Right now I'm reading a book on the King's Gambit by Joe Gallagher. It's actually a very good book. Like most openings books though, it goes over the first several moves of a variation, then it launches into 10 loooong annotated games played with that variation. I play through the games and study the opening, but my question is this...
Why is it useful for me to study the ENTIRE games? Shouldn't the author just put twice as many half games in there instead? The reason I say this is that I'm sure it's valuable to know the eventual position that may result from using a certain opening. On the other hand, If someone is playing through 10 long games for each of 10 different variations to an opening, what are the chances that the reader is going to remember any of the later stuff---even if by chance, they do find themselves in a similar situation?
I guess they wouldn't write the books that way if it wasn't helpful, so I'll continue plodding along. What seems to make more sense to me though is a series of three books on an opening. The first one would deal with the most likely 10 or 15 moves. The next one would cover the middle games that often resulted from those variations, and the final book would cover the end games. This way, you could learn the first 15 or so moves (for each variation) much faster and put them into practice right away. Assuming you did this, the second (and third) volume would be much more meangful to the reader.
Any thoughts?
Good opening books should explain the whys and wherefores of a move or series of moves. They should first explain in general terms the aims of an opening variation, methods of attack, defense, development, tactical shots either way. After that, maybe a game or two as examples. Unfortunately, i think it's very easy nowadays to plunk out a game from chessbase, do some superficial analysis and go on to the next line. Not very helpful to the average player. Opening books that explain the ideas are few and far between. Fine's Ideas Behind the Chess Openings was good, but now dated. There's probably a modern equivalent, but i can't think of any. Good Luck in your quest!
It does you limited benefit to memorize opening variations, as your opponents will deviate. Playing through entire games helps you learn recurring tactical and strategic ideas that flow from the opening, and will continue to do so even your opponents make bad moves that deviate, or when they find theoretical novelties that improve their chances.
In the King's Gambit, for example, white nearly always has pressure on f7, and along the f-file. Consider the following position:
This game started with a King's Gambit declined, but white was able to blunder away a pawn and thus still be a pawn down. After black's mistake 31...d3, white had a resource that saved the game. 32.Rf7!= White opened the game with pressure on f7, and he saved the game with an understanding of that square and the king's vulnerability.
Originally posted by WulebgrVery good point.
It does you limited benefit to memorize opening variations, as your opponents will deviate. Playing through entire games helps you learn recurring tactical and strategic ideas that flow from the opening, and will continue to do so even your opponents make bad moves that deviate, or when they find theoretical novelties that improve their chances.
In the Ki ...[text shortened]... on f7, and he saved the game with an understanding of that square and the king's vulnerability.