2 edits
Originally posted by paulbuchmanfromfics'AS I SAID YOU HAVE TO BE VERY PATIENT TO PLAY THE FRENCH', lol, this is why Paul i will never be a French player, im not happy unless i am throwing piece after piece against f7 in a hopeless king hunt, i get bored otherwise!
The French does take a certain temperment to play it right. Sometimes you fight for 10 moves or so just for control of a single square. 🙂 The thing I like best about it is its rock solidness. It is very hard for white to work up a quick attack if played correctly. Black has the clear cut plans too. (Make white advance to e5, play c5 to un NEVER have to give up, unlike all the fun gambits and unorthodox openings that don't hold up.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYour missing the point. Study chess instead of openings and you'll know b5 is too loose on your own. 🙂
mmmm, i am not sure what you're objection is, who was it that was stating that there was some type of advantage to be had in opening either for black or for white with regard to the KIA? or any other opening variation for that matter? its a matter of taste, nothing more, and who was claiming a refutation of any main line opening? ive tried but cann ...[text shortened]... woiuld be much oblidged, i heard that Mamedyarov plays it but cannot find any of his games.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAlexander Bangiev is stupid... If his method is so great then why isn't he world champ? It takes more than just square color coordination to be great at chess. I'm not saying you shouldn't learn it because it does seem like a great method for what it teaches but its not the be all end all of chess theory.
study Alexander Bangiev and you will know the secret of the universe!
Originally posted by tomtom232lol, what is stupid my friend is spelling colour without the u, and seeing that you have neither learned the method nor practiced it which is glaringly obvious from your rather simplistic appraisal of it, thus i do not see how you are qualified to comment on the method, as for myself i will say nothing further in this regard until you have and i would be much obliged if you would do the same, because i am quite prepared to discuss its merits or otherwise but not your prejudices! dig!
Alexander Bangiev is stupid... If his method is so great then why isn't he world champ? It takes more than just square color coordination to be great at chess. I'm not saying you shouldn't learn it because it does seem like a great method for what it teaches but its not the be all end all of chess theory.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHey! I took American lit not English lit and I don't plan on majoring in English any time soon. I don't need to study it to know that its not the solution to chess. I've been at the stage where I tried to find a method that would make me better if I mastered it, but I found that if I had focused on mastering chess instead of wasting time on some short cut that I would probably be a bit better than I am now.
lol, what is stupid my friend is spelling colour without the u, and seeing that you have neither learned the method nor practiced it which is glaringly obvious from your rather simplistic appraisal of it, thus i do not see how you are qualified to comment on the method, as for myself i will say nothing further in this regard until you have and i woul ...[text shortened]... me, because i am quite prepared to discuss its merits or otherwise but not your prejudices! dig!
Originally posted by tomtom232prejudice no2, its not a shortcut method, but you wouldn't know that not having studied it, so until you do please refrain from criticizing (american spell checker, spells everything with a z????) something you know little about. i myself have stopped, not because i do not see the merit but simply because it is recommended for those who are 1800+ and have already honed their tactical ability, so for me its tactics and nothing else at present, but Bangiev awaits, what he says not only makes sense, is well illustrated in praxis, weans the student away from learning by memory and makes him self reliant but is also incredibly practical, but until you have attempted a study, silence is a virtue.
Hey! I took American lit not English lit and I don't plan on majoring in English any time soon. I don't need to study it to know that its not the solution to chess. I've been at the stage where I tried to find a method that would make me better if I mastered it, but I found that if I had focused on mastering chess instead of wasting time on some short cut that I would probably be a bit better than I am now.
Originally posted by robbie carrobielearn to understand the logic of the game by means of a few rules!
prejudice no2, its not a shortcut method, but you wouldn't know that not having studied it, so until you do please refrain from criticizing (american spell checker, spells everything with a z????) something you know little about. i myself have stopped, not because i do not see the merit but simply because it is recommended for those who are 1800+ an ...[text shortened]... t but is also incredibly practical, but until you have attempted a study, silence is a virtue.
