I hate opening theory!!!

"how does it compare to books I used till now as a source of commented
master games?"

Ask the lad who suggested it. I'd be interested in what he has to say.

Pawn structures:
The only pawn structure that should concern you AT THIS STAGE
are the pawns around yours and your opponent's King.
Do not put pawn structures above piece activity.
(And that's not been cut and pasted from a Euwe book.....that's a fact.)

And stop playing a poxy computer. You will forget how to beat weak humans
and destroy your OTB vision.
These things will not walk into or set a two move trick.
Your OTB games will be decided by a two move trick or tricks.

When you are over 2000 OTB then you can go and do what you want.
I won't be able to help you anymore.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
"how does it compare to books I used till now as a source of commented
master games?"

Ask the lad who suggested it. I'd be interested in what he has to say.

Pawn structures:
The only pawn structure that should concern you [b]AT THIS STAGE
are the pawns around yours and your opponent's King.
Do not put pawn structures above piece activity. ver 2000 OTB then you can go and do what you want.
I won't be able to help you anymore.[/b]

with all due respect GP had the OP understood these two simple diagrams,

Scheveningen


Najdorf


he would have understood that his dark squared bishop does not belong on f4,
saving himself from those nasty pawn forks. More than that, he would have realised
why it doesn't belong on f4 and remembered never ever to put it there again. Mere
tactics would not have brought him to this realisation.

Two diagrams showing only pawns.

Look at these two diagrams and you will avoid making tactical blunders.

You write some complete tosh sometimes but this tops everything.

wait a minute....


He's right. If Black put a Bishop on a3 White can take it.

PS: "...and remembered never ever to put it there again."

Twice he got pawn forked with a Knight on d4 and a Bishop on f4.

Originally posted by iru
Here is my problem - I have rather poor memory. And opening is where you need to memorize the most. I love all the aspects of chess except for opening theory which I find boring and uninspiring.

Yesterday I made just another attempt to refine my d4 repertoire for an OTB game I have to play tomorrow and after 15 minutes I was fed up and bored to death. I feel ...[text shortened]... way). Do you think it's reasonable not to learn opening at all and only do what I really enjoy?

It's not how you open, it's how you end. -CP

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Two diagrams showing only pawns.

Look at these two diagrams and you will avoid making tactical blunders.

You write some complete tosh sometimes but this tops everything.

wait a minute....

[fen]8/pp3ppp/2p1p3/8/3P4/4P3/PP3PPP/8 w - - 0 1[/fen]
He's right. If Black put a Bishop on a3 White can take it.

PS: "...and remembered never ever to put it there again."

Twice he got pawn forked with a Knight on d4 and a Bishop on f4.

yes two diagrams showing only pawns,

GP you are talking tosh, had the lad in question understood the positions that arise
from the Sicilian defence based on the pawn structure he would not have put his bishop
on f4, this is not tosh, its simply a fact and no amount of indignation will make it
disappear. Clearly the bishop belongs on e3 or g5 and anyone who saw those
diagrams for the very first time and who knew only the basics of chess could work that
out, this would certainly have saved him from getting forked.

Originally posted by iru
Here is my problem - I have rather poor memory. And opening is where you need to memorize the most. I love all the aspects of chess except for opening theory which I find boring and uninspiring.

Yesterday I made just another attempt to refine my d4 repertoire for an OTB game I have to play tomorrow and after 15 minutes I was fed up and bored to death. I feel ...[text shortened]... way). Do you think it's reasonable not to learn opening at all and only do what I really enjoy?

I think you can learn openings holistically, by reading through books with complete annotated games, and written by a GM or IM who plays the opening in question and has a lot of experience with it.

For instance, I have four books written by GM Joe Gallagher on the King's Indian Defense. He is a long-time KID player, and his books positively drip with his practical experience embedded in the games.

I love reading Gallagher's annotations because

1) He explains what each player is trying to do in clear terms;
2) He gives a variety of ideas for how each player can attempt to accomplish what they are trying to do; and even better, he

3) Gives his own philosophy and preferences, explaining what he thinks, why he thinks it, and how successful he has been, and
4) He writes from the perspective of a tournament player, and takes into account the practical matter of sitting at a board with the clock running, as opposed to simply quoting the latest version of Fritz with some symbols at the end of the line.

Opening books get criticized often, but there are many good books which are really collections of annotated games by excellent players, and they just happen to be composed of games on a particular opening.

When it comes to books, look for one that actually interests you. Interesting ones get read, while ones you get because you feel like you ought to read it often collect dust.

Continuing....

So Robbie you are telling us that in this pawn structure.


White should never play Bf4.

Never.....Robbie this is nonsense. This is an argument you cannot win.

