This book might interest you. It can help you identify areas that need improvement, and the process of working through the book in itself should improve your chess.
What to study?
Sort:
I didn't know about the castling/pawn break thing to describe the middlegame. I thought that "the middlegame" was a term created by commentators/analyzers/kibitzers to simply say that the players were now out of their opening theory. It's useful to me when I see people commentate GM games in real time for them to say "we're still in the opening" or 'We're still in theory" meaning "The players are still playing moves they have memorized". When someone players out of book then both players need to make a plan and the middlegame starts.
There are exceptions to this, for example in the Sicilian there are lines that of theory that go all the way to the end game or into a deep middlegame and its fair to say that when players aren't developing pieces anymore the opening is probably over. In other cases, if players play extremely weird such that by move 4 they are out of theory, then they are probably still in the opening because barely any pieces are out. But most of the time, I've associated "the opening" with memorized/theoretical moves.
DeirdreSkye wrote:
BobbyTalparov wrote:
fieldsofforce wrote:
Here is the sequence: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bd3 e6. Prove that you know this variation of the Sicilian Najdorf Scheveningen Style the English Attack. That you know why Black's move 6...e6 is Black's first movee of the middlegame and yet it is not the execution of a pawn break.
See I can find obscure examples of exceptions to the pawn break rule too.
Not to speak for @DeirdreSkye, but this line is one I play often from the black side, and 6. .. e6 is still in the opening!
The middle game doesn't start to form until roughly move 12 in this line.
Very true and it is well known that all opening books examine the move 6...e6 as an opening move. It's not only opening , it's the beggining of one of the 3 main lines(6...e5 and 6...Ng4 are the other 2)
____________________
Sorry there is typo in my post. The correct move sequence is 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e6. Notice that White's 6th move is 6.Be3 NOT 6.Bd3.
Now can you please try again.
BobbyTalparov wrote:
fieldsofforce wrote:
Here is the sequence: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bd3 e6. Prove that you know this variation of the Sicilian Najdorf Scheveningen Style the English Attack. That you know why Black's move 6...e6 is Black's first movee of the middlegame and yet it is not the execution of a pawn break.
See I can find obscure examples of exceptions to the pawn break rule too.
Not to speak for @DeirdreSkye, but this line is one I play often from the black side, and 6. .. e6 is still in the opening!
The middle game doesn't start to form until roughly move 12 in this line.
_____________________
Sorry there is typo in my post. The correct move sequence is 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e6. Notice that White's 6th move is 6.Be3 NOT 6.Bd3.
Now can you please try again.
DeirdreSkye wrote (~38 minutes ago):
… The line 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bd3 e6 is not English attack. I will assume that 6.Bd3 was a typo and you meant 6.Be3(happens to all of us). …
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
kindaspongey wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote (~38 minutes ago):
… The line 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bd3 e6 is not English attack. I will assume that 6.Bd3 was a typo and you meant 6.Be3(happens to all of us). …
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
_______________________
If you can't contribute something informative or helpful shut up. Anyone can download the reams of internet chess info. that you waste everybodys time with.
BobbyTalparov wrote:
fieldsofforce wrote:
BobbyTalparov wrote:
fieldsofforce wrote:
Here is the sequence: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bd3 e6. Prove that you know this variation of the Sicilian Najdorf Scheveningen Style the English Attack. That you know why Black's move 6...e6 is Black's first movee of the middlegame and yet it is not the execution of a pawn break.
See I can find obscure examples of exceptions to the pawn break rule too.
Not to speak for @DeirdreSkye, but this line is one I play often from the black side, and 6. .. e6 is still in the opening!
The middle game doesn't start to form until roughly move 12 in this line.
_____________________
Sorry there is typo in my post. The correct move sequence is 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e6. Notice that White's 6th move is 6.Be3 NOT 6.Bd3.
Now can you please try again.
Correcting your typo doesn't change much. The middle game in the English Attack still starts around move 12 when both sides have finished development (at least the development they will be doing for a while anyway).
_______________________________
Well if you want to disagree with GM John Nunn you go ahead. In his book "The Sicilian Najdorf", GM John Nunn. He states quite clearly that the move 6...e6 reduces the plans of attack that White has available against Black's position by almost half.