I found this about the bangiev method. Sounds like a short cut to me.
2 edits
Originally posted by tomtom232exactly, you found it 'about', the Bangiev method, I for the life of me cannot remember reading it in any of the courses, not the tactics, not the opening, nor in the middle game course. why must we make a judgment of something, the basis of which is a remote and third party opinion of others.
I found this about the bangiev method. Sounds like a short cut to me.
It is true that there are simple rules for exchanging, for whether we should try for an attack on the king or a queenside initiative etc etc, how we should strive for areas of control etc etc, but you nor anyone else can deny that there are strategic squares which maintain there importance for the entire duration of the game, and its on this basis that the theory rests, IT IS NOT CONVENTIONAL POSITIONAL IDEAS, like possession of open files, creation of past pawns etc, but has to do with focused planning, not all agree on its merits, some calling it confusing, others are more critical and derogatory, but no one can say anything unless they have tried it, absolutely nothing! zero, center of a doughnut etc etc etc. if you would like to discuss anything you may try asking what is actually in the study rather than what is not! then we can talk, however, i thought this post was about the KIA against the French defense.
tomtom stop arguing with Robbie. It's pointless. Chess books aren't about chess anymore. They're about marketing and money. It doesn't matter if the thousands of books coming out each year make you play better. They just need to make you BELIEVE they do. They line there pockets, and you feel like you're doing something good. In actuality, it's like the nurishment you get from eating a donut as opposed to carrots (Carrots being a good game collection by a world champion or other classic manual). In about 5 years, when Robbie realizes he isn't going anywhere with this approach, he'll do better. Until then, he's going to be pro on every piece of literature that comes out.
The real guide to chess improvement is deep study of games and endings. It's staring at a single position for hours and seeing what's going on. It's not fun or glamorous. They don't market it in catalogs. It's hard work. Real hard work (if you do it right). There is no easy guide or quick fix. As long as you have money to burn, every author will keep selling you the quick fix and short cuts though.
3 edits
Originally posted by paulbuchmanfromficsdude, nothing could be further from the truth, BANGIEV IS NOT A QUICK FIX, where is this idea coming from? He takes you through hundreds of grandmaster games, we are challenged to try to see what is going on, to try to understand the contours of the board if you like, and then to formulate plans, what is wrong with that? is this not what you yourself are advocating? i do not really possess many chess books, seven in fact, but at present contentedly working away trying to improve my tactical visualization. for someone who has a distrust of, and almost abhorrence if i may say so, you sure do possess a lot of books, taking into consideration the references in your posts. Bangiev is trying to teach us to do the very thing you are advocating, to help us to think independently, to give up reading chess books, what is wrong with that?
tomtom stop arguing with Robbie. It's pointless. Chess books aren't about chess anymore. They're about marketing and money. It doesn't matter if the thousands of books coming out each year make you play better. They just need to make you BELIEVE they do. They line there pockets, and you feel like you're doing something good. In actuality, y to burn, every author will keep selling you the quick fix and short cuts though.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThat was from the people selling your precious DVDs. I also remember a pm from you a while back where you asked about improvement... I said tactics and now maybe a year later you are just deciding to hone your tactical skills... Maybe this B-method has some merit but like I said before, maybe if you had focused on chess instead of certain methods people think up you might be a better player right now. In fact, I know it has some merit but I don't promote it like it's the solution to chess... Its just a organized thought process and not the only one that works... They snag you by providing proof from master games just so that they can make a buck. What you should do is learn the concepts of chess and create your own organized thought process that makes sense to you. I have spent very few dollars on chess and have still improved well beyond my starting level. First I learned tactics by using CTS and tactics books I could find in libraries, then I analyzed my games and found my weaknesses and payed closer attention to those areas in my games(I still do this as well as study tactics), then I analyzed master games and worked out why they made certain moves(I also still do this), then I moved on to learning the concepts of chess from my two favorite books and two of the only books I bought. They were the two middlegame books by max euwe. Then I learned imbalances from how to reassess your chess which I borrowed from a friend... I treated this much like you do the bangiev method... It didn't completely work for me so I took some aspects from it and everything else I have learned and put it into my own thought process that is designed for me and works for me... And as I get better and my chess becomes more refined there are always little tweaks made in this process as they aren't rules but guidelines I have set for myself which I break in most games I play.... I guess my point is that there are no rules to the logic of chess and the specific guidelines others try to feed us might work fine for them but when they try to tell you that its the correct way or the only way and then try to sell it to you be wary because you will just be wasting money on something that may not even work for you.
