What to study?

Sort:
Avatar of fieldsofforce
DeirdreSkye wrote:
fieldsofforce wrote:

 

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.

   It is very simple indeed. You are incapable to understand even the simplest thing.

   Stop mentioning Ron Henley.  He has nothing to do with the nonsense you say. I'm sure he tried to teach you something as I am also sure he eventually realised you are a lost case. Of course he didn't tell you that. He probably told you something like:

"I have to move to Jamaica because my mother in law has Alice-in-Wonderland syndrome."

 

I have known Ron Henley since 1975.  And you don't know what you are talking about.  Shut up about my friend Ron.  

 

Avatar of fieldsofforce
DeirdreSkye wrote:
fieldsofforce wrote:
DeirdreSkye wrote:
fieldsofforce wrote:

 

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.

   It is very simple indeed. You are incapable to understand even the simplest thing.

   Stop mentioning Ron Henley.  He has nothing to do with the nonsense you say. I'm sure he tried to teach you something as I am also sure he eventually realised you are a lost case. Of course he didn't tell you that. He probably told you something like:

"I have to move to Jamaica because my mother in law has Alice-in-Wonderland syndrome."

 

I have known Ron Henley since 1975.  And you don't know what you are talking about.  Shut up about my friend Ron.  

 

 

     If indeed was your friend you would shut up about him. If he learns the stupid things you say he will be very embarrassed(if he doesn't die from laughing). 

                                                                       ________________________

The truth is you don't know which White plans of attack are eliminated by Black's move 6...e6?  I know you will try to bullshit your way out of answering because you don't know.

Avatar of fieldsofforce

Here is a book by Emms that you  didn't mention:  You are too selective and leave out very important info.

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Play+The+Najdorf+Scheveningen+Style

Avatar of kindaspongey
fieldsofforce wrote: "... How do you identify the first move of the middlegame? ... In almost all games the first move of the middlegame is the execution of a pawn break. It signals the first move in the plan of attack against the enemy position."
fieldsofforce wrote:
DeirdreSkye 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.Be3] 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. …

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.

... GM  John Nunn ... states quite clearly that the move 6...e6 reduces the plans of attack that White has available against Black's position by almost half.

...    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?

… 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. …

As far as I know, nobody is in charge of the meanings of chess terms, so it would seem that there is only a limited amount that can be accomplished by debating the meaning of a word like "middlegame". I am not anywhere near being the most well read player on the planet, but I have read a fair amount, and I do not remember ever seeing anyone give a pawn-break definition. Again:

"A typical middlegame scenario develops as follows: at the end of the opening both sides have more or less completed the development of their forces, but so far there has been no major contact between the two armies, except possibly in the centre. Now the middlegame starts. Both sides manoeuvre, trying to improve the position of their forces and to weaken the position of the enemy forces. They must be on the lookout for possible ways to win material, or to start a successful attack on the enemy king. Of course, there are many other possible scenarios. Sometimes the forces engage in battle at a very early stage, before development is complete, while in other cases a blocked pawn-structure leads to slow-motion manoeuvring and the main battle occurs far later. …" - GM John Nunn (2010)

Avatar of fieldsofforce
BobbyTalparov wrote:
fieldsofforce wrote:

The truth is you don't know which White plans of attack are eliminated by Black's move 6...e6?  I know you will try to bullshit your way out of answering because you don't know.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.  He could know every plan that gets eliminated, or he could know none of them.  It is completely irrelevant to the fact that they are still not in the middle game on move 6 in that line (and most lines for that matter).

                                                                           _____________________

This has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.  
No,  I couldn't help but notice that you didn't mention the Perenyi Attack.  Could that be because you ignoramus have never heard of it.  Stop wasting my time.

Avatar of fieldsofforce
BobbyTalparov wrote:
fieldsofforce wrote:

 

This has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion.  
No,  I couldn't help but notice that you didn't mention the Perenyi Attack.  Could that be because you ignoramus have never heard of it.  Stop wasting my time.