You must be making fun of me. With all of the technical knowledge that I have about chess. Do you really think that my rating could possibly be what it says on this site. Whoever put that number on my must be on drugs. I mean how many players rated 800 know anything about pawn breaks or any of the other things that I have discussed with youall.
[COMMENT DELETED]
kindaspongey wrote:
"... The five endings analysed are … N+P v N, N+P v B, B+P v B, B+P v N and 2B v N. …" - GM John Nunn (1995, page 5 of Secrets of Minor-Piece Endings)
_____________________
Sorry I should f have cited, "The Sicilian Najdorf", by GM John Nunn
Jun 15, 2018
0
#32
xman720 wrote:
I love how whenever anybody makes a "I want to get to 2000" thread on chess.com looking for advice, anybody but 2000+ players respond to the thread.
LOL you hit the nail
BobbyTalparov wrote:
fieldsofforce wrote:
BobbyTalparov wrote:
fieldsofforce wrote:
BobbyTalparov wrote:
fieldsofforce wrote:
Here is the sequence: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bd3 e6. Prove that you know this variation of the Sicilian Najdorf Scheveningen Style the English Attack. That you know why Black's move 6...e6 is Black's first movee of the middlegame and yet it is not the execution of a pawn break.
See I can find obscure examples of exceptions to the pawn break rule too.
Not to speak for @DeirdreSkye, but this line is one I play often from the black side, and 6. .. e6 is still in the opening!
The middle game doesn't start to form until roughly move 12 in this line.
_____________________
Sorry there is typo in my post. The correct move sequence is 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e6. Notice that White's 6th move is 6.Be3 NOT 6.Bd3.
Now can you please try again.
Correcting your typo doesn't change much. The middle game in the English Attack still starts around move 12 when both sides have finished development (at least the development they will be doing for a while anyway).
_______________________________
Well if you want to disagree with GM John Nunn you go ahead. In his book "The Sicilian Najdorf", GM John Nunn. He states quite clearly that the move 6...e6 reduces the plans of attack that White has available against Black's position by almost half.
LOL. First of all, you are trying to quote the wrong book. Second, 1. e4 reduces half of black's attacking plans as well, yet it is quite obviously the opening. Nunn is not claiming it is the start of the middle game. Rather he is discussing why you would choose e6 over other options. I suggest you finish reading the books and understand them before you start trying to spread your misunderstanding. Your new kick regarding pawn breaks starting the middle game is almost as accurate as claiming the Pirc/Modern was refuted because it does not occupy the center last year.
_____________________________
It is you that doesn't understand. When Nunn references White's attacking plans against Black's position he is talking middlegame. Black's move 6...e6 reduces White's attacking plans in the middlegame by almost half. That my friend is counterplay on the part of Black in the middlegame. White is not going to magically restore the misssing attacking plans. I don't have any new kick about pawn breaks. And stop attributing to me any claim whatsoever including this latest one about the Pirc/Modern. You hAVE ME CONFUSED WITH SOMEONE ELSE.
The one that is getting disrespect is you from me. Even though yours is not explicitly stated, it is there. and I totally reject it.
I HAVE FORGOTTEN MORE ABOUT CHESS THAN YOU WILL EVER KNOW. Get a grip on reality. GM Ron Henley and I lived together in Orlando. I learned a tremendous lot from him about chess. Certainly alot more than you will ever know.
You need to learn alot about chess. I will be glad to see If Mr. Henley will hellp you out. After all he was only Anatoly Karpov's second in the 1990 World Championship in New York vs. Garry Kasparov.
CoffeeAnd420 wrote:
I've asked this before but I'm still left curious: What is the advantage of learning openings (or anything at this point) via a traditional, physical book than an ebook side by side with a board on your laptop or training videos, etc? Is there some advantage to spending study time away from technology? I know you need to play OTB regularly but I'm specifically referring to study time.
I've never particularly studied openings, but it looks like everyone else is pre-occupied with arguments so I will try to help.
The idea with physical books isn't to learn the opening from them. These books are written by authors who explain all of the openings with their ideas and plans, so hopefully you have an idea of what to do in each position.
