to take the issue forward.

I can see you don't want to give anything I'm saying a moment's consideration. OK. It's not the end of the world for either of us I'm sure. I dont want to drag you kicking and screaming somewhere you don't want to go, I'm tired of trying. I'm not looking for a fight, I was looking for some collaboration in discussing what I see as some pretty obvious weaknesses in classical opening principles. Most of which have been discussed by hypermodern's more cogently than either of us have here, thus far. Anyway clearly collaboration is not forthcoming. If you want to believe you've out-argued me effectively and I'm just too dense to understand. Ok. You believe that. 

Everyone seems to agree that opening principles need to be in some sense outgrown; that more experienced players eventually work with some more sophisticated ideas. I've been asking: isn't there some way of phrasing these principles, or adding to them, that encourages that growth, that leads toward increasing sophistication?  Is that a ridiculous question? Is it overweening? I've said some overweening things in this thread, for sure -- a misguided attempt at keeping things lively, I apologize. But is the issue itself ridiculous? I'm just too dense to think it is.

I don't claim to be a groundbreaking chess teacher. I don't claim to teach chess at all except on a very informal and friendly basis. I do claim an interest in discussing "principles" -- and an interest in thinking about what's the right way to teach and learn -- and a strong interest in wondering if some of the things we take for granted, like opening principles, can't be improved on.

Good luck in chess and otherwise. Pity this went so sour. I have my share of the blame, but IMHO, it is shared.

I think immortalgamer has just another view on it, but they're both "right" as they say. There is no right or wrong in this. When we say "is there God or is there not?", well if we're being reasonable, then obviously NOT, but christians out there will be saying "God is real!"

Ok thats completely different (and sort of unrelated). How about a better example?

Proving when the Mayans arrived. Now some archiologists think that they arrived at this date, and some thing they arrived at this date which is like 100,000 years earlier than the other archilogist's date! Theres evidence for both sides. So let them argue.

This is a two sided argument. Great. People can write "Some say this, Some say that, I say this. When you think something through, you can come to the conclusion of which one is "right", but on these complicated (to me its uncomplicated, but theres always another opinion) matters, theres will always be an opposer thinking different, and even though you KNOW your right, you can't do anything about it and come to an agreement.

Now, the other person you are opposing to will think excatly the same thing, and this is what brings people in to say "there is no right or wrong in this case", but there is, i think, one side of the argument that MUST be "better" than the other, unless your talking about religion in which there are some exceptions, like is there one God or TWO Gods, completely no evidence. If your talking about whether any Gods exist, then THAT is comepletely two sided, but you see you KNOW your right, that God doesn't exist. But no, you cannot prove it and therefore you are dead.

The argument here you can prove, both sides have put forward there stuff. Now a Judge to say whose right and wrong is what develops out =). Of course if the judge says this guys right, the opposing guy MAY moan. Ignore him, otherwise the argument could potentially carry on for years.

Labour or Conservatives? Both sides have their advantages and disadvantages. Now this is MASS opinion voting. Can you say which is better or not? If this is possible, someone should do it and put out the results and then everyone can vote on the group, but then this would take out the whole POINT of voting (but if you think about it, getting the CLEVER people to do it would actually be better than democracy, but now we have to find clever people who actually arn't biased and won't get up to anything).

If we could say which one is better after lots of research (Labour or Conservatives), then we should really abandon voting or use the results as an influence (is that illegal?) to make people vote that group.

I'm trying hard to see where they can be improved upon, but I can't think of anything. If there are any "improvements", I'm sure it would only confuse matters for them. People have had more than 100 years to try and improve upon them for beginners, but I still think the same basic "principles" are as effective as ever in guiding beginners into playing fairly solid chess that they can understand. I'm very sure not many will stand a chance of understanding well such "anti-principles" openings like the Najdorf or Scandinavian later in their career without mastering the basic principles 1st. And I have never heard of any serious player who has had a problem with the principles that they learned as a beginner "holding them back" later on in their career..

Sorry, if I'm not really addressing what you were trying to say, but I found it hard not to fall asleep through most of that..

Unlike those examples, JG27Pyth is in the clear minority here (or even on his own) against basically the whole chess world. And so far I don't think he's put forth anything to his cause that we didn't already know.. 

yeah same

ok fair enough i back out of this, but as a defense. I DIDN'T READ ANY OF THE ARGUMENTS, JUST SKIMMED OVER WHAT SEEMED TO BE SOMETHING ABOUT OPENING PRINCIPLES.

Nuclearturkey: I'm trying hard to see where they can be improved upon, but I can't think of anything.

I realize you're being critical there, but you're at least saying, "hey, I thought about it!" Which I appreciate.

JG27Pyth is in the clear minority here (or even on his own) against basically the whole chess world. Can I get back to you on that one. A minority certainly, but I don't think I'm out on a limb quite as far or as alone as that... but I'm typed out on this topic, and need to gather a quote or two.

And so far I don't think he's put forth anything to his cause that we didn't already know...

You're right -- I haven't put forth much in the way of positive new information. But I've had a hell of time getting to the point where it would make sense to do that!

 and SO *siding with the majority*, do you think your more right or we are? xD

Well, I've found some things to back up my points in Capablanca's Fundamentals... and lots of wonderful interesting things in Reti's Modern Ideas in Chess... This whole 'conversation' () has helped me clarify the questions I have a lot. Reti is fantastically helpful. There certainly _are_ additional principles that beginners should appreciate and add to their thinking about the opening... both Capa and Reti give clear additional principles... but no one I've found backs me up on the idea that principles should be phrased carefully so as to encourage a "whole board" mindset-- And no one really backs me up on OPs being "harmful" -- I think that one puts me at odds with all chessdom! But even there I can almost squeeze a sorta-kinda out of Silman. At any rate, I think a close reading of Reti really suggests an interesting way to study the opening. Stay-tuned.

No, it's not. That's not what the principles claim to do. But it's all a beginner usually needs to have a chance of gettng a reasonable position. Principles are just a small part of the game anyways, even someone who is very dogmatic about principles won't find enough to tell him what his plan should be, etc. That's not even their purpose. You're talking about things that relate to planning and responding to threats, which is simply not a priority as a beginner (well not the advanced planning part) and should be learned later which isn't so hard once they get alot better at the basics. Besisdes, most openings don't contradict directly with the pricniples. Do you want me to post variations that DO use the principles so that it doesn't look like every opening contradicts them? Even the hypermodern defences emphasize central control, just indirectly. As I have said it's not that the center isn't strong (because if it wasn't undermined it would be incredibly powerful, just imagine if a beginner did that without knowing how to undermine the center or at least not well!) it's just that it's easy for the fianchettoes to aim at, etc.

! I have yet to play a series of games against an absolute beginner and not see this.

That is how I taught as well back when I was teaching.  Of course in a game like this when you are just typing annotations, I didn't take the time to go into much detail like I do in my chess videos.

You're disgusting.

After reading this thread I am sick to my stomach. You should be ashamed of yourself immortalgamer.

huh? WTF are you talking about

I don't know...

Your absolutely appalling lack of respect and ability when conducting an argument.

so you didn't read the forum...Obviously.  I actually spent quite a bit of time writing a very good argument.  Perhaps you should read it...and I'm still scratching my head as to what you are so bent out of shape about?