Originally posted by ElmyrIts an opening repertoire book, not on any one specific opening, its covers the Ruy Lopez, and the English if you wish a queenside opening as white, all the semi open Caro Khan, French, Scandinavian etc , and gives three for black, the Sicilian against 1.e4 and two queenspawn defences, The Nimzo and the Queens Indian. The great thing about it is that it covers unusual ones as well, like the Latvian, the elephant gambit and openings like 1.b4. etc
It depends on what opening(s) it discusses. If it's a book on the Ruy or Caro-Kann I'd
think it would probably suffice. If it suggests playing the Najdorf or something sharp
like that, it would definitely have a lot of holes in it. I guess you could always go
through it with an engine, which is usually a good idea with an opening book
anyway as they all te robably have much of the same to say but with
lines that are more relevant to the times.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI don't read many chess books and so I cannot personally recommend a modern book
Its an opening repertoire book, not on any one specific opening, its covers the Ruy Lopez, and the English if you wish a queenside opening as white, all the semi open Caro Khan, French, Scandinavian etc , and gives three for black, the Sicilian against 1.e4 and two queenspawn defences, The Nimzo and the Queens Indian. The great thing about it is tha ...[text shortened]... not so sure about that for the general ideas and principles remain the same. regardless of time.
Originally posted by ElmyrWhen i was an art student, I spent many an excellent hour in the Kelvingrove museum copying the old masters.
I don't read many chess books and so I cannot personally recommend a modern book
on general opening principles, maybe others can. I just wanted to warn you that you
should definitely take a lot of the given lines with a grain of salt. While it's true that
opening principles have stayed the same, many (most) opening lines have not.
I would say it's analog learn the
material now, more relevant to what's going on in math/chess in modern times.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI really don't want to argue about whether chess is more of an art or a science, it's
When i was an art student, I spent many an excellent hour in the Kelvingrove museum copying the old masters.
Originally posted by Elmyrnorth-east of where? north-east to me is Aberdeen. as for your analogy, well, one does not learn chess the way one does mathematics, unless of course one learns mathematics, subliminally 🙂
I really don't want to argue about whether chess is more of an art or a science, it's
just too rare that someone actually changes their mind online. I'll just say this: my
analogy is better!
You go to art school in the Northeast?
Originally posted by Elmyrno its a rather cold and windy city on the north sea shore, that is the north east of Scotland, depends where in America you are from, i am an honorary Texan. Love southern music, Allman brothers and stuff like that, JJ Cale etc, one day id love to visit. Louisiana, Georgia, places like that. Anywhere where its warm will do, instead of like less than one hundred miles from the Arctic Tundra!
Ah I see, I meant in the good ole' US of A.
I'm just gonna assume Aberdeen is not in the Middle East, so we can be friends. 😉
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhen I play the KIA I sometimes transpose into a line of the Reti that I learned from Keene's Flank Openings, and Keene points out that when it was played in the 1920's the correct path for Black was confirmed.
As i have slowly crawled my way up to play players 1800+ it has become apparent that in many instances general principles are not enough (i am losing two games at present to poor opening play).
We often hear moans, mostly from those in Edinburgh, (cause they just spent fifty squillion pounds trying to lay two tram tracks in the city and failed a ...[text shortened]... nd the openings are explained.
Does it matter that its fifty years old? what do you think?
Originally posted by wormwoodthanks, this was what i was thinking as well, although i could not find a way to express it. Yes i also thought that Fritzing it was a little pointless for who can understand computer moves? I agree, its the human elements and principles that are so appealing.
it doesn't matter if it's not up to date. or even if the analysis is totally accurate. if a master wrote it, it's accurate enough. the important thing is to learn how the basic positions [b]generally work. the ideas. your main goal, as always, should be to learn PRINCIPLES. not explicit sequences. -and once you've got those down, THEN you patch up the e ...[text shortened]... sees and treats the positions. and for that, even an old opening book is good enough.[/b]