dodgernation: It appeared to me that you were whining for some cheese. My apologies. 
You don't need an opening reportoire until you hit 2000 ELO - ture or false ?
Sort:
What is a sandbagger?
Who are edward and jacob?
DrCheckevertim wrote:
SmyslovFan wrote:
Every master who has said that you don't need an opening repertoire before you reach ~2000 studied openings before they broke 2000. Every master who said that you do need an opening repertoire before 2000 also studied openings.
The point Polgar, Kraai, and others are making with their hyperbolic statement that you don't need an opening is that most people spend far too much time on openings, and usually focus on the wrong things (memorizing lines instead of learning the ideas behind the lines).
There is a problem with hyperbolic statements when the purpose is to inform a student of a precise method. To the student, the statement is taken literally, or it is highly open to interpretation.
Hyperbole is a often a crappy method of instruction. If students are to take anything from this advice, they need to know clearly what these masters are trying to say. Teachers need to be very clear with their words, or what they say can be strongly misleading and thus counterproductive (as this thread and many others have shown).
Pretty much any statement about chess for example is going to contain at least apparent contradictions -- if you give some piece of advice, there always exists some situation where it was followed and doesn't work, or where it's not followed and things go well.
I wouldn't put the full blame on the masters here -- there probably isn't a single person in the world who can summarize the complexities of chess with a few general statements well enough to allow the student to truly know what the teacher knows, although some are much better than others. To be honest I would put some blame on the students for them to be naive enough to think that a master truly believes he is summarizing chess with his statements -- no, they are just engaging in some rhetoric that as a result will hopefully create some desirable effect/message (what you try to do with language regardless) -- a hyperbolic statement will make a player start to question what they think they know in a way they might not otherwise have done.
The thing is, there is nothing that the student can just hear and take fully literally -- it doesn't matter what advice it is. If they could, chess would be a very easy game.
(And, yeah, the advice I have given in this thread can't be taken fully literally either.)
I believe that you need an opening reportoire as soon as you reach 800 Elo. Many people are studying lines to throw you off track at that point, and if you do not know the correct response, you could be in trouble.
Elubas wrote:
DrCheckevertim wrote:
SmyslovFan wrote:
Every master who has said that you don't need an opening repertoire before you reach ~2000 studied openings before they broke 2000. Every master who said that you do need an opening repertoire before 2000 also studied openings.
The point Polgar, Kraai, and others are making with their hyperbolic statement that you don't need an opening is that most people spend far too much time on openings, and usually focus on the wrong things (memorizing lines instead of learning the ideas behind the lines).
There is a problem with hyperbolic statements when the purpose is to inform a student of a precise method. To the student, the statement is taken literally, or it is highly open to interpretation.
Hyperbole is a often a crappy method of instruction. If students are to take anything from this advice, they need to know clearly what these masters are trying to say. Teachers need to be very clear with their words, or what they say can be strongly misleading and thus counterproductive (as this thread and many others have shown).
Pretty much any statement about chess for example is going to contain at least apparent contradictions -- if you give some piece of advice, there always exists some situation where it was followed and doesn't work, or where it's not followed and things go well.
I wouldn't put the full blame on the masters here -- there probably isn't a single person in the world who can summarize the complexities of chess with a few general statements well enough to allow the student to truly know what the teacher knows, although some are much better than others. To be honest I would put some blame on the students for them to be naive enough to think that a master truly believes he is summarizing chess with his statements -- no, they are just engaging in some rhetoric that as a result will hopefully create some desirable effect/message (what you try to do with language regardless) -- a hyperbolic statement will make a player start to question what they think they know in a way they might not otherwise have done.
The thing is, there is nothing that the student can just hear and take fully literally -- it doesn't matter what advice it is. If they could, chess would be a very easy game.
That was articulated very well. I was trying to explain to my girlfriend how to play chess and was trying to objectively explain why I believe playing from the now somewhat antiquated, Botvinnik principles of chess, is better than trying to jump right into the most Neo-complex theory.
Will adhering to Botvinnik's principles strictly win you every game ? No but, it is in my opinion the best general coverage of trying to apply sound principle to learning/playing. The man has what I consider at least 4 world champions he take some credit for. I doubt anyone will quickly find a better answer to solidly learning this game. Yet, his general principles can be thwarted by modern lines of play.
I compared this to my girlfriend, with simple boxing and someone throwing haymakers. She understood what I meant immediately. The problem here is that some people are more interested in arguing, being right, finding fault, or just generally aggravating others, than to take statements with a grain of salt or to even more maturely and elloquently support, otherwise well stated, general ideas, with exceptions to generalizations.
Perhaps if some people took things more seriously pertaining to chess, instead of taking themselves so seriously, they may begin to learn how to share and expidite the process of learning to play the game while they are at it.
angrybirdstar wrote:
I believe that you need an opening reportoire as soon as you reach 800 Elo. Many people are studying lines to throw you off track at that point, and if you do not know the correct response, you could be in trouble.