Personally, I think that low rated players tend to hugely underestimate the volume of existing opening theory when they think that opening theory will solve their problems, which is a lot of what I have seen in this thread. You have to understand that in the vast majority of opening theory that's out there, you're going to have hundreds of branches which end in things like "And now with a 3 on 2 pawn majority, white as a clearly game winning advantage". The problem is, unless you're a GM and you can actually use that advantage to win, none of the opening theory has helped you. That's why high rated players always say wait to learn opening theory. Unless you are very good at converting and maintaining advantages, you can't do anything with the advantages you get by playing a better opening. The opening theory and preparation advantage is critical among top GMs, but only because a small advantage is enough for them to beat each other.
With that in mind, I do think tactical training and playing games is the way to go for a long time. In my example, out of the 10 or so losses I've had out of my 20 or so games in the last 2 weeks, about half of them were because I dropped a piece, literally just placed it onto an attacked square in 15|10 time control, or simply did not see a move my opponent could play, as it didn't realize it was a legal move. I am rated 1550 standard and this happens all the time. With blunders of that magnitude happening in 1/2 of games 1550 standard players play, whether or not you can get a positional advantage like an isolated queen pawn or a 3 vs 2 majority in the opening is pretty irrelevant.
So returning to your original question, I am hesitant of the value of study time in general, but I certainly think learning ideas is more important than learning moves, and a book by a good player will help you with the former. Ultimately, whatever you can stick to regularly for the rest of your life is the best way to improve at chess. Saying you will study 2 hours of openings every day can be as silly as saying you will lose weight by promising to walk 5 miles every day and never eat cookies again. It's important to just do something that's fun and sustainable and don't turn your hobby of chess into a chore, but keep it delightfully challenging to your status quo.
CoffeeAnd420 wrote:
… the entire point of learning the theory is to realize and convert an advantage ...
What about avoiding lines that result in difficult positions?
"... Review each of your games, identifying opening (and other) mistakes with the goal of not repeatedly making the same mistake. ... It is especially critical not to continually fall into opening traps – or even lines that result in difficult positions ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2007)https://web.archive.org/web/20140627062646/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman81.pdf
fieldsofforce wrote:
… I HAVE FORGOTTEN MORE ABOUT CHESS THAN YOU WILL EVER KNOW. ...
I wonder how many will see this as a historical reference. If I remember correctly, a defender of Staunton made a comment along those lines in connection with the attempt of Morphy to get a match.
CoffeeAnd420 wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
CoffeeAnd420 wrote:
… the entire point of learning the theory is to realize and convert an advantage ...
What about avoiding lines that result in difficult positions?
"... Review each of your games, identifying opening (and other) mistakes with the goal of not repeatedly making the same mistake. ... It is especially critical not to continually fall into opening traps – or even lines that result in difficult positions ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2007)https://web.archive.org/web/20140627062646/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman81.pdf
... nobody (probably globally) is more obsessed with the opening than you. ...
Is there a specific kindaspongey sentence that indicates obsession with the opening?
CoffeeAnd420 wrote:
… That you're spending the amount of time you are on openings currently is absolute madness. ...
How much time do you think I am currently spending on openings? Based on what?
DeirdreSkye wrote:
fieldsofforce wrote:
BobbyTalparov wrote:
fieldsofforce wrote:
BobbyTalparov wrote:
fieldsofforce wrote:
Here is the sequence: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bd3 e6. Prove that you know this variation of the Sicilian Najdorf Scheveningen Style the English Attack. That you know why Black's move 6...e6 is Black's first movee of the middlegame and yet it is not the execution of a pawn break.
See I can find obscure examples of exceptions to the pawn break rule too.
Not to speak for @DeirdreSkye, but this line is one I play often from the black side, and 6. .. e6 is still in the opening!
The middle game doesn't start to form until roughly move 12 in this line.
_____________________
Sorry there is typo in my post. The correct move sequence is 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e6. Notice that White's 6th move is 6.Be3 NOT 6.Bd3.
Now can you please try again.
Correcting your typo doesn't change much. The middle game in the English Attack still starts around move 12 when both sides have finished development (at least the development they will be doing for a while anyway).
_______________________________
Well if you want to disagree with GM John Nunn you go ahead. In his book "The Sicilian Najdorf", GM John Nunn. He states quite clearly that the move 6...e6 reduces the plans of attack that White has available against Black's position by almost half.
