How to open a chess game for beginners.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
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.

No offense, but that's probably the worst explanation I've ever read.

For one, those aren't the generally accepted opening principles.

For another, there's parts that don't even sound like English ("make castling"????)

Also, there's innumerable errors such as "...the side first that we are planning on castling upon" or "we develop the least active pieces."

If experienced players can't understand what you're saying I don't know how you could expect beginners to. There's some good books on the subject if you think you need help understanding the subject yourself. I've always recommended the one by Mednis. Fine's The Ideas Behind The Chess Openings is also very good.

Originally posted by savage4731
No offense, but that's probably the worst explanation I've ever read.

For one, those aren't the generally accepted opening principles.

For another, there's parts that don't even sound like English ("make castling"????)

Also, there's innumerable errors such as "...the side first that we are planning on castling upon" or "we develop the least act e one by Mednis. Fine's The Ideas Behind The Chess Openings is also very good.

No offence, but clearly English isn't your first language or you have no idea what
you are talking about and yes they are opening principles, whether you accept them
or not is an irrelevancy, to make castling is a goal, developing the least active piece
is an opening principle, again the fact that you have never heard of or fail to
comprehend them is irrelevant. No i dont need help nor do i need to read any
ancient literature on the subject, please go away and learn the difference between a
principle and a rule, who knows you may do better, it will certainly prevent you from
introducing irrelevancies one would hope and just by way of an example I had this
testimony when I originally posted the exact same content in my clan forum,

Thanks for that effort, best chess lesson I've seen on this site. Usually they're
way over my head or don't give any useful explanation - Kewpie rated 1008

which kind of makes a mockery of 'If experienced players can't understand what
you're saying I don't know how you could expect beginners to', doesn't it, so suck it
up and either produce your own opening principles for beginners or stop pretending
that your opinions have any relevance to anyone but you.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No offence, but clearly English isn't your first language or you have no idea what
you are talking about and yes they are opening principles, whether you accept them
or not is an irrelevancy, to make castling is a goal, developing the least active piece
is an opening principle, again the fact that you have never heard of or fail to
comprehend eginners or stop pretending
that your opinions have any relevance to anyone but you.

I wasn't trying to be argumentative. I was trying to offer constructive criticism. But to be honest it really is the most incoherent, indecipherable and flat out wrong thing I've ever read.

...clearly English isn't your first language
Wrong. I'm from the US.
In fact, at one time, I was even majoring in English in college (before changing it to something that makes a little more money).

...or you have no idea what you are talking about
I clearly do know what I'm talking about. I'm sure everyone on this site (except you) realizes that "to make castling" is an incorrect statement. Just glancing through this thread it looks like most of the people on this site agree with me.

But, just to further illustrate my point, I'm a much stronger player than you, I guarantee I've read more books on chess than you and I personally know some of the strongest players in the world including GMs, many IMs and even a world champion. I've never heard or read the phrase "to make castling" until now.

Need more proof?
I googled the phrases "chess 'to castle' " and "chess' to make castling". Want to know the results?
"chess 'to castle' " returned 360,000 results
"chess' to make castling" only returned 829 results of which most are either links to this forum (including this thread on the first page) or are using the phrase in a different context such as the ehow article which says "...In order to make castling legal..."

Nevermind the fact that its gramatically incorrect.

You're just flat out wrong.

yes they are opening principles
I didn't say they weren't principles (although connecting the rooks is more of a guideline or rule of thumb than a principle). I said that they weren't THE generally accepted opening principles of center, development and king safety. You hardly even mention the center even though its the foundation of ALL opening theory. Plus, the way you phrased things is unclear. For example, should a player just be concerned with "making castling" or should they be concerned with king safety? What if they have a situation where the king is safe in the center but castlng leads right into a strong attack by the opponent? According to you they should just castle anyway because you put a greater importance on castling than king safety.

developing the least active piece is an opening principle
No, its not.
For one its a rule of thumb not a principle. The difference being that a principle is always true while a rule of thumb is often true but not always. Controlling the center is a principle. Its always a good idea to control the center. Moving the least active piece is not always true. I could literally give you tens of thousands of examples where moving the least active piece is not the best move. What if the opponent is threatening something?

