A while back, we had a thread talking about the propriety of using opening books, with some people saying it gave an unfair advantage. I'd like to relate a little story I had happen on this site a few weeks ago.
First, let me mention that I had a MCO 12 for my unfair advantage; it was 20 years old and in pieces. However, when I got into unfamiliar lines, I would check it to make sure I wasn't totally botching the opening up. It definitely helped esp. as I haven't played competitve chess in about 20 years (hence the antiquity of the MCO).
So I enter the Damn Fine Tournament and I get my first opponents. One is dscp; I check his profile and gulp he's rated like a 2060 (500 points above me) and like 25th on the site. Well, I wanted to play good players here's my chance! I decide I'm just gonna play my regular openings; nothing fancy. He opens with e4; I'm a Fischer fan: Sicilian Najdorf. We get in a standard set up I've played many times; he's aggressive: Bg5, Queen side castling. I figure I'm where I want to be.(Oh, the game isGame 610569
OK, here comes the King side pawn storm g4; trade of Bishop for Knight, g5. We're at move 13 f5. I'm looking at the board and I'm thinking I can play Bxg5 and avoid the smash up of my King side but he still gets a strong attack; is that right? So I pull out my MCO12 look down the lines and find the setup it's line 13 footnote h. It gives13 ..... Nc5! and a variation which allows my King side to get smashed up but says the line comes out even. I'm skeptical, but hey its MCO they know what they're talking about! I play it; we play a few more moves I go aggressive on the Queen side, he sacs a piece to open lines in the center to add to the lines on my Kingside, I defend has best I can trade off some pieces, think I've saved myself but he gets me! Resign on the 28th, say nice attack, next game.
So last week I decide its finally time to pick up a few more books on chess; I get Fine's ending book and a brand, spanking new MCO 14. I turn to the section on the Sicilian Najdorf and read this: "A significant change in the theory is column 7, which used to be considered equal and now is regarded as definitely favorable for White". OK, interesting; I flip to Column 7 and there before my eyes is the first 16 moves of my game with dscp! And for extra hilarity in footnote f is this: "Danny Olim and many other players have spent tremendous time trying to rehabilitate Black's position after 13 ..... Nc5(?!), so far to no avail.!"
Now I ain't saying that I was going to beat one of the best players on the site but for the MCO12 (there's a reason he's 500 points better; he's currently mopping me up in the companion game); but next time someone tells you what an unfair advantage opening books are, relate my story. And that's in my favorite opening, one I've played for 30 years! Sometimes you gotta go with your gut and forget the books; they can be wrong too!
Originally posted by no1marauderHave you ever considered the "subtle" difference between using chess books and copying them?
A while back, we had a thread talking about the propriety of using opening books, with some people saying it gave an unfair advantage. I'd like to relate a little story I had happen on this site a few weeks ago.
First, let me mention that I had a MCO 12 for my unfair advantage; it was 20 years old and in pieces. However, when I got ...[text shortened]... for 30 years! Sometimes you gotta go with your gut and forget the books; they can be wrong too!
I would have thought that for lesser players, like us, the Najdorf is just too complex and despite it being your favourite opening you are probably just copying moves that strong GMs (Fischer!) make without being good enough to understand why they make them. I would advise trying some simple openings that you can understand. That is what I attempt anyway
😉
Originally posted by claretnblueI don't think you know what you're talking about. I'm perfectly aware of the strategy behind the Najdorf and I don't simply "copy" moves without being good enough to understand why I make them; I was 13 moves into a complex opening before I even cracked the book for guidance in a difficult situation. "Simple openings I can understand"; listen buddy although I'm rusty I've been playing off and on for forty years, my current rating puts me close to the top 10% on this site and my record here as Black with the Sicilian Najdorf is 14-3-2 so I'm not ready to trade it in for the Caro-Kann yet!
Have you ever considered the "subtle" difference between using chess books and copying them?
I would have thought that for lesser players, like us, the Najdorf is just too complex and despite it being your favourite opening you are ...[text shortened]... penings that you can understand. That is what I attempt anyway
😉
Although I learned to play chess at a young age, i really haven't played a lot until I found this site. I have not ever used books to learn openings (or any other parts of the game) but have so far relied on trying to think my way through the different scenarios I am faced with. Do you think this is to my detriment, and if so what book(s) do you think might help me improve?
