Originally posted by ThabtosI agree with you on that one....since coming to the forums and reading all the posts and looking over posted games i have been able to raise my rating by 200 points and maintain it(touch wood)..
I must say GP and Robbie have made learning openings a lot easier and simpler for your average beginner 🙂
saves buying books ....🙂
Originally posted by KeggeSuch bad vibes man! I wouldn't have minded if you had posted a refutation of what I
Wrong! GP gave some interesting ideas about learning openings; Robbie just talks crap ... as usual.
have written, but to masquerade your opinion as if its some kind of objective truth
insults our intelligence, we are used to reason, not mere opinion. I presented my
chess truths, this is the chess only forum, if you have anything of relevance to post
with regard to chess, post it here, but this personal vendetta of yours has no place
here.
Originally posted by Keggewhat interesting ideas does GP give about learning openings? for its well understood
Wrong! GP gave some interesting ideas about learning openings; Robbie just talks crap ... as usual.
that he hates openings and even the mere mention of them can be enough for him to
rip the bum oot his troosers!
Originally posted by Stampsimilar, its exactly the same, suffering succotash! Anyhow, I think the method of
Here''s a similar thread on another site that might be helpful/relevant: http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/i-hate-opening-theory
looking at pawn structures to determine where to put your pieces in the opening is of
immense practical benefit, why?
1.you dont need to learn variations
2.when your opponent goes out of book you will not be stuck for a plan
3.you will be concentrating on ideas rather than variations
4.positional elements will also become apparent
5.you will get a real feel for the opening in conjunction with studying master games
6.you will be happy because you are not learning variations and forgetting them.
- Joined
- 06 Aug 07
- Moves
- 8299
Ok - I'm back from a vey long week at work and decided to add my 2 cents to a very interesting conversation. Mind you that this is just my belief on the subject. Pawn structure in chess falls into the "strategic" bucket in the "strategy" vs. "tactics" debate. I think we can all agree with that. I think that strategy falls under "long range" planning when evaluating a position. I rarely affects the short term outcome of a game. Keep in mind that there are always exceptions. I teach my students about pawn structure/good minor piece vs. bad minor piece (which often depends on pawn structure). Also, I'm not sure how many folks know this but as a rule of thumb - Q&N is better than Q&B while R&B is better than R&N - as a rule of thumb!
In chess there are exceptions to the many "rules of thumb". These exceptions are most of the time based entirely on tactics as well as one's ability to calculate deeper into a position (my main problem in OTB chess - I'm pretty good but there is a class of players whose ability in this ream far exceeds mine :>( ).
Once beyond beginner principles one should study tactics, tactics and more tacitcs. That's why I have all my students read the Chandler books "Chess Tactics for Kids" and "How to Beat Your Dad at Chess". Then I move them to Reinfeld's "1001" books, etc.
Folks do lose games to positional misunderstandings but most games are lost to tactics.
I believe someone early posted that piece activity is important - I would agree with that 100%. Get your pieces on squares where they enhance each other's ability.
No easy answers it's a tough game but a very beautiful game for those of us who love to enhance our spacial ability!
Oh - reagrding opening books - I love them - the good ones that is. But there is a lot of junk out there.
However, when my school studies took too much time from chess I resorted to playing "boring" lines like the exchange variation of French and Caro-Kann and other offbeat lines and did very well.
If the tactics don't come to you right away keep at it over and over again until the more common themes and mating patterns are second nature.
You've probably all heard this before but I thought I would add what I believe is an educated opinion on the subject.
Originally posted by StampYes that was me too 🙂
Here''s a similar thread on another site that might be helpful/relevant: http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/i-hate-opening-theory
Posting same question on few forums gives you bigger audience and as you can see discussion took two completely different paths here and there.