DeirdreSkye wrote:
... Seirawan when asked for pre-tournament GM opening preparation said:
" First I want to know ...
Does pre-tournament GM opening preparation have much relevance to someone who is wondering about starting chess study?
studying Endgame first, or Openings.
Sort:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
... endgames ... help players develop a proper thinking process and they are the best possible exercise for the brain. ...
Are you getting into the best-way-almost-military-discipline thing again? Is such a thing appropriate for all levels of players with all sorts of ambitions, talents, resources, etc.?
DeirdreSkye wrote:
... The one that can rely in his thinking has nothing to fear while the one that relies in opening theory has a lot ot fear. ...
Is anyone in this thread advocating that a player neglect thinking and rely only on opening theory?
DeirdreSkye wrote:
... a woman that knows no openings yet she never gets a bad opening position. ...
If something works for this woman, will it necessarily work for all others?
DeirdreSkye wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
... endgames ... help players develop a proper thinking process and they are the best possible exercise for the brain. ...
Are you getting into the best-way-almost-military-discipline thing again? Is such a thing appropriate for all levels of players with all sorts of ambitions, talents, resources, etc.?
I gave an example of a 35 year old woman. She just followed some simple guidelines.That's the only "military discipline" chess needs ...
Is this one of the students of that teacher who is so good at producing titled players?
Silman's Complete Endgame Course: From Beginner to Master
I have come to the conclusion it is better to start with the end game.
Then: International Chess Tournament 1953 (Bronstein)
The Art of the Middle Game - Keres/Kotov
Play like a Grandmaster - Kotov
Then look at openings, which you can either do by site databases or specialised books.
DeirdreSkye wrote:
... it is your superior understanding and endgame technique that will earn you titles.
Does it make sense to be thinking about earning titles, if one is wondering about starting chess study?
Mar 3, 2018
0
#109
DeirdreSkye wrote:
I believe endgames apply in every phase of the game because they help players develop a proper thinking process and they are the best possible exercise for the brain. The one that can rely in his thinking has nothing to fear while the one that relies in opening theory has a lot ot fear.
I completely agree.
My only qualm is with the argument that endgame study should precede opening study (or replace it entirely).
To me, studying both is far more beneficial. I find it more restrictive to intentionally neglect any aspect of the game.
I also find that some endgame proponents misrepresent opening study by dismissing it as mere memorization or learning by blind rote.
Good opening study enhances understanding of how to efficiently place your pawns and pieces, much like good endgame study.
Your example game shows me a player who's learned solid opening principles through trial and error—and while there's nothing wrong with that approach, there are many players (like my nephew) who might take years before they come to such a level of understanding.
Knowing to castle after the king knight and king bishop have been developed, knowing to develop the queen bishop and queen knight, knowing to use the c-pawn to challenge black's center, all done with specific purpose and without wasting moves—these are things that most beginners simply wouldn't grasp on their own.
It's more common to a see a beginner move the same piece many times, such as the queen, or bring the rook out via h3, then plop it on e3, thinking "It's pointing at black's king, so that's a good opening, right?"
Or, they could have the logic of sound opening principles explained to them, and grasped, within a few short months.
There's many ways to skin a cat, granted, and on a long enough timeline, most players will reach such a level of competency that it probably doesn't matter too much in the end how they got there.
But I believe that, if efficiency is important, it's best to learn a little of each phase as a player goes, rather than focusing on one in neglect of another.
DeirdreSkye wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
... endgames ... help players develop a proper thinking process and they are the best possible exercise for the brain. ...
Are you getting into the best-way-almost-military-discipline thing again? Is such a thing appropriate for all levels of players with all sorts of ambitions, talents, resources, etc.?
I gave an example of a 35 year old woman. She just followed some simple guidelines.That's the only "military discipline" chess needs ...
Is this one of the students of that teacher who is so good at producing titled players?
Actually she is a product of her own efforts. She watched a couple of lectures , she discussed with a couple of good players and that was it more or less. My teacher gave her some guidelines but it was 100% her accomplishment. ...
And the result of work planned after consulting with a trainer?
DeirdreSkye wrote:
... The important is that she analysed her games and learned from her mistakes. ...
Did this perhaps involve consulting what others had done?
DeirdreSkye wrote:
... The important is that she analysed her games and learned from her mistakes. Does this work to everyone? I don't know since ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[COMMENT DELETED]
DeirdreSkye wrote:
... Elementary checkmates and fundamental endgames are important for everyone. Either you start study or you are an experienced player , you need to know them. A beginner all he needs to know about opening is principles while he has to do some serious study in endgames. ...
Notice the word, "simplest", in this quote from Averbakh's Chess Endings Essential Knowledge:
"... the study of the simplest endings should precede the analysis of the openings and the middlegame."
Also:
"I conceived the idea of writing a popular booklet devoted to the endgame back in the early 1950s, when I was working on an encyclopaedic reference work intended for players of high standard. Out of the mass of information on the endgame, I thought it was important to select the minimum which any chess enthusiast should know in order to handle competently the concluding phase of the game. It turned out that it was not necessary to know such a great deal."
Rat1960 wrote:
Silman's Complete Endgame Course: From Beginner to Master
I have come to the conclusion it is better to start with the end game.
Then: International Chess Tournament 1953 (Bronstein)
The Art of the Middle Game - Keres/Kotov
Play like a Grandmaster - Kotov
Then look at openings, ...