P.S. What does MCO stand for :/
Originally posted by kewkumbaI'm sorry; MCO stands for Modern Chess Openings which is a standard reference book on all the chess openings. It's not really good for the basic strategy, it more for people who have been playing for a while and want to look up unfamiliar lines. There is a thread, Chess Books, where there are some recommendations of books giving the basic ideas behind the openings, you should check there.
Although I learned to play chess at a young age, i really haven't played a lot until I found this site. I have not ever used books to learn openings (or any other parts of the game) but have so far relied on trying to think my way through the different scenarios I am faced with. Do you think this is to my detriment, and if so what book(s) do you think might help me improve?
P.S. What does MCO stand for :/
- Joined
- 26 May 02
- Moves
- 72546
The theory on sharp openings like the Najdorf, especially the 6.Bg5 lines, changes very quickly. I wouldn't trust a book which was more than a couple of years old. You really need to maintain a large database of recent games and update it on a weekly basis.
The great thing about the Najdorf (compared to other Sicilians like the Dragon) is it's a completely sound opening, so the chances of White finding a novelty that blows Black away is pretty small, but that doesn't deter the top grandmasters from trying!
I use the Najfdorf as my main defence against 1.e4, and have complete confidence that it will stand up to any opponent, but only because I make a constant effort to keep up to date with the latest theory.
Dave
Originally posted by David TebbI've always wondered... what exactly do master-types mean when they say "sound?" Because there are a bunch of openings that are generally considered "unsound" that don't have outright published refutations (ie. the albin, the latvian, I guess the dragon, etc.), some that are considered absolutely rock-solid (the ruy, the guccio, the main QG variants) etc.
The great thing about the Najdorf (compared to other Sicilians like the Dragon) is it's a completely sound opening, so the chances of White finding a novelty that blows Black away is pretty small, but that doesn't deter the top grandmasters from trying!
Except for the Najdorf, I'd almost consider "sound" to be a synonym for "boring." 🙂
So what makes an opening unsound?
I'm pretty sure that marauder and tebb would happily crucify me for saying this, but I really don't understand the point of playing chess with a book in your hand.
Ultimately, there are a finite number of permutations available with which to determine a game's outcome so simply recreating someone else's movement pattern amounts to replaying a game that's been played before... which reduces a wonderful game into a contest of dueling reference books.
I'll never be truly GREAT... ultimately because I don't study anyone else's games but my own to try to find my own solutions to my own mistakes. Would learning someone else's counter-attack make me a better chess player... or would it just mean that I've memorized the moves of a better chess player?
As an aside to marauder... I don't think its fair to tear into claretnblue for his comments. While suggesting that you use a "simpler" opening was probably inappropriate, it is perfectly valid to suggest that you were blindly copying someone else since you yourself said you made the move against your better judgement.
Originally posted by DecanterIf the only games of chess I was ever going to play in my life were on this site, I would not use opening books. The "point" of using them here is to get practical experience in using lines I might want to use in tournaments (if I get that good), learning the openings and the many complex variations. It is far more useful to play these in actual games against opponents then to review the games afterward and say I should have done A or B. I assume that you don't think studying openings in a book in general is "reducing a wonderful game into a contest of dueling reference books", so what possible difference is doing it for guidance in a correspondence game (something that's been done for hundreds of years)?
I'm pretty sure that marauder and tebb would happily crucify me for saying this, but I really don't understand the point of playing chess with a book in your hand.
Ultimately, there are a finite number of permutations available with which to determine a game's outcome so simply recreating someone else's movement pattern amounts to replaying a game th ...[text shortened]... ly copying someone else since you yourself said you made the move against your better judgement.
If you don't study anyone's games but your own you won't only not ever be GREAT but it will be very difficult to really learn from your mistakes. How will you know that one move was bad or not (besides obvious blunders) if you have no reference point to measure it against? And I would not presume to put myself anywhere near their category, but ALL masters and grandmasters study previous games; do you think their skill is in mere memorization of "the moves of a better chess player" or in understanding the game through study of those moves?
My comments to claretblue stand for the reasons I gave. I would never be so arrogant to suggest to another player that they play "simpler" openings; I'm not an idiot or a patzer (although I do make terrible blunders on occasion). And if you think I was "blindly copying" you just don't understand what I was saying. I am aware of the strategy in the Najdorf (vigorous Queenside counterattack), there were two plausible moves in front of me and I choose the one suggested by MCO because it did seem more aggressive in keeping with the character of the opening. The fact is that Grandmasters(!) are still trying to justify the move even though it now seems to lead to disadvantage for Black. It is not "valid" to say I was "blindly copying" and if you don't understand that I use opening books as a guide not a Bible, you don't understand the point of the thread.
