I've found that people who play the Najdorf usually are pretty experienced with the opening as novices who use it are normally crushed before they can get to the middle game. As, I think, No 1Marauder will agree, the defence requires timing and there's no leeway for less than exact moves. I gave it up because there's so much learning involved, enormous amounts of analysis out there. But I do respect the players who try "to tame the beast." I don't think no 1Marauder was "blindly" following anything. He was using a combination of judgment, experience with his outside sources and arrived at a conclusion. And let's not get into the same old same old discussion about use of books and databases. Since correspondence chess first began, it's been allowed and nobody here is going to change it.
Chess is the game of both skill and knowledge. Every player has freedom to put emphasis on either component or combination of them (though chess pros probably do not have such luxury - they must go with both😀). Any approach is legitimate - I do not really understand controversy in this thread. Besides, Najdorf (as most open sicialian variations) leads to very "specific" game, so if you play it and don't follow latest trends - you just put yourself in a disadvantageous position from the start. There are more "general" openings (KIA is the most obvious example - same setup against almost every black line) there it is basically enough to know main ideas. Just a matter of taste.
I've looked over this thread several times and I still don't understand what marauder is so upset about. The point of his original post was that books don't alwasy provide an advantage, and yet any comment that has remotely questioned his decision (admittedly, mine) has been met with sarcasm and derision.
Buddy and Marauder are right. There's nothing wrong with using books to help, but there's also nothing wrong with choosing not to. By his own comments, marauder stated that he had his doubts about the book's recommended move yet he played it anyway. I suggested that he might have been better served relying on his instincts and for that I've received a steady flow of condescension.
Marauder, I formally apologize. The next time someone comments favourably on your instinct and creativity, I'd encourage you to correct them on their error.
Now I'm confused, Decanter, my second post directed to you said "I pretty much agree with everything you just said" in your second post. If you thought I was being sarcastic when I said that you're wrong. You were also right about the point of the thread: it was sometimes the books are wrong and you should follow your own judgment and experience. I didn't like the "blindly copying moves" and the "playing chess with a book in hand" comments, but other than that I thought we had reached a consensus. Was I wrong?
Originally posted by no1marauderThat was the comment I was referring to, as it seemed in my mind to be a sarcastic reference back to what I had said. The reason I had used the term "blindly copying" is that you had another plan in mind yet abandoned it. You may have had other reasons for taking the different move, but you didn't elaborate on them. I understand that you always want to learn more, but given your talent level, I was almost incredulous that you would second guess yourself without at least trying your idea first.
since I'm incapable of independent thought and can only copy moves
It may sound silly but I believe that, book or not, it's your creativity that makes you a talented chess player, and when you allow yourself to be second-guessed, you're giving up the very natural advantage you possess.
Anyway, I think the imprecision of the discussion board format is just creating misunderstanding where none may have existed... so I'm just going to leave it be. Best of luck in the future with that opening that I can't pronounce! 🙂
I'm a sucker for a exclamation point!🙄 And maybe the caliber of the competition I was facing made me a little less sure of my judgment than I would normally be; I didn't feel like I had much room for error (and as someone already pointed you don't have much room for error in the Najdorf anyway). Anyway, I just thought it was an interesting little anecdote that also related back to some threads regarding the use of books and databases. It was not my intention to get in a flaming match and the last comments you cited were kinda meant to be light-hearted jabs not truly nasty. Sorry about that!
I think we need more personal experiences from players, as an antidote to cold book analysis. It's interesting and valuable to the non-professional who might wish to take up the line. It's obvious no 1Maurauder put some thought into it and doesn't deserve to be sideswiped by non-book (for lack of a better term) players.
I recently played David (Tebb) in a tournament, where we both employed the Najdorf with the black pieces. In one of the games we followed the book for about 20 moves, (better qualify this, I'm pretty certain David would not have been sat there with the book open and neither was I, the moves are pretty well known, being the Polgar - Kasparov game from Linares 2001. I have studied this game since 2001!!) whereupon the book gave the position as equal. I hung on desperately for the draw!
In the second game I thought I would move away from the established lines and see if I could get an advantage by moving well away from 'book'. Alas I was in trouble almost immediately.
David was kind enough to help me with where I went wrong; after studying the game it's obvious moving away from established lines so early against strong players is not a good idea, unless you are talented enough to find 'new' lines ;-)
I have reread the posts in this thread and would like to clarify a few things. The point of the thread was first and foremost to tell a story about my first experience with one of the best players on this site. The second most important thing to say was that while I believe that studying opening books and databases during the games here help your game, you need to use independent judgment because sometimes theory can change when the best players in the world analyze a line. To try to be really good at this game we all love is very difficult and if the greatest players saw something in a position that I don't immediately see I think their judgment is worthy of respect, but not blind copying.
The Najdorf is a difficult opening to play and sometimes subjects you to an immediate crushing attack if you do not play well, but I believe in my ability to play it and my ability to play well in it. I am not a Grandmaster or Master, but it works for my style of play (aggressive) and I have won many victories against good players with it. I have also suffered numerous defeats with it as well, but I cannot easily change my game from an opening who's theory I know so well to something else. I play the best game I know how, with guidance from books, but always striving to make the best move possible.
I am sorry that some of the posts got nasty and maybe I should develop a thicker skin. But I think most experienced players would treat the suggestions that they play "simpler" openings or they were "blindly copying" moves as an insult to their abilities. I recognize that I am nowhere near the best player on this site and that many of my games show my rust, but I think the time I've put in this game, my record on this site, the quality of some of my games and my willingness to share my experience with other players who have not played the game as long as I have, deserve at least a passing recognition that I do not play this game with no independent judgment or thought.
Originally posted by no1marauderI use the open source database SCID into which I periodically load TWIC games, ICCF games, etc. I'm usually behind in theory, but it does allow me to see lots of failed attempts by stronger players. I'm oo cheap to buy something like Chessbase or Chess Assistant with its 2+ million game databases.
I didn't ask; I still have the other game going with him (well for a little while, anyway) maybe I'll just refer him to this thread and ask if he has any comments. I just don't want him to get the idea that I'm using an excuse; he'd probably beat me with the Damiano!
Originally posted by no1marauderRelax.
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!