For another, that concept is generally applied to the middle-game so to call it an OPENING principle is obviously incorrect. How are you even going to know which piece is the least active in the opening? They're all inactive at the start.

No i dont need help
What was the point of the thread then? You start off the thread saying "anyhow I would like to ask if there is any improvements, additions, subtractions that I could make to the text " What was the point of saying that if you didn't want help?

nor do i need to read any ancient literature on the subject,
Again, I was trying to help you out. You were obviously unclear on the subject so I thought I would gently push you in the direction of some books that would clear things up for you. Even so, if we disagree and you don't want to take my word for it then certainly the opinions of some of the strongest players in the history of chess written in books that are widely considered the best books on the subject should be enough to settle the dispute.

please go away and learn the difference between a principle and a rule
I dont know that rules were even mentioned but I could explain the difference there too if you need me to.

it will certainly prevent you from introducing irrelevancies
How is it irrelevant to answer the question YOU yourself asked with direct quotes by YOU?

I had this testimony...
LMAO. So I've got every strong chess player and teacher in the world agreeing with me and you've got a 1008 rated player named Kewpie. Wow. You must be right then. Nevermind the fact that he was probably just trying to be nice to you and doesn't know enough to even know what is wrong anyway.

either produce your own opening principles
Again, I've already done that several times now. They aren't my own though. They're the generally accepted opening principles of all strong chess players: Center, development, king safety. You might know that if you read up more.

or stop pretending that your opinions have any relevance...
Wait, didn't you ask for my opinion?





Again, I wasn't looking to get into an argument. I was trying to be helpful since that's what you were asking for. The "principles" that you outlined were riddled with errors. I just picked a couple of the more egregious examples but I think I could find fault with just about everything you said. I wasn't trying to embarrass you (I could have easily done that). I was trying to gently push you in the direction of something more useful. What you're trying to do has already been done by much better players and teachers than yourself or even me. It might help to at least look at that information.

Bottom line: You asked for help. I gave it. Then you respond with a moronic, rude and downright arrogant post. Now, I've proven I was right so just accept it.

Originally posted by savage4731
I wasn't trying to be argumentative. I was trying to offer constructive criticism. But to be honest it really is the most incoherent, indecipherable and flat out wrong thing I've ever read.

[b]...clearly English isn't your first language
Wrong. I'm from the US.
In fact, at one time, I was even majoring in English in college (before chang I've proven I was right so just accept it.[/b]

your constructive criticism amounted to,

1. claiming that to 'make castling', isn't English, which it is, you read it and understood
what it meant, never the less a pedantic and futile argument over semantics
2. claiming that moving the least active piece isn't an opening chess principle, which
it is, I demonstrated it and illustrated it
3. claiming that i should read some ancient literature, which i have no need of for the
matter is crystal clear to me
4. claiming that its was incomprehensible to experienced players and a novice would
have no hope of understanding it despite the fact that a 1008 rated player not only
understood it but liked it and benefited from it.
5. claiming that it contained errors when it contained none, projecting your
opinion is not proof of errors, its proof of projecting your opinion
6. claiming that you have produced your own opening principles for beginners when
you have done nothing of the sort, vague references to the centre and king safety
are not really going to help anyone, why dont you put it in a pgn form, like I did.

I have no objection to constructive criticism and thanked those who responded with
genuine ideas, but all you have produced is mere opinion, unsubstantiated and
masquerading as some kind of truth, a self certified pontificate, pontificating from a
room full of mirrors.

Summation of your help: read an ancient book by Ruben Fine, why? because you
say so and read a book by Mednis, why? because you say so, thanks, neeeeext! do
yourself and me a favour by helping someone else.

I think it is best to begin with a handshake.

Originally posted by Paul Leggett
I think it is best to begin with a handshake.

sure, but stating that something is the worst and then providing nothing but mere
unsubstantiated opinion masquerading as truth isn't going to endear you to the
recipient is it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
your constructive criticism amounted to,

1. claiming that to 'make castling', isn't English, which it is, you read it and understood
what it meant, never the less a pedantic and futile argument over semantics
2. claiming that moving the least active piece isn't an opening chess principle, which
it is, I demonstrated it and illustrated it
3. ...[text shortened]... because you say so, thanks, neeeeext! do
yourself and me a favour by helping someone else.