Recap:

@fieldsofforce:  "middle game starts with a pawn break"

Everyone with half a brain:  "uh, not even close"

@fieldsofforce:  "uh huh ... you guys have never heard of [fill in irrelevant stuff here]!"

 

I didn't mention a ton of different attacking plans, because (as I said - and I realize that reading comprehension is not your strong suit, so I will repeat) it is irrelevant to what we were discussing.  So, feel free to keep spouting more nonsense.  It is clear you have not learned anything since last year when you were proven wrong and disappeared for the better part of a year.

                                                                      ________________________-

A TON OF CRAP IS WHAT YOU WOULD MENTION.  THAT IS ALL YOU KNOW. 

Avatar of kindaspongey
CoffeeAnd420 wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
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?

Dude -Openings is ALL you discuss here on the forums. ...

Not true. For example, about a day ago, I made a contribution to a discussion of the meaning of "middlegame".

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/what-to-study-2?page=2

Avatar of kindaspongey
CoffeeAnd420  wrote:

... Every time someone asks a question about anything you post links to openings. ...

Here is a recent example of someone asking a question:

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/tennison-gambit

Do you see a kindaspongey post?

Avatar of kindaspongey
CoffeeAnd420  wrote:

... Any time someone explains having problems with middlegame planning - you direct them to opening links. …

It does not seem to me to be very easy to find someone explaining a problem with middlegame planning. Here is one thread that is somewhat on that subject:

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/pieces-short-on-squares

Do you see a kindaspongey contribution?

Avatar of kindaspongey
CoffeeAnd420  wrote:

… Any time someone's weak on endgames, you direct them to studying their opening further. …

Here is a recent thread started by someone seeking solid endgame knowledge:

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/endgames/endgame-book-suggestions-for-1700-fide-player?page=2

Do you see a kindaspongey directive to study an opening further?

Avatar of kindaspongey
CoffeeAnd420  wrote:

… You regularly post just tons of links to opening discussions …

You think one can only find online reviews and book samples, if one is obsessed with opening theory?

Avatar of kindaspongey
CoffeeAnd420  wrote:

… You ... keep recommending books on the opening to complete beginners. ...

Along with books on tactics, endgames, etc.:

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/how-can-i-improve-myself-1

Avatar of kindaspongey
kindaspongey wrote: "... Is there a specific kindaspongey sentence that indicates obsession with the opening?"
CoffeeAnd420  wrote:

… You're obsessed with the least important part of the game …

It does not appeal to you to try to identify a specific kindaspongey sentence that indicates obsession with the opening?

Avatar of kindaspongey
CoffeeAnd420  wrote:

... at your level, the opening has absolutely, positively nothing to do with the outcome of your games. …

You feel that you have some way to know that I don't ever get into difficult positions because of moves made in the opening?

Avatar of kindaspongey
CoffeeAnd420 wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:

… How much time do you think I am currently spending on openings? ...

… You're totally wasting your time on opening theory. ...

It does not appeal to you to write something specific about how much time you think I am currently spending on opening theory?

Avatar of kindaspongey
CoffeeAnd420  wrote:

… Of course, someone's going to want to work on openings, but this most definitely should be the least of their study time and focus.

Do you have a quote of a specific kindaspongey sentence contradicting that?

Avatar of fieldsofforce
BobbyTalparov wrote:
fieldsofforce wrote:

A TON OF CRAP IS WHAT YOU WOULD MENTION.  THAT IS ALL YOU KNOW. 

I will take this as your concession that you have been wrong this entire discussion.

                                                                  _____________

I will give you a banana monkey boy.   And, you will say ooh, ooh, aah aah

Avatar of kindaspongey

Well, I don't want to wait for a banana: ooh, ooh, aah, aah

Avatar of kindaspongey

https://www.chess.com/article/view/study-plan-directory