I think over the board, at 1000-1200 in USCF play but, not til 1300-1400 here at Chess.com in correspondence. It depends on the situation. I would put a premium on tactics before the opening at that stage.
Elubas wrote:
DrCheckevertim wrote:
SmyslovFan wrote:
Every master who has said that you don't need an opening repertoire before you reach ~2000 studied openings before they broke 2000. Every master who said that you do need an opening repertoire before 2000 also studied openings.
The point Polgar, Kraai, and others are making with their hyperbolic statement that you don't need an opening is that most people spend far too much time on openings, and usually focus on the wrong things (memorizing lines instead of learning the ideas behind the lines).
There is a problem with hyperbolic statements when the purpose is to inform a student of a precise method. To the student, the statement is taken literally, or it is highly open to interpretation.
Hyperbole is a often a crappy method of instruction. If students are to take anything from this advice, they need to know clearly what these masters are trying to say. Teachers need to be very clear with their words, or what they say can be strongly misleading and thus counterproductive (as this thread and many others have shown).
Pretty much any statement about chess for example is going to contain at least apparent contradictions -- if you give some piece of advice, there always exists some situation where it was followed and doesn't work, or where it's not followed and things go well.
I wouldn't put the full blame on the masters here -- there probably isn't a single person in the world who can summarize the complexities of chess with a few general statements well enough to allow the student to truly know what the teacher knows, although some are much better than others. To be honest I would put some blame on the students for them to be naive enough to think that a master truly believes he is summarizing chess with his statements -- no, they are just engaging in some rhetoric that as a result will hopefully create some desirable effect/message (what you try to do with language regardless) -- a hyperbolic statement will make a player start to question what they think they know in a way they might not otherwise have done.
The thing is, there is nothing that the student can just hear and take fully literally -- it doesn't matter what advice it is. If they could, chess would be a very easy game.
(And, yeah, the advice I have given in this thread can't be taken fully literally either.)
I think you just like to argue, honestly.
In pedagogy, blanket statements are not as helpful as actually clarifying things. Statements such as "you don't need to study openings until 2000" can be clarified (or avoided) by a good teacher, in order to not mislead students. Most people would read such a statement and conclude that they don't have to study openings until 2000, because that's exactly what such a statement tells them. Advice which is probably not true.
I do like to argue, because it's good to exchange ideas.
"Most people would read such a statement and conclude that they don't have to study openings until 2000,"
And I'm saying I am putting some blame on the students for coming to such a naive conclusion.
You can't truly clarify anything, strictly speaking, when it comes to chess advice. If you say "well study some opening lines and not others, and only do so in certain ways," ok, well there's many ways a person can do that, and sometimes following that advice might work and other times that might not work. Whatever criticism you are giving to blanket statements can also be applied to so called "clarifying statements."
My main goal with the previous post wasn't so much to say that strong statements are automatically good or bad; it's to point out a deeper understanding of how we actually communicate and how that applies to giving chess advice. It could very well be that some figurative sentence will get a person to think about something better than a technically more accurate but also more confusing and less concise statement. Or maybe not. There are many pros and cons to many different rhetorical techiques.
You seem to want some sort of sentence a person can say that, if followed robotically, would have no chance of failing that person. Besides saying that, say, bishops move diagonally, such a statement doesn't exist. That's why you have to focus more on the message; what combination of words/examples will bring the right messages into their head. If the student can only follow things robotically, I'm sorry they will not do well and it doesn't matter how hard the teacher tries to "clarify things."
I quite enjoy exchanging ideas, but I can't stand arguing for the sake of it or complicating things needlessly.
I'll try to put things simply again. As a teacher, I have the power to make ideas better understood, or the power to confuse. It would be foolish of me to not consider my words carefully. It would be foolish to excuse sloppy statements that easily lead to misunderstanding. It would also be foolish of me to then blame the student for not understanding what I didn't teach very well in the first place.
If these GMs and masters considered their words more carefully, there wouldn't as much confusion and wasted time when it comes to learning chess.
Rubbish aside about literal interpretation and robots, there are always ways to say things in a better or worse way in order to facilitate understanding. This is my message and I have no idea why you're debating it.
"I quite enjoy exchanging ideas, but I can't stand arguing for the sake of it or complicating things needlessly."
I'm arguing for the purpose of exchanging ideas. "Complicating things needlessly" ... even if it turned out that's what has been happening here, even that is something we can learn. We could figure out, for example, what's wrong about our approach to a question, and mind you, I am happy to try to do just that.
"Rubbish aside about literal interpretation and robots, there are always ways to say things in a better or worse way in order to facilitate understanding. This is my message and I have no idea why you're debating it."
I am certainly not debating against this idea, and if you read the part of my post where I said that some people express themselves better than others, you would know that. There is no question that some ways of expressing things are better than others. The question is more about which ways are good, and which ways are bad. I'm not necessarily convinced that hyperbolic statements can't be better than non-hyperbolic ones. I don't think it is always easy to determine what way of expressing things is ideal for the situation -- a point that I have mentioned in my previous posts. I'm not sure why you would interpret such a disagreement as combative? It's a curious issue if you ask me.