How about if I want to tempt the e-pawn forward to weaken d5.
Even with a Knight on d4 the idea could be on.

I found 1441 games on RHP where White got pawn forked thus.


They were not all Black wins. 476 were won by White.

Perhaps if Black had studied this pawn structure...


then he would not have got himself mated.

MrDim - roughneck1020 RHP 2009

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Continuing....

So Robbie you are telling us that in this pawn structure.

[fen]8/pp3ppp/3pp3/8/4P3/8/PPP2PPP/8 w - - 0 1[/fen]
White should never play Bf4.

Never.....Robbie this is nonsense. This is an argument you cannot win.

How about if I want to tempt the e-pawn forward to weaken to d5.
Even with a Knight on d4 the idea could be on.

I xg7+ Kf8 18. Nf5 Re8 19. Qf3 Bd8 20. Qxf4 Qxc3 {Missing.....}
21. Qh6+[/pgn]

yes that's exactly what i am saying, the bishop does not belong on f4 ever, ok, you
may have a reason in trying to weaken the d5 square, but there are more subtle ways
to get black to give up control of the d5 square than that. Citing what others have
done is hardly conclusive, it merely demonstrates the point at hand, they never
understood the structure either. The lad already stated that he practices tactics, clearly
its not doing him the slightest good.

In the position that you posted, black got stung because he left his king in the centre,
had he castled, likes hes supposed to, the tactic would never have worked and white
would have lost a piece and the game.

I dont need to win the argument, it stands to reason on its own.


beatlemania v robbie the pawn pusher

"yes that's exactly what i am saying, the bishop does not belong on f4 ever."

I've got 476 games where the Bishop went to f4 and White won.
Have you got 476 excuses for each loss other than Black should have castled
like he was supposed to.

Why not take the Knight on c3 when he had the chance?
Is it because the Black Queen in that pawn structure does not belong c3?

"The lad already stated that he practices tactics, clearly its not doing him
the slightest good. "

So looking at a diagram of just pawns with no pieces is going to help.

"I dont need to win the argument, it stands to reason on its own."

A brick wall. I'm arguing with a brick wall.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
"yes that's exactly what i am saying, the bishop does not belong on f4 ever."

I've got 476 games where the Bishop went to f4 and White won.
Have you got 476 excuses for each loss other than Black should have castled
like he was supposed to.

Why not take the Knight on c3 when he had the chance?
Is it because the Black Queen in that pawn structure ...[text shortened]... ument, it stands to reason on its own."

A brick wall. I'm arguing with a brick wall.

He is like that in the spirituality forum too.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
"how does it compare to books I used till now as a source of commented
master games?"

Ask the lad who suggested it. I'd be interested in what he has to say.

Pawn structures:
The only pawn structure that should concern you [b]AT THIS STAGE
are the pawns around yours and your opponent's King.
Do not put pawn structures above piece activity. ...[text shortened]... ver 2000 OTB then you can go and do what you want.
I won't be able to help you anymore.[/b]

Interested in what I have to say? Mr. Pawn you flatter me.
My answer is going to have to be rather simple, because I'm barely familiar with the other three volumes of which 500 is being compared to. I think that you'll find 500 is annotated very shortly, you're left to do the majority of thinking yourself. This is not to say you're not given good information - you most certainly are.

Dr. Tartakower's annotations are a slap in the face with a wet rag - they make things blisteringly clear, and are very to the point. Each game is picked with grand reason. You will find many short games in this book, and some long one's each picked for its own invaluable lesson. You say you want to work on tactics? The open section (what Mr. Pawn calls book 1) covers some great stuff. Section two is ripe with some great attacks and I would say altogether deeper ideas. Section three is more about the maneuvering of forces and is served most often by the Queens Pawn games.

Dr. Tartakower doesn't explain in depth very often - he makes it a habit to give you a taste of the dish, and you have to get the meat yourself. This is how its meant to be. You need to play the games out on a board and guess at each next move. Quite often you're going to start to become utterly lost, and find just in time that Dr. Tartakower threw you a bone. Its wonderful.

My personal practice was to take an old playing card (I believe it was a joker out of an old vegas deck - ha my memory still lives!) that I would use to follow the games notation. I'd take a look and make the best decision I could based on what was in front of me. The more games I watched - the more often I was right. Its amazing bringing these old games back to life, you feel as though you were there too! Imagine Dr. Tartakower silently kabitzing and whispering to you only when things are so climactic -- and you'll enjoy everything that 500 has to provide.

I used to sit on the back porch near where we lived where the woods were literally our back yard. There I'd pretend I was Ernst in Swiss Family Robinson - and Dr. Tartakower was the radio's announcer... asking me "Whats your take Ernst?"