I think continuing to post after you’ve been proven wrong is crossing over the threshold into trolling. Just admit you were wrong and that you have more to learn than you thought.

This is why I don’t post here anymore. People like you who are blatantly wrong but stubbornly refuse to admit it and just keep arguing and arguing in an attempt to confuse the issue so much that people won’t realize how stupid they’ve looked. Either that or trolling.

But I guess I’ll prove you even more wrong.

your constructive criticism amounted to,
No, it doesn’t look like you understand what I said at all. Here let me summarize in the simplest method I know possible:
1. Make sure what you’re saying is correct.
2. Say it clearly.
As I’ve shown you failed miserably on both counts.

1. claiming that to 'make castling', isn't English, which it is, you read it and understood
what it meant, never the less a pedantic and futile argument over semantics
If the question is whether or not the statements you made are clear then it’s not a question of semantics but rather clarity.
Your phrase is not only grammatically incorrect but has been never been used by anyone in the chess community besides. On top of that, it’s confusing to any English speaker- How do you “make castle”? I was only able to make sense of it after reading it several times and because of my previous knowledge. But, a beginner lacks that experience and wouldn’t understand it.

2. claiming that moving the least active piece isn't an opening chess principle, which
it is, I demonstrated it and illustrated it
No, you ASSERETED that it was. I PROVED that it wasn’t. I can copy and paste if you want me to show you the proof.

3. claiming that i should read some ancient literature, which i have no need of for the
matter is crystal clear to me
Wow, that statement, besides being both unbelievably ignorant and arrogant at the same time, is just utterly retarded.
For one, you’ve obviously demonstrated, through your ignorance in this thread, that you do need help.
For another, why does it matter how old it is? If its true then its true regardless of when it was written. Does science ignore Newton (or Einstein for that matter)? Does mathematics ignore the ancient Greeks?
Further, I don’t give a flying flip if its clear to you. The point is whether or not its clear to your intended audience and I don’t see how it can be given that its wrong to begin with and incomprehensible after that.
Fourth, you keep complaining that I haven’t explained things but when I give you an explanation you complain about that too. It sounds like you’ll keep thinking I’m wrong regardless of what I actually say.

4. claiming that its was incomprehensible to experienced players and a novice would
have no hope of understanding it despite the fact that a 1008 rated player not only
understood it but liked it and benefited from it.
Obviously, its helped it him a lot right ? I mean his rating must be blowing up right now right? Well, actually no. His rating is lower now than it was two months ago (1168 in March). His rating was actually higher THREE YEARS AGO. February 18, 2009 it was 1178.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/profile/playerprofile.php?uid=480241&ratinghistoryindex=2838
I feel sorry for him. The guy has played 3600 games and his rating has gone down. The path from absolute beginner to 1200 shouldn’t take more than a couple of months and should never take more than a couple hundred games.
Honestly, I could probably teach my dog to play 1200 chess in 3 years. Its not really his fault though, he’s just had lousy teachers.
But, you’re helping him right? Yeah, right.
Nevermind what I said above about him probably just being nice and also that’s he’s not qualified to teach beginners because he hasn’t even passed the beginner stage himself yet.

5. claiming that it contained errors when it contained none, projecting your
opinion is not proof of errors, its proof of projecting your opinion
No, I said that it was full of errors and provided a couple of examples. I then PROVED I was right. Your posts are just full of assertions, mine are full of proof. You don’t seem to know the difference.
I’ve cited nearly every chess player that has lived, given websites, books and logic.
You’ve given ….well….uh… well…there was that one “quote” from a 1008 rated player (which I already show was horribly wrong).
All I’ve seen are assertions from you.
Learn the difference between an assertion and proof.

6. claiming that you have produced your own opening principles for beginners
Where did I claim that. Tell me which post. Oh…you just made that up. OK.

vague references to the centre and king safety
are not really going to help anyone, why dont you put it in a pgn form, like I did.
Because the topics are too big to be explained in short sentences- hence the books. I could write an entire book on the subject of the center just by itself.

