- Joined
- 12 Nov 06
- Moves
- 74414
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNot once did I say play Bxe6 because Anand plays it. I was suggesting that it is playable and should be considered an option. Pointing out perfectly good moves and calling them useless or rubbish is stupid. There is no logical fallacy in that (If there is, then please point it out. I am curious to learn how rejecting moves for no reason could have any benefit to anyone.)
No I will offer them your advice ,"you play that move because Anand plays it", and when they are in a position which they have never seen before they wil say to themselves I wonder what Anand plays in this position and then they will make a useless pawns move to f3 and wonder why they get mated in three moves. Don't offer me any more advice, your statement is a logical fallacy from beginning to end.
Would you tell a beginner 1.c4 is useless, it's a pawn move that does not help development right?
2 edits
Originally posted by KnightStalker47the logical fallacy is that f3 is not a principle, Bxe6 is not a principle, they are simply
Not once did I say play Bxe6 because Anand plays it. I was suggesting that it is playable and should be considered an option. Pointing out perfectly good moves and calling them useless or rubbish is stupid. There is no logical fallacy in that (If there is, then please point it out. I am curious to learn how rejecting moves for no reason could have an ...[text shortened]... uld you tell a beginner 1.c4 is useless, it's a pawn move that does not help development right?
independent moves, developing the least active piece is a principle, making pawn
moves to aid development is a principle, developing pieces towards the center is a
principle, not allowing our opponent greater mobility is a principle. I wish you no
animosity KnightStalker47, but do you understand the meaning of a principle and how it
differs from a concrete variation or a move which has no real independent value? We
or rather I was attempting to deal with opening principles, not specific openings, not
specific moves, not alternative moves, not mates, not middle game scenarios, not what
Anand plays, not the Sicilian defense, not the English opening, but opening principles!
do you understand?
- Joined
- 12 Nov 06
- Moves
- 74414
Originally posted by robbie carrobieBut these moves are examples of opening principles.
the logical fallacy is that f3 is not a principle, Bxe6 is not a principle, they are simply
independent moves, developing the least active piece is a principle, making pawn
moves to aid development is a principle, developing pieces towards the center is a
principle, not allowing our opponent greater mobility is a principle. I wish you no
ani ...[text shortened]... not the Sicilian defense, not the English opening, but opening principles!
do you understand?
I could argue that f3 is a good example of the "not allowing our opponent greater mobility" As it restricts the knight on f6 it also prepares c4 to prevent the freeing move d5.
Bxe6 is a good example of inflicting weaknesses in the opponents camp. Which is another important principle.
These moves which follow opening principles should not be said to be useless.
Why teach some opening principles, but avoid some moves which follow opening principles and say that they don't, when they actually do.
1 edit
Originally posted by KnightStalker47again the example which i posted was neither exhaustive nor intended to be. If you like post your
But these moves are examples of opening principles.
I could argue that f3 is a good example of the "not allowing our opponent greater mobility" As it restricts the knight on f6 it also prepares c4 to prevent the freeing move d5.
Bxe6 is a good example of inflicting weaknesses in the opponents camp. Which is another important principle.
The ...[text shortened]... id some moves which follow opening principles and say that they don't, when they actually do.
own, how to teach a beginner opening principles, as it stands, mine was concise, contained actual
principles, defined goals and was extensively explained and readily understandable, introducing
superfluous variations, attempts to justify 'tricks' through long variations, references to Grandmaster
practice, references to freeing moves simply contributes to obfuscation. These are not improvements
at all.
Hi Knight.
I think you and Robbie are discussing different levels of play.
Remember Robbie is talking about a raw beginner and opening a game.
At that level it's getting the pieces out and understanding why.
It's all about taking one step at a time.
Before we get to the stage about why we should defend the e-pawn the
student has to be shown examples of what happens should they let such an
important pawn go.
A student has 8 pawns he won't bother too much about losing one.
Then after seeing all your well chosen examples of the quick smashes
the student should be aware for the need to watch his f7 square, don't open
up the diagonal to the King and hold e5 not only because it losses central
control it means a Knight is allowed onto e5 and after seeing all the hammerings
he will realise the last thing he wants to see is a White Knight on e5.