"... if you have just learned to play, all you need to study is the section designed for beginners (Part One). After mastering the material there, put [Silman's Complete Endgame Course] away and spend your time studying tactics and a few strategic concepts, ..." - IM Jeremy Silmam (2007)
"... If you are reading this section, you either are a class 'D' player, or you have learned all the material in the first two parts and wish to use this additional knowledge to help you break into the '1200-club.' By this time you know a few openings, you have a reasonable grasp of tactics, and you've learned a positional concept or two. ..." - IM Jeremy Silman on page 56 of his endgame course
"... lower rated players will get something useful out of [the first section by Golombek] ..., [Kotov's 'Strategy and Tactics of Attack on the King' and 'Various Pawn Positions in the Center'] will be enjoyed by Class B and A players ... the two Keres’ offerings: 'How to Defend Difficult Positions' and 'The Art of Analysis.' ... are advanced, and I think that players of expert strength and higher will get the most out of them (actually, 'The Art of Analysis' is for senior masters, IMs, and grandmasters). ..." - IM Jeremy Silman, reviewing The Art of the Middle Game
http://www.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/Art-of-the-Middlegame-The-77p3554.htm
DeirdreSkye wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
... Elementary checkmates and fundamental endgames are important for everyone. Either you start study or you are an experienced player , you need to know them. A beginner all he needs to know about opening is principles while he has to do some serious study in endgames. ...
Notice the word, "simplest", in this quote from Averbakh's Chess Endings Essential Knowledge:
"... the study of the simplest endings should precede the analysis of the openings and the middlegame."
Also:
"I conceived the idea of writing a popular booklet devoted to the endgame back in the early 1950s, when I was working on an encyclopaedic reference work intended for players of high standard. Out of the mass of information on the endgame, I thought it was important to select the minimum which any chess enthusiast should know in order to handle competently the concluding phase of the game. It turned out that it was not necessary to know such a great deal."
The second quote is for "chess enthusiasts" a broad term that covers everyone. From the guy that wants to beat his dad to the guy that wants to improve his on line rating by 100 points. ...
Perhaps we agree that appropriate advice depends on a lot of factors, including the ambitions of the player.
DeirdreSkye wrote:
... "Many instructional books begin with an explanation of the rules and
follow this explanation with a section on opening theory, thereby
beguiling beginners with the notion of being able to play correctly the first
10 to 15 moves of a game. So tempting and ultimately so wrong!
Unfortunately, opening theory is based on subtleties that can be grasped
only by strong players. A weak player may be able to parrot opening
variations, but he does not understand them. And since understanding —
as evinced by thoughtful play — is the goal of every chess player, it
follows that rote play is harmful. Players ought to know the purpose of
every move that they make. What happens otherwise is the common case
of amateurs who waste their time and energy memorizing opening
variations, only to stumble pitifully the moment an opponent makes a
move — good or bad — that is not in the books. Such well-booked
amateurs are helpless even in simple positions." ...
Is anyone in this thread advocating that one "parrot opening variations"?
DeirdreSkye wrote:
... "For a beginner, the
assimilation of these principles(opening), along with assiduous study of middlegame
and ending play, will prove quite enough to put up a good fight in most
games."
"... For beginning players, [Discovering Chess Openings by GM John Emms] will offer an opportunity to start out on the right foot and really get a feel for what is happening on the board. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2006)
SteamGear wrote:
troy7915 wrote:
That ‘one defense’ becomes quickly 32, 40, 80 lines. Scheveningen amounts to over 300 lines for me. Then you have Najdorf, Ruy Lopez, or KID as the response to 1. d4. Hundreds of lines with just ‘one’ innocent defense.
In response to 93.
Studying openings doesn't mean "learn every possible line in existence". That'd be an insurmountable approach.
One can start with basic principles, then move toward understanding the basic thematic ideas and goals in a few key openings/defenses of choice.
In any case, some sort of opening study is required, lest you have a player sitting on move 1, scratching their head, having no clue what to do.
Case in point: My nephew (a beginner in every sense of the word) started by studying king+rook endgames.
In the opening? He has always opened with 1. h4, and 1...h5
The reason? When asked, he said it's because he wants to get his rook out first, so he can use it like he's done in his endgames.
Here's an example where the necessity of learning at least some basic opening principles would be (and have been) entirely beneficial to the player.
Every line in your chosen repertoire must be known. Openings are very specific: principles are for the lazy who just want to get by without specific study.
troy7915 wrote:
SteamGear wrote:
troy7915 wrote:
That ‘one defense’ becomes quickly 32, 40, 80 lines. Scheveningen amounts to over 300 lines for me. Then you have Najdorf, Ruy Lopez, or KID as the response to 1. d4. Hundreds of lines with just ‘one’ innocent defense.
In response to 93.
Studying openings doesn't mean "learn every possible line in existence". That'd be an insurmountable approach.
One can start with basic principles, then move toward understanding the basic thematic ideas and goals in a few key openings/defenses of choice.
In any case, some sort of opening study is required, ...
Every line in your chosen repertoire must be known. Openings are very specific: principles are for the lazy who just want to get by without specific study.
"... 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 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)
"... 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)
... In My opinion , if you love opening , you study endgame.
I can show you many examples that prove that endgame helps you understand opening but I will only tell you that all misunderstandings in opening are result of poor endgame understanding. ...
Notice the word, "simplest", in this quote from Averbakh's Chess Endings Essential Knowledge:
"... the study of the simplest endings should precede the analysis of the openings and the middlegame."
Also:
"I conceived the idea of writing a popular booklet devoted to the endgame back in the early 1950s, when I was working on an encyclopaedic reference work intended for players of high standard. Out of the mass of information on the endgame, I thought it was important to select the minimum which any chess enthusiast should know in order to handle competently the concluding phase of the game. It turned out that it was not necessary to know such a great deal."