[i] but all you have produced is mere opinion, unsubstantiated and
masquerading as some kind of truth, a self certified pontificate, pontificating from a
room full of mirrors. [i]
WTF? Dude, you’re rambling and not making much sense. Remember, I’m the one providing evidence you’re the one providing assertions. I can copy and paste what I’ve said all day long if you want to keep saying I don’t have proof. I think every strong chess player that has ever lived is enormous proof.


But just in case you didn’t get it here’s more:

“The three areas of significance for opening play are king safety, piece development and center control”
Mednis p5 (he goes on to devote a chapter to each) Furthermore, the first few pages explain WHY its true which is something you seem to be struggling with.
http://books.google.com/books?id=PuwBAAAACAAJ&dq=mednis+how+to+play+good+opening+moves&source=gbs_navlinks_s

“There are two fundamental concepts in the opening: development and the centre…” He also adds king safety later saying “Castle as soon as possible preferably on the kingside”
Fine p2
http://books.google.com/books?id=c61mna53jdwC&q=fine+ideas+behind+the+chess+openings&dq=fine+ideas+behind+the+chess+openings&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4QKnT5HbDoOziQKFwdDGAg&ved=0CEQQ6AEwAA

I also remember virtually identical statements from C.H. O’D Alexander, Josh Waitzkin, Bruce Pandolfini as well as countless other books that I don’t have sitting in front of me.


How about some websites:

“The chess opening principles support the 3 main tasks of the opening - to control the centre, develop the pieces and get the king safe.”

http://www.chess-strategies-tactics.com/chess-opening-principles

http://chess.about.com/od/tipsforbeginners/ss/OpeningBasics.htm

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/basic-principles-of-chess-openings

“The first principle of chess opening is the maintaining control of the central squares of the chess board…Then, another chess opening principle is to keep your King into safety at all cost…Another chess opening principle is to develop all your chess pieces early and bring out those key pieces to create a strong positioning at the opening game.”

http://www.cappelle-chess.com/tag/chess-opening/

“Some of the things you should keep in mind when you approach the opening are center control and king safety…Also make sure that you don't move the same piece more than once in the beginning if you don't have to. You want to get all your pieces involved in a chess game, not just one.”

http://www.thechesswebsite.com/learn-to-play-chess/chess-opening-strategies.php

“After learning the most basic opening principles - development, control of the center, and king safety “

http://voices.yahoo.com/learning-chess-opening-survey-part-1-1-e4-e5-421139.html?cat=33

“The broad principles that govern the chess opening strategies are as follows :
• a.Controlling the center of the board
• b.Development of pieces before launching the attack
• c.Knights should be developed before the bishop
• d.Queen should not be developed in the early stages
• e.Ensuring the safety of the King “

http://funfacter.hubpages.com/hub/Classification-of-Chess-opening-strategies-and-their-relevance



I could go on. My Google search yielded 4,000,000+ results and I didn’t make it past page 2.

If that’s not proof to you then I don’t know what it is.

Now, quit with either your trolling or stupidity (whichever it is) and just admit you were wrong.

Originally posted by savage4731
I wasn't trying to be argumentative. I was trying to offer constructive criticism. But to be honest it really is the most incoherent, indecipherable and flat out wrong thing I've ever read.

[b]...clearly English isn't your first language
Wrong. I'm from the US.
In fact, at one time, I was even majoring in English in college (before chang I've proven I was right so just accept it.[/b]

Hey, just because the man wears a skirt with a dead rabbit on the front, speaks in unintelligible tongues, has some misconceptions about chess, and plays the Colle, doesn't mean you can belittle him.










On second though well done. 🙂

Robbie, I guess people were too nice to point it out earlier or didn't care to bother because they understood what you meant, but savage is right when he says that "make castling" is not correct. It sounds like how Borat would put it. It has no more meaning in the English language than "to throw castling" or "to cook castling". Please, just let that one go.

Originally posted by Natural Science
Robbie, I guess people were too nice to point it out earlier or didn't care to bother because they understood what you meant, but savage is right when he says that "make castling" is not correct. It sounds like how Borat would put it. It has no more meaning in the English language than "to throw castling" or "to cook castling". Please, just let that one go.