Step by step, no jumping ahead. Two or three examples will not suffice.
10-20 as long as takes. You have to show examples of all the opening principles
being ignored and hammered. (the exceptions come later....much later).
You leave one stone unturned at this stage then that is the rock they will get hit with.
If, as I would have done, shown him the dangers of playing 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f6?
I would not at this stage suggest 5.f3 as a White alternative.
......Not yet. We are nowhere near that stage.
Of course Robbie should never have mentioned 5.f3.
But this is the hole we write ourselves into. We try to cover so much when
saying northing is best. '5.Nc3 it protects the pawn and develops a piece.' The End.
We write for a higher level and the weaker players start asking questions.
We write for the basic player and the stronger players start suggesting moves
played by GM's in the same position.
Trying to mix and match the comments and you get both sides at you.
It's most likely best to pick a person and write for them. (I pick me when I was
learning - who better?)
Back to to teaching beginners:
At a later stage (a much later stage) when I have them reading the board
looking for unprotected pieces and checking all checks I may use 5.f3. Thus:
- Joined
- 12 Nov 06
- Moves
- 74414
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMy choice of words was designed to convince you that f3 is not a useless move and that Bxe6 is not "positionally dubious". It's up to you what you want to tell beginners, I'm just trying to help you realise some of the moves you say are useless are in fact good moves. Maybe just take that part out of your annotations.
introducing
superfluous variations, attempts to justify 'tricks' through long variations, references to Grandmaster
practice, references to freeing moves simply contributes to obfuscation. These are not improvements
at all.
Originally posted by KnightStalker47Its useless in the context of teaching a beginner for it leads to confusion and i still think
My choice of words was designed to convince [b]you that f3 is not a useless move and that Bxe6 is not "positionally dubious". It's up to you what you want to tell beginners, I'm just trying to help you realise some of the moves you say are useless are in fact good moves. Maybe just take that part out of your annotations.[/b]
Bxe6 is positionally dubious for the reasons i mentioned. Please see GP's rather
excellent post above.
- Joined
- 08 Apr 09
- Moves
- 20250
Hey all,
point 1) a bit of advice for teaching beginners: keep it very simple. Not that I have experience with teaching, but I still have the lack of experience that makes me feel like a beginner. I'm playing on this site for about 3 years now, so I probably shouldn't consider myself a beginner, but even in this openings-for-beginners thread, I find stuff that opens my eyes.
So for those who sometimes forget the complexity of what they have already learned, again: keep it simple if you want a beginner to understand what you say to them.
point 2) About openings: the placement of bishops and rooks seems very hard. It's especially difficult to see where a bishop can put long-term pressure on a diagonal. Help?
point 3) I doubt if general chess principles are sufficient for even let's say the 5 first moves.
Good evening,
tvo
Rook should be easy enough. If you castle that rook is done, then move the other rook to either a file that doesn't have your pawn on it or one where you expect your pawn to disappear off the file.
That is what I've read when it comes to opening, but I usually don't complete development of my a file rook.
Bishop is pretty easy if you teach 1.b3! A fianchettoed bishop is easy to place and easy enough to understand. I suppose playing King's Indian Attack makes for an easy placement of a bishop too.
But then again I think most people would say that you should not teach a beginning to fianchetto a bishop, simply play classical chess!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhile we're at it, you should look up closed Sicilian and anti-Sicilian openings for your own benefit. 😞
hi I posted this in our clan forum a while back I dunno if i ever posted it here,
probably, anyhow I would like to ask if there is any improvements, additions,
subtractions that I could make to the text (other than remove it altogether), regards
Robbie.
free chess lesson, the opening.
[pgn][Event "?"] [Site "?"] [Date "????.??.??"] [Round " ...[text shortened]... is, or have any questions, no matter how trivial, let me
know, regards Robbie.
Perhaps Capablanca can illustrate for a beginner how to open a game-
Capa-Gelabert 1926 Havana.
Waste time capturing a pawn in the center.
h3 is a key idea in the early opening, giving your king luft?!?
c3 keeps you from having to think about any "contact" on your d4 pawn. Good for games where drinking pints and smiling at ladies is the order of the day.
When in doubt put your Bishop on g5- then hack Knight so you don't have to think about those nasty l shape moves.