Originally posted by no1marauderI understand what you're trying to express, marauder... and I don't question the value of studying other games... I certainly have my dimestore chess books and on occassion try out the first 3 or 4 moves of an opening they teach just to see if it is something that appeals to my style of play...
I'm skeptical, but hey its MCO they know what they're talking about!
But your comments above from the first entry in the thread reflect something different... you had an idea that you thought would work, but after consulting the book you went in a different direction even though you didn't have complete faith in it.
You could be a potential grandmaster... I don't know... but it feels to me as if you'd have been better served playing your instincts, even if it turned out to be a disaster. If you had won that game based on a move that didn't appeal to you, would you have learned something, or would you just have accepted some else's decision over your own? You obviously have the skill to be where you are, but wouldn't it better serve your game if you gave yourself over more to your instincts and creativity?
I'm sure you're right that grandmasters study relentlessly... but I'd submit that what makes them grandmasters is that they know when to depart the text and make a game their own....
Originally posted by no1marauderNo offence was meant by my first post, which is why I said players like us, not players like you.However as you put so much importance to ratings, maybe you could assist me, I am better than you, yet don't understand the Najdorf, what are the ideas beind it?
I don't think you know what you're talking about. I'm perfectly aware of the strategy behind the Najdorf and I don't simply "copy" moves without being good enough to understand why I make them; I was 13 moves into a complex opening before I even cracked the book for guidance in a difficult situation. "Simple openings I can understand"; ...[text shortened]... lack with the Sicilian Najdorf is 14-3-2 so I'm not ready to trade it in for the Caro-Kann yet!
Originally posted by DecanterActually, I agree with pretty much everything you just said and indeed that was the point of my first post (read the last sentence of it).
I understand what you're trying to express, marauder... and I don't question the value of studying other games... I certainly have my dimestore chess books and on occassion try out the first 3 or 4 moves of an opening they teach just to ...[text shortened]... at they know when to depart the text and make a game their own....
I did take issue with both you and claretblue saying (it's what he suggested and you said) that I was "blindly copying moves". That's an insult and to me a serious one: it suggests I exercise no judgment at all in my choice of moves.
I did not think that the one move was going to decide the game (and I still don't think it did) and I was not sure if the move I was thinking about was correct or not, but I did not want to be left in an inferior position if better players than me had, through experience, found a better move. I also did not want to make a clear blunder and lose on the 14th move; what do you learn then? Instinct and creativity are fine and dandy, but if they are not grounded in a through knowledge of the game gained through experience and study your game can only go so far.
Originally posted by claretnblueI'll ignore your reference to your first post, stand by my previous comments and proceed from there. I don't put so much importance on ratings, don't know where you got that idea and would not concede that you're better than me because you have a slightly higher rating. However, I do give credit where credit is due and as dscp has one of the highest ratings and is 500 points higher than me (not 40 some) with a superb record I would say he deserves to be considered one of the best players on the site. Do you disagree?
No offence was meant by my first post, which is why I said players like us, not players like you.However as you put so much importance to ratings, maybe you could assist me, I am better than you, yet don't understand the Najdorf, what are the ideas beind it?
As to the Najdorf, the signature move is 5 ..... a6, the purpose being to keep White's knights off b5 so that Black can develop his Queen to c7. This indirectly supports e5 and sets up the main purpose behind the Najdorf: counterattacking down the half-open c-file. Typically, Black pushes his b-pawn to b5, develops his light Bishop to b7, his Queen Knight to d7 and his Queen Rook to c8. The first two are to constrain White in the center, the third is for Queen side counterattack purposes.
I believe it is Black's most aggressive response to e4 and pretty solid defensively as well. Cautious White players allow the development outlined above to proceed with a quickly equal (or better) game for Black; aggressive White players quickly go after it along the lines of dscp and it quickly develops into a tactical brawl which I like. So I think I'll stick with it even though every once in a while I get blown it by playing it; maybe I'd be better off with more "simple" openings but I like to be aggressive. Besides since I'm incapable of independent thought and can only copy moves I figure it would be a good idea to copy the greatest American chessplayer ever!(but oddly enough, I never liked the King Indian and won't play it even though it was one of Fischer's favorites; guess my robotic devotion to the Fish has limits!).