ok

Yeah, I know what you mean. I am myself teacher (sports) and I know how important it is that a student trust his teacher. In this case, it is easy for me to trust, as the guy is a GM  and his method is amazing: he is basically interested in the student's thoughts on the game, for example when commenting on critical moments. The games often do not have a "solution", you just have to make decisions and be able to explain why you are playing this specific move. The coach will make sure that the decisions are based on correct foundations. I am very bad in calculation, so I am a little bit afraid to look too silly by exposing my chess ignorance when talking with a strong player. On the other hand I want to get the best from these lessons, really doing everything the guy tell me to do. He told me to go through Neishtadt's Improve Your Chess Tactics: 700 Practical Lessons & Exercises, and I am working with this book, stopping almost all my repertoires books.

 

 

This is an endless source of argument, but both are necessary. You can't win a game at the end, if you can get there with great opening play, if you have no clue how to play end games. Also, you won't ever make it to a winnable end game, if you totally botch the opening every time. 

I agree

Well, a coach can also be also wrong in his methods or goals, or not?

@Pfren's suggestions are excellent.

@torrubirubi

I'm surprised that only two months afterr hiring a great GM coach, you are now strong enough to know that his methods are wrong.

 

Of course, all humans are fallible. But a respected trainer who is also a GM, as you described earlier, should be given the benefit of the doubt unless he exhibited gross negligence in the first two months.

"... a respected trainer who is also a GM, as you described earlier, ..." - SmyslovFan

Where did "respected trainer" come from?

@kindaspongey asked where my "respected trainer" comment came from. It came from basic reading comprehension. It's true, @torrubirubi didn't use those exact words. But it's also true that he showed respect for his trainer in the quote provided.

You know for the longest time i was convimced that even at a level like mine, one must have a complete opening repertoire. After reviewing Capablanca chess career, how he won tournament after tournament in his youth, and how he became world champian. How he lost it due to a bit of bad luck, and how he was robbed of another shot of the title. How he continued to play even so, getting first or second with every tournament he played in, and later taking a break from chess, perhaps because he lost hope (the powers that be didnt allow him to get another shot at the title, for a reason I do not know) . After that his play declined in strengh but he was still a great player among the elite. After re-reading skyes post on cognative learning and having read about Capablanca, and having read that he himself said endgame should be studied first, I am left to decide that i was way wrong about my previous assessment, that one must develop an opening repertoire at an early level. I even wrote a long reply to someone about it, which i should go back and recant. I am now a firm believer that one must study endgame first, especially after learning what i learned about Jose Casablanca. He was playing chess at times of war. We are playing chess where there is no all out war, but some hot spots, which is a cakewalk compared to having to play chess during WW1 and WW2. In a time where one would most likely pick up other skills that will better suit the times, Jose Capablanca chpse chess, and played in a way that i am told was above what most people did not understand at the time.

Thats not the only reason why i repented from my wayward journey of studying openings on chessable before anything else. I have other reasons.

I didnt get much out of chessable. First i couldnt stick with any space repetition i would normally take long breaks. Thats probably not the fault of chessable, but at the same time, i noticed i lost in a lot of positions that i studied on chessable i just lost to better play by my opponent.

I didnt have a good run with Chessable thus far, but I do plan on studying endgames before anything else, but when I do lose in an opening that I do not know very well right now, instead of consulting Chessable, right now, I am just going to look up master games played in that opening, trying to understand the ideas behind the moves played, rather than memorizing openings lines from a training program. I will pick about 10 games to study, cut and paste the pgns on a note document, print it out, and yes, go over the games over the board. I will do this, because a lot of good chess players told me to, and it’s time I listen to them, rather than myself, who is still a novice by many peoples standards.

I will also find time to study Capablancas games while I am learning endgame. I decided not to touch Chessable anymore until or if I become a 2000 fide rated player. I’m late in the game I know, but I was misguided before, even more than other people I have been anonymously criticizing here on chess.com. But skye, and Casablanca, and Rogue-King, lead me to the right direction. That’s for your valuable words skye, and though we might even still disagree with certain things, I believe we now agree on the most important one for now. Thanks, and I hope both of us can improve our own chess. Good Luck!!

"... The game might be divided into three parts, i.e.:- 1. The opening. 2. The middle-game. 3. The end-game. There is one thing you must strive for, to be equally efficient in the three parts. Whether you are a strong or a weak player, you should try to be of equal strength in the three parts. ..." - Capablanca

https://www.chess.com/article/view/how-to-start-out-in-chess

https://www.chess.com/blog/Natalia_Pogonina/book-review-quotjourney-to-the-chess-kingdomquot

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

One can see a Pachman sample at:

http://store.doverpublications.com/0486202909.html

you must know first type of endgame u like, then match it by middle then opening, after all middle provide positional and tactical view for endgame but opening give u right amount pieces for middle to do that. conclusion study triple basic at the same time

you must know first type of endgame u like, then match it by middle then opening, after all middle provide positional and tactical view for endgame but opening give u right amount pieces for middle to do that. conclusion study triple basic at the same time

It might be of interest to look at the table of contents of A COMPLETE CHESS COURSE by Antonio Gude: "... 3 Openings and Basic Principles 33 ... 4 Putting Your Pieces to Work 52 ... 5 Strategy and Tactics 76 ... 6 Endgame Play and Further Openings 106 … 7 Combinations and Tactical Themes 128 ... 8 Attacking Play 163 ... 9 Your First Opening Repertoire 194 …"
http://www.gambitbooks.com/pdfs/A_Complete_Chess_Course.pdf

"... I feel that the main reasons to buy an opening book are to give a good overview of the opening, and to explain general plans and ideas. ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)

"... for those that want to be as good as they can be, they'll have to work hard.
Play opponents who are better than you … . Learn basic endgames. Create a simple opening repertoire (understanding the moves are far more important than memorizing them). Study tactics. And pick up tons of patterns. That’s the drumbeat of success. ..." - IM Jeremy Silman (December 27, 2018)
https://www.chess.com/article/view/little-things-that-help-your-game

 

When you look at a building, you see the superstructure, not the base or foundation.

When you look at a chess set with pieces in the starting position, you are seeing the outer walls of an unplayed game. As you give the game architecture, you work from the outside in. If you are not too unsuccessful, you come to the foundation--the endgame. It is there that many players are revealed to have had defective plans for the structure.

Build your foundation by starting at the end and working towards the beginning.

Of course, mastery takes time, so you must study in cycles with attention given to all phases of the game in a repeating pattern. 

Exactly. 

Un note personal: je vois que vous êtes de Paris. J'y voyageais fréquemment pendant les années quatre-vingts-dix. Une fois, je passais par les rues du 14ème et j'ai vu par la fenêtre des gens jouant aux échecs. Un d'eux m'a aperçu et il m'a invité d'entrer. J'ai joué plusieurs parties là dedans et les membres étaient tous très sympa. Les échecs...une langue universelle. Je vous prie de pardonner mes fautes de grammaire et d'orthographe. Mon français est devenu horrible, parce que je ne l'utilise guère depuis 1997.