Sigh, the term 'to make castling', carries with it the sense of reaching a desired goal, as
in, 'I made the finishing line in the race', not that i physically made the finishing line as
in painting a line across the finish, but that i achieved my desired goal thus i I prefer
the term to 'make castling', as it carries with it the idea of a goal achieved which
'castling', on its own doesn't and i will continue to use the term for that very reason,
you are free to object to its use on any basis that you like, the text remains. Its not a
question of letting it go or not letting it go, it was used for that specific reason, the
subtitles of which were not apparent except for the discerning, you have no need to
acquiesce to its use, but to state that its wrong is merely to miss its point.

Originally posted by savage4731
I think continuing to post after you’ve been proven wrong is crossing over the threshold into trolling. Just admit you were wrong and that you have more to learn than you thought.

This is why I don’t post here anymore. People like you who are blatantly wrong but stubbornly refuse to admit it and just keep arguing and arguing in an attempt to confuse t it with either your trolling or stupidity (whichever it is) and just admit you were wrong.

I provide just by way of example, an excerpt of someone, who believes their own
propaganda, the principle of, 'it must be true because i say its true', you stated,

No offence, but that's probably the worst explanation I've ever read - Mr Savage

in contrast i produced a testimony from an independent source which stated the following,

Thanks for that effort, best chess lesson I've seen on this site. Usually they're
way over my head or don't give any useful explanation - Kewpie rated 1008

Now how is one to account for this apparent contradiction? When pressed upon the
matter the reason you gave was and I quote, 'Nevermind the fact that he was
probably just trying to be nice to you and doesn't know enough to even know what
is wrong anyway'.

Now this is of real interest, you allege that its factual that Kewpie, who is actually a
lady and not a man was just trying to be nice. How did you ascertain this fact? You
state that its a fact, how did you ascertain this data?

Do you have a large mind ray hidden somewhere high in the hills and focused it on
Kewpies mind so as to extract the scientific data? Perhaps you used divination, a
crystal ball, tarot cards or a bendy coat-hanger? Perhaps you are telepathic and
have the ability to read others thoughts? If so can you tell what I am thinking now
so as to ascertain what is factual and what is not? If its none of the above, then
clearly the assertion of fact is nothing of the sort and instead we are dished up
something which has no basis in reality, a delusion. Are you delusional Mr Savage?
why would you try to palm us off with some delusion masquerading as a fact? Do
you actually believe your own propaganda Mr savage? The weight of testimony
would seem to lead to that conclusion.

You see Mr savage, simply because you say something doesn't make it so,
otherwise, you may claim to be a retired WWII submarine commander and we
would be forced to conclude that it must be true, because you say its true. Now I
hold no animosity towards you but if you are going to continue to believe your own
propaganda, to promote opinion as fact, to wave them around like some self
certification of authenticity then you are going to get called out and you cannot visit
boohoo.com every time that happens. Have you thought of joining the circus?

Originally posted by ChessPraxis
Hey, just because the man wears a skirt with a dead rabbit on the front, speaks in unintelligible tongues, has some misconceptions about chess, and plays the Colle, doesn't mean you can belittle him.










On second though well done. 🙂

just because your clan has won the majority of the games in a clan challenge doesn't
mean that you can throw all subsequent games, in the process artificially reducing your
rating for the next set of challenges, does it Bagg Puss you old saggy cloth cat, shall we
tell the folks about your confession of doing just that?

On second thoughts, why bother, it doesn't seem to bother you.

****** INTERLUDE ******

Hi if you have just joined this thread then a quick update just to bring you up to speed.

Savage joins the thread opening with the "No offense, but ..." gambit.
(you can gues what follows. )

Since then the Robbie v Savage insults have been going back and forth.

You have joined at the bit where Robbie thinks Savage is a
WWII Submarine Commander in possession of a mind ray.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Since then the Robbie v Savage insults have been going back and forth.

And they can't dance, either!

Richard

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Sigh, the term 'to make castling', carries with it the sense of reaching a desired goal, as
in, 'I made the finishing line in the race', not that i physically made the finishing line as
in painting a line across the finish, but that i achieved my desired goal thus i I prefer
the term to 'make castling', as it carries with it the idea of a goal ...[text shortened]... eed to
acquiesce to its use, but to state that its wrong is merely to miss its point.

Oh, okay, I stand corrected then. My apologies. Please let us know when you've finished your treatment of endgame principles. I can't wait to learn about making promotion and ultimately, making checkmate.