I mean your last post was rather circular. You're basically saying a teacher should teach in effective ways. Yes, and what those ways are is precisely where the uncertainty arises.
Anyway, your apparent frustration I would say is your fault. I'm not frustrated at all at your challenges to my arguments -- I just take it in, and it may help me find ways to adjust my view, if it seems like I should. I'm not even frustrated at your frustration. I thought we were on a forum to discuss things. If you don't want to discuss what I'm discussing, you don't have to, that's fine by me. If you think my views are rubbish, you can simply reject them -- that takes maybe a second or two. If you can't avoid your frustration that's your own problem.
I have several problems, one of them is arguing endlessly with walls of text over a simple point, another one is your evaluation of what I am saying (for example, how is it "circular" to say that teachers should choose their words wisely, while pointing directly to an example of poor phrasing?)
Anyone can over-complicate things and create an endless argument.
As for:
"I don't think it is always easy to determine what way of expressing things is ideal for the situation"
Yeah, it's not always "easy" to determine, and it's a constant struggle for teachers. But what IS easy to see, is when one sweeping statement causes so much confusion. Alas, this thread and so many others like it. In this instance, "hyperbole" (if that's what it is) has clearly contributed to a lot of confusion about how/what to study in chess. If I taught something to my class and they didn't "get it," I would be an idiot to not change what I'm doing as a teacher.
Play the Hippo or the Modern Defense, with both colors, and save your 200+ posts.
You have to play something. So learn one universal opening system and play it with both colors. End of Story.
Or start a mindless thread, and collect half-baked comments, and mutiple sideline arguments along the way. Your choice.
Well once again, if you think my walls of text aren't pertinent, you can dismiss them, so I'm not seeing the issue. You are the one who chooses what to reply to, and apparently you like replying to "pointless" things. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you take the time out to reply to something, then say replying to it is pointless, you are contradicting yourself.
Your statement was at least close to circular because you are making a statement that is trivially true (teachers should correct their flaws), while ignoring the actually interesting part of the discussion, which is what those flaws might or might not be and why. Your statement had about as much useful content as saying "good methods of teaching are good."
I think your way of reaching the conclusion, that some particular "hyperbolic statements" quoted here are bad, isn't very good. The confusion we have about the OP's question can be explained simply (see, I don't mind simplicity either): it's very difficult to figure out the right answer. To be honest with you, I'm not sure this question would be any easier if some GMs didn't make so called "hyperbolic" comments -- we still wouldn't know the right answer of what is the best way to reach 2000 because it's simply a hard question. I personally think their comments give some interesting things to think about, as I am smart enough to know that extremely exaggerated statements are very unlikely to be entirely true. Instead, I extract the main point from the rhetoric.
"Play the Hippo or the Modern Defense, with both colors, and save your 200+ posts"
Well yeah if you just accept things based on faith, you don't even need to ask questions.
"If I taught something to my class and they didn't "get it," I would be an idiot to not change what I'm doing as a teacher."
The problem in chess is that almost every method of teaching will leave severe confusion or a lack of understanding in the student's mind. Chess is just that hard. You can point to problems with one piece of advice, offer one of your own, and I might be able to show that one is even worse. Chess is too complex to be put into principles, although we have to try to do so anyway.
One could say that all methods of teaching are as a whole ineffective when it comes to chess, just some are less ineffective than others.
I never said everything you said is pointless.
Even if something is pointless, and it goes against what I was saying, or if I believe it was a misinterpretation/misleading statement, I will usually try to respond and correct it... as I'm doing now.
Claiming that I "ignored" the interesting part of the question and that I simply said "good methods are good" without offering reasoning, is being dishonest.
My way of reaching the "conclusion" that certain words and phrases could be done better, (or avoided), is simply a matter of reasoning, observation, and experience. If you want, there's plenty of books out there on pedogogy that could tell you the same thing. If you need "research" backing it up, there's plenty of that too.
See, to me, it seems like you just enjoy convuluting my arguments and twisting them around. The only reason I respond in the first place is because I believe in clarity. It's not worth it anymore. Enjoy wasting your time beating around the bush. You clearly just want to disagree with everything I say just because you feel like disagreeing. I know now not to argue with you.
Probably the worst tip I ever followed that I read on this forum was just follow the opening principles dogmatically without studying openings, needless to say most of my games were Guico Pianisimo which is just plain boring and hard to understand.
Well, the GP is quite basic. What it does is get the K's p, N and B out quickly into attacking positions and allows for speedy castling on the K side: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKTAYd-fQOA
I like it and use it a lot. It is really quite basic. Yes, it is boring if you use only it. And I can't always use it because things depend on black's play, too.
Learn it well. Then when you get bored, as I sometimes do...learn another opening.
P.S.: I don't profess to be a coach. This is just a friendly opinion.