Work through 500 - you can't be let down.


Q

"He is like that in the spirituality forum too."

There he knows what he is talking about.
I don't know what book he has been reading this week but he
wants to toss it on the fire.

Ah Ronnie I see you posted a game. It was not there last time I looked.

The final note is:

"a game won because of a proper evaluation of the pawn structure and nothing else."

Weaker player reads this trash Robbie. I'm not having you screw them up.
You remind me of the early writers who wrote up Capablanca's games.
All praise, reducing the game to a dry husk.

In this game White rolled over. Any tactician would have mixed it up
and forced you to get your hands dirty.

In this position Robbie played 7...h6


The note reads.

"move played because i realise the importance of the d5 square, i do not want my
kings knight exchanged for the dark squared bishop , diminishing control over d5."

So now he is taking the credit for playing an established opening theorectical move.
It's not the top choice. Both Fischer and Karpov chose 7...Be7 here.
(Obviously these two giants did not look at the pawn structure.)
But 7...h6 to is a common move.

Moving on.

Here we are. Black has just played 14....d5


And we are treated to this charming note.

"the culmination of blacks strategy, the freeing ...d5 pawn push."

Not adding if he does not play it now then White may have played 15.c4 and
d5 would be a dream.

So let us have a good look at this 'culmination of blacks strategy.'

Hi Q

That is close to my thinking about it. But you must give a nod to J du Mont.
A lot of the work is his. He selected the games and he noted up a few as well.
You can see Tartakowers comments and the dry notes are du Monts.

I think it's important for players to know these games because the mistakes
that are beautifully exploited are known and avoided by stronger players.
Players who limit themselves just to looking at studying GM games don't know
of the heataches and losses players had to endure so the game could reach
the stage it is at now.

Today GM games are not noted up for the student of the game.
Computer analysis is everywhere. The student needs these games, especially
in his chosen opening to see the mistakes that form the foundation of modern theory.

But more than anything. It is a good book to read and play over.
It entertains you, it teaches you, it makes you think. (if you want to, if not
just enjoy the game.) You could not ask for more.

Also any modern young players will be very impressed about how good some
of the old master were. Todays 2800+ GM's are standing on their shoulders.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
The lad already stated that he practices tactics, clearly
its not doing him the slightest good.

You are missing the point completely - games in question were played before I started any serious training at all.

If I made some progress since then it was mainly due to tactical training.

Pawn structures are exciting and important topic but they can never substitute the tactics.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
Hi Q

That is close to my thinking about it. But you must give a nod to J du Mont.
A lot of the work is his. He selected the games and he noted up a few as well.
You can see Tartakowers comments and the dry notes are du Monts.

I think it's important for players to know these games because the mistakes
that are beautifully exploited are known and ...[text shortened]... ut how good some
of the old master were. Todays 2800+ GM's are standing on their shoulders.

So our Rabbie bows to Big Aron (the simultaneous investigation of positions of different types gives rise only to muddled thoughts, whereas the thorough study of a single type cannot fail to raise the level of one's positional knowledge, etc etc). And he explored some single pawn structures with the intention to examine them in depth.

But our Greenpawn gets into the heart of the Position -indeed methinks there is solely the Position, and you cope with the Position by means of evaluation. There is no other way.
And he is well aware of countermeasures and methods (and he can explain them), and he says that, before reaching at least 2000, the player cannot evaluate the position based solely on the pawn structure. So accurate, because the positional themes available in a type of pawn structure (Carlsbad, Scheveninghen, you name it) should be discussed from both sides in a clash of ideas. Oh well this dynamism is chaotic for players hovering at 1700.

Rabbie my trusty feer, methinks GP told you a diagram full solely of pawns ain't mean a thing because, without the pieces, the positional elements that come from the Position are not displayed. The dynamic player who enters a specific pawn structure on purpose, understands and absorbs specific positional elements Related to the dynamism of both the pieces and the pawn structure whilst evaluating his opponent's reaction. Therefore, he must be beforehand aware of the possibly arising positional elements (hanging pawns, isolani, centre control etc etc). Therefore the common patterns related to a specific pawn structure are "common" solely to the ones who are familiar with its main positional elements, and the positional elements are known solely to the ones who know beforehand what (say strategy) and how (say tactics) to do with the centre, with the need to expand, the need to blockade the pawn, to unleash a kingside or a minority attack, to perform defending plans, to play at both flanks simultaneously, to end up with an advantage due to their initiative, to bring up a novelty, to exploit the isolani's weakness during the endgame etc etc. And before this stage there is also a huge before oh the horror.

It seems to this Greek Jock our Greenpawn merely said "first things first", and this sounds like a fine piece of advice to me
😵