So it's not that you are not reading , it's that you are incapable to understand what you are reading. Again , I can't say I am surprised.
First, there is no book called "The Sicilian Najdorf" written by Nunn. There are 2 books called "Complete Najdorf" one deals exclusively with 6.Bg5 and the other with "Modern Lines". I don't have the "Modern Lines" book so I don't know what Nunn says and since you have lied before I am pretty sure Nunn says something else.
But let's assume you are right and Nunn indeed says:
".......the move 6...e6 reduces the plans of attack that White has available against Black's position by almost half."
I have no idea what Nunn means , if he indeed says that. White's plan of attack is specific either against 6...e6 or against 6...e5(6...Ng4 is different). White wants to play f3-Qd2 castle long and attack k-side.Of course the positions with 6...e6 are very different from the position with 6...e5. Of course some white choices available with 6...e6 are not available with 6...e5. But black's choices are also reduced. Choices he has with 6...e5 are not available with 6...e6.
Overall , any move we play in the opening affect the choices of both sides , that doesn't make it middlegame though.
If for example after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Black decides to play the Petroff(2...Nf6) that limits white's options by more than 80%(eliminates the option of Italian , Ruy Lopez ,2 knights defense, 3 knights and Evans gambit). Does that mean 1.e5 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 is already middlegame?
____________________
So many words. It is simple. When GM Nunn is writing about White's plans of attack and them being reduced by almost half because of 6...e6 he is writing about middlegame plans of attack.
The half of the middlegame plans of attack that were eliminated by 6...e6 aren't going to magically reappear. See just that simple. Instead you want to throw a blizzard of words of confusion on the matter. That is because you don't understand.
BobbyTalparov wrote:
fieldsofforce wrote:
It is you that doesn't understand. When Nunn references White's attacking plans against Black's position he is talking middlegame. Black's move 6...e6 reduces White's attacking plans in the middlegame by almost half.
Yes, your opening choices affect what can happen in the middle game. This is Chess 101. That does not mean he is claiming it is the middle game (and you will not find Nunn stating anywhere "this is where the middle game starts ... right here ... this move ...").
fieldsofforce wrote:
That my friend is counterplay on the part of Black in the middlegame. White is not going to magically restore the misssing attacking plans.
If you are going to throw out buzz words, you will want to make sure you use them correct. In the words of Luke Skywalker, "Amazing! Everything you just said is wrong!"
fieldsofforce wrote:
I don't have any new kick about pawn breaks. And stop attributing to me any claim whatsoever including this latest one about the Pirc/Modern. You hAVE ME CONFUSED WITH SOMEONE ELSE.
Oh, really? You realize the neat thing about the Internet is that nothing is ever deleted, right? Like the message you sent to challenge me at the US Open (which, by the way, you never showed up for, but that is fine) after writing this on April 17, 2017:
"I play hypermodern chess when the position calls for it. But, 1e4 g6 2.d4 is suicidal chess I don't play"
fieldsofforce wrote:
The one that is getting disrespect is you from me. Even though yours is not explicitly stated, it is there. and I totally reject it.
I'm sure this made sense in your head ...
fieldsofforce wrote:
I HAVE FORGOTTEN MORE ABOUT CHESS THAN YOU WILL EVER KNOW. Get a grip on reality. GM Ron Henley and I lived together in Orlando. I learned a tremendous lot from him about chess. Certainly alot more than you will ever know.
You need to learn alot about chess. I will be glad to see If Mr. Henley will hellp you out. After all he was only Anatoly Karpov's second in the 1990 World Championship in New York vs. Garry Kasparov.
And this was the same pattern you resorted to last year whenever you were proven incorrect. While I agree there is a lot about chess I am eager to learn - the difference between you and me: you read and jump on the forums to say "Hey, look at this new idea I just learned ... I can apply it incorrectly over here. Isn't that great!?"
___________________________
So many words. It is simple. When GM Nunn is writing about White's plans of attack and them being reduced by almost half because of 6...e6 he is writing about middlegame plans of attack.
The half of the middlegame plans of attack that were eliminated by 6...e6 aren't going to magically reappear. See just that simple. Instead you want to throw a blizzard of words of confusion on the matter. That is because you don't understand.
Page 142 of Learn Chess.