exactly, you found it 'about', the Bangiev method, I for the life of me cannot remember reading it in any of the courses, not the tactics, not the opening, nor in the middle game course. why must we make a judgment of something, the basis of which is a remote and third party opinion of others. you may try asking what is actually in the study rather ...[text shortened]... then we can talk, however, i thought this post was about the KIA against the French defense.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIt's a shame Kasparov didn't have Bangiev's book on chess. He would have made something of himself perhaps.
dude, nothing could be further from the truth, BANGIEV IS NOT A QUICK FIX, where is this idea coming from? He takes you through hundreds of grandmaster games, we are challenged to try to see what is going on, to try to understand the contours of the board if you like, and then to formulate plans, what is wrong with that? is this not what you yourse ...[text shortened]... ing, to help us to think independently, to give up reading chess books, what is wrong with that?
"for someone who has a distrust of, and almost abhorrence if i may say so, you sure do possess a lot of books, taking into consideration the references in your posts."
EXACTLY
Do you think if I didn't buy a lot of books I would know what I was talking about?
Did a bright light just shine on you?
My advice is called learning from experience. I'm not trying to hurt you, I'm trying to help you keep from making the mistakes I did.
To my credit, I'm not just an obsessive chess book collector. I have 52 poker books (also mostly crap), 4 filing cabinets of DVD's listed alphabetically (from silents to modern), and over 2000 VHS tapes. I collect obsessively because I have OCD. 🙂
1 edit
Originally posted by tomtom232so it was not actually from the method itself, thankyou for that small but rather significant admission. as for whether or what i should have focused on, you are correct, i did ignore some very well meaning advice, perhaps from your self and others, wormwood most notably if my memory serves me correctly, but who has not ignored some good advice? i am human and make mistakes.
That was from the people selling your precious DVDs. I also remember a pm from you a while back where you asked about improvement... I said tactics and now maybe a year later you are just deciding to hone your tactical skills... Maybe this B-method has some merit but like I said before, maybe if you had focused on chess instead of certain methods people th be wary because you will just be wasting money on something that may not even work for you.
The Bangiev method interested me because it actually looked at the thought process, how we go about thinking about moves, choosing candidate moves, that was all, this was beneficial for me as i am a very fast player, i play games, even correspondence games as if they are blitz games, a real bad habit that i picked up from the beginning of playing endless blitz, which did nothing for my chess ability.
I have to admit that i do advocate it, but it is mostly tongue in cheek, this is perhaps where the misunderstanding has arisen, but i will defend any argument against those who advocate a certain path merely on hearsay, its just philosophically incorrect! anyhow Paul is right stop arguing with me and post something good for us to consider, i am not worth your effort my friend.
Originally posted by paulbuchmanfromficsthis my friend was said tongue in cheek, but i have to admit that you do have a lot in common with old Bangiev, maybe you should meet up and you could have this massive book burning. i really do appreciate your advice and will henceforth not buy anymore chess books. 2000 VHS tapes, man, can you not put them on disk, or perhaps you like the format.
It's a shame Kasparov didn't have Bangiev's book on chess. He would have made something of himself perhaps.
"for someone who has a distrust of, and almost abhorrence if i may say so, you sure do possess a lot of books, taking into consideration the references in your posts."
EXACTLY
Do you think if I didn't buy a lot of books I would ...[text shortened]... ts to modern), and over 2000 VHS tapes. I collect obsessively because I have OCD. 🙂