jambyvedar wrote:
That is Kasparov's advice.
I wonder if he actually followed it
Typical advice given to beginners you all disagree with most
Sort:
RaoSiyuan wrote:
yeah, as a beginner, I always think that my openings moves is for a comfortable castle ....
So step outside the comfort zone a little, what's the worst that will happen here?
tipish wrote:
agree with OP castling early means your opponent will castle to queen side and start a pawn storm. or he will start his attack right away without even spending time to castle. look how MVL destroyed Aronian just like that recently.
True
Prashant_1947 wrote:
In my every game castling leads to positional games which most often end up with pawn endgame (which i play horribly bad) so without casteling when my opponent play h3 or h6 i just push g pawn forward.
Me too, and pretty much any game where I play passively unless the opponent is even less into it.
PowerofHope wrote:
Stop sandbagging.
If you refrain from sugarbowling.
IMBacon wrote:
always take your time and evaluate all “pros” and “cons”and base your decision upon your own analysis. This is a very important decision. It pretty much dictates which way the game will continue. Take your time and think twice.
This part I agree with for sure.
Never resign!
When I say that, I'm referring to over the board games, not internet blitz. If you are down a pawn, or an exchange, and have some feasible form of counter-play, even if it entails exercising the bluff tactic, then sure, play on. If you are in a lost position that warrants making your opponent prove he knows what he's doing, like Bishop and Knight versus lone King or Lucena's position, then sure, play on.
But you are down a Rook and a Knight for zero compensation and zero counterplay, like R+2N+7P vs B+6P, no passer for the latter player, no pin or fork or any immediate way to win any material back other than maybe a hanging pawn if it is the second player's turn, then said second player SHOULD RESIGN! You learn nothing from playing on such positions, unlike say, being a pawn down, where you might actually learn something from your opponent beating you, like how to win technically won positions that aren't blatantly obvious to an 800 player. If you can't win up a full Rook and Knight without any compensation for the opponent, chess ain't your game. Take up Tic-Tac-Toe! It's simpler!
NukeYourChess wrote:
May I add that it depends on the opening system? Ruy Lopez castle early
Maybe. (Why did you post and close your account?)
stanhope13 wrote:
If it was that important to move the rook to a central file without impairing O-O later, maybe. It still seems early and the knights/pawns can probably do more.
ThrillerFan wrote:
Never resign!
When I say that, I'm referring to over the board games, not internet blitz. If you are down a pawn, or an exchange, and have some feasible form of counter-play, even if it entails exercising the bluff tactic, then sure, play on. If you are in a lost position that warrants making your opponent prove he knows what he's doing, like Bishop and Knight versus lone King or Lucena's position, then sure, play on.
But you are down a Rook and a Knight for zero compensation and zero counterplay, like R+2N+7P vs B+6P, no passer for the latter player, no pin or fork or any immediate way to win any material back other than maybe a hanging pawn if it is the second player's turn, then said second player SHOULD RESIGN! You learn nothing from playing on such positions, unlike say, being a pawn down, where you might actually learn something from your opponent beating you, like how to win technically won positions that aren't blatantly obvious to an 800 player. If you can't win up a full Rook and Knight without any compensation for the opponent, chess ain't your game. Take up Tic-Tac-Toe! It's simpler!
Yes, it primarily depends on how long the game is. Some players are offended when you don't resign in a 3 min 0 second blitz (even if you're winning!)
stanhope13 wrote:
The golden rule is there are no golden rules.
Yes. Some people cling to these tenets rather than regard them as guidelines.
Piperose wrote:
Typical advice given to beginners you(I) all disagree with most:
Just keep playing.
(without analyzing, without seeking the opinions/thoughts of your opponent, without a moment of pause or reflection).
Yes, balancing theory and practice is important (in all areas of life).
Typical advice given to beginners that I disagree with most:
Study opening
because opening is just development of pieces.I recommend coachers or parents to teach endgame because it is very important u cant play endgame without studying .
rychessmaster1 wrote:
Don’t move the same piece twice
That's the one I was going to say.
SeniorPatzer wrote:
rychessmaster1 wrote:
Don’t move the same piece twice
That's the one I was going to say.
"Dont move the same piece twice..."unless you have to"
rychessmaster1 wrote:
Don’t move the same piece twice
Which keeps a great many people from playing the Alekhine defense!
lord_of_india wrote:
Typical advice given to beginners that I disagree with most:
Study opening
because opening is just development of pieces.I recommend coachers or parents to teach endgame because it is very important u cant play endgame without studying .
I believe the puzzles on chess.com and other sites don't include enough opening tactics. You are correct that endgame study is far more instructive, but without strong opening moves you may not even reach that point in a game.
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Concrete calculation should always be a player's primary concern.
Yes! (But don't lose sight of the forest for the trees or whatever)
You calculate your way to some pattern or scheme you recognize. The more you recognize, the better. But when you are low-level player, how do you most efficiently learn to recognize that particular themes that may come up in a novel position in the course of your concrete calculation?
Silman, for instance, says play through thousands of quality games at a fast pace to subliminally absorb patterns, which doesn’t seem to work for music or writing (I have listened to a lot of music and read a lot throughout my life, but can’t write music or literature terribly well). Others say tactics. Others say endgame. Others say annotated games. Others say read about ideas in your opening. Others say do a little bit of each.
Silman, for instance, says play through thousands of quality games at a fast pace to subliminally absorb patterns, which doesn’t seem to work for music or writing (I have listened to a lot of music and read a lot throughout my life, but can’t write music or literature terribly well). Others say tactics. Others say endgame. Others say annotated games. Others say read about ideas in your opening. Others say do a little bit of each.
Stupid advice for beginners: Don't bother to learn openings. True insanity.