Always connect Queen and Bishop so you can get at that nasty sniper hiding on g7... hate that guy! As anyone knows, snipers always get it the worst...
You are allowed one knight on the rim for every knight your opponent puts on the rimm.. consider it fair play.
This is a sneaky move called "prophylaxis" just don't let the girl see the circular bulge in your wallet when you are paying for drinks...
It will be years before you ever play a4 and understand why it is an important move, until then always answer a5 with a4 unless you have some sneaky Queen check on the table.
3 Knights on the rimm "Social" everyone in the bar does a shot.
When playing snooty types who have a "rating" respond to getting forked by causing as much drama with your pawns as you can.
Your computer engine likes Nb4 probably, but the great, great, great Capablanca has already worked out the schematic endgame win from here, so bask in his genius.
Capa proves the oldest rule in chess when playing a fish. Do nothing and give no targets and the fish will self destruct.
Let your engine run... really, Capa has a plan here... umm welll.. ok. So maybe he missed a clear advantage.
girls and booze!
insert random Golumbek quip about the weather in havana.
= ?!?
amateur plays the natural rook move which is not accurate.
Black should play Kf7 maybe?!? instead...
yug..
looks a bit like a RHP game now... and in such style Black tries to block the advance with his Rook...
and the champ can keep on drinking and talking to the show girls.
everything a beginner needs to know about opening play..
do nothing and wait for your opponent to implode.. 🙂
1 edit
oh for those who like history.. a pretty finish to the Capablanca game...
b4 of course...
say my name screams the Bishop!
the blood thirsty bishop pauses for a second.. "huh?" and then chomps a rook.
now this is the position the beginner can understand, the breakaway with a bishop supporting.
b6 b7 etc...
Originally posted by nimzo5This is a classic post equal to the old Hans Kmoch imitation of Nimzovitsch from Chess Life and Review from back in the early 20th century. I read it in the "Best of" edited by Pandolfini, but here is a copy of it:
Perhaps Capablanca can illustrate for a beginner how to open a game-
Capa-Gelabert 1926 Havana.
[fen]rnbqkbnr/pp2pppp/2p5/3P4/3P4/8/PPP2PPP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq - 0 3[/fen]
Waste time capturing a pawn in the center.
[fen]rnbqkb1r/pp2pppp/5n2/3p4/3P4/3B3P/PPP2PP1/RNBQK1NR b KQkq - 0 5[/fen]
h3 is a key idea in the early opening, giving your king luft ...[text shortened]... to know about opening play..
do nothing and wait for your opponent to implode.. 🙂
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/fun-with-chess/hans-kmoch-imitating-nimzowitsch
- Joined
- 08 Apr 09
- Moves
- 20250
Originally posted by EladarAfter kingside castling, the rook is often not on an (semi-)open file. So it's not done yet, is it? Also, I often feel the need to support a pawn with one of the rooks, I guess mostly the a or b pawns. And which rook do you choose, when both can be put on an open file?
Rook should be easy enough. If you castle that rook is done, then move the other rook to either a file that doesn't have your pawn on it or one where you expect your pawn to disappear off the file.
That is what I've read when it comes to opening, but I usually don't complete development of my a file rook.
Bishop is pretty easy if you teach 1.b3! A fia ...[text shortened]... y that you should not teach a beginning to fianchetto a bishop, simply play classical chess!
I don't think I should fianchetto both bishops in every game? Most openings are not about a fianchetto position for the bishop and if they do, it's only one of them, not both. The placement of the bishop in classical(?) openings is more in the center of the board, where they are so vulnerable. Is it bad to keep them on d2/e2?
Thanks.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieActually, it could work the other way round and be more confusing.
Its useless in the context of teaching a beginner for it leads to confusion.
Suppose I had been taking lessons from you. I trust you. You are my mentor. I worship the ground on which you tread (chesswise, that is). You tell me f3 is 'not correct'. I believe you.
I then watch a GM game and see one play f3. I wait for the commentators to dismiss this as a novice blunder. This really is a story, I think. But nothing. What do I think now? My faith in you has been shattered (not really....).
Is it really that hard for a beginner to be told that f3 is possible, and played, but that just for now we want to concentrate on other more general principles?