17 Dec 05
Originally posted by Sicilian SmaugBOOYA showed fantastic potential in this game Game 1348649 but it was never clearly demonstrated until games such as these..Game 1448252 and Game 1530996
Naaa.. he shpuld take lessons from BOOYA, he's shown a much faster rate of improvement.
17 Dec 05
Originally posted by TheBloopSeconded.
You might want to consider avoiding anything by Eric Schiller and/or Raymond Keene... lots of errors... sloppy research...
http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/keene.html
Also Michael de la Maza's book is waste of money, but you can get most of the little value it offers from the Chess Cafe archives.
Susan Polgar's Breaking Through has decent game analysis, but the story part is the worst written book I've read in ages. The publisher should be ashamed.
18 Dec 05
Originally posted by Sicilian SmaugI don't like the words you chose. I'm talking about those people who spend hours and hours memorizing this and that for openings instead of studying tactics or endgames. Once they are out of their beloved opening, they have no idea what to do and end up losing their game. Don't waste your time on openings till your a decent player.
Opening theory is unimportant to the under 2000 then?
18 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by WulebgrSeconded on the de la Maza book...
Seconded.
Also Michael de la Maza's book is waste of money, but you can get most of the little value it offers from the Chess Cafe archives.
Susan Polgar's Breaking Through has decent game analysis, but the story part is the worst written book I've read in ages. The publisher should be ashamed.
I did buy de la Maza's book about a year and a half ago, because I was intrigued by his story... I didn't know at the time that Chess Cafe had essentially archived the instructional part of the book on their web site... had I known this, I wouldn't have purchased his book... I was also becoming interested in the way good players thought about and approached the game.
For those of you who are not familiar with Michael de la Maza, he was a player who (at approx the age of 29 or 30) was a 1300 rated player, USCF... he created a tactics-studying program (by program I mean a course of study, not a program as in software) which enabled him to increase his rating by 400 points one year, plus an additional 300 points the following year, to a rating of around 2040 or so... he then abruptly retired from active play.
His method of doing this involved basically 100% of its time to the study of tactics, and solving tactical exercises... he outlines the exact 5 month study method he used to achieve these results.
While his results were certainly impressive, and I admire him for sharing this method which brought him so much success in a farily short time, I don't think that this method is good for the vast majority of players...
Certainly at the class level, which covers most of us, tactical ability (or lack thereof) decides virtually every game played... it is really only at the Expert/Master levels that openings/variations become very important... The reason for this is because there are too many tactical errors in games between class players for the opening to have much significance... certainly, one should play sound opening principles (no more than one or two pawn moves, knights before bishops, castle, etc), but it is clearly not necessary to spend the overwhelming part of one's study time on openings, as even Kasparov has said that "openings really don't matter at the beginning level."
I'm speculating here, but de la Maza probably retired from active play because he was burned out on chess...and it was undoubtedly the study method which he "invented" that caused the burnout... I don't think any of us here ever want to get to the point where we don't want to play (or at least read about) chess anymore. I would say, by all means, check out the Chess Cafe archives, and see if you'd like to incorporate any of de la Maza's exercises into your own study program... but as far as using his exact method (in which you end up solving more than 1,000 tactical exercises in one day), for me, it would take way too much time away from family and friends...and it's not worth it. Perhaps a greatly scaled down version of his method might be more practical for anyone who actually has a life...
On de la Maza, I would say, check out the Chess Cafe archives for his article "400 points in 400 days" (I belive that was the title, and I think it's a two part article), but don't spend your money on his book...
EDIT: One other thing I forgot to mention about dlMaza... he all but stated in his book that he does not "know" any openings (by that he meant that he doesn't know the moves of the different openings from memory, all he does is play by opening principles)... here is the quote:
...He (Yermolinsky, in "The Road to Chess Improvement) argues that a chess player must be willing to dedicate a substantial amount of time to studying a 'real' opening. With all due respect to Yermolinsky, this advice is off the mark. A Class "D" player can become a class "B" player in one year without knowing the Sicilian or the Grunfeld or the Ruy Lopez. I know because I did just that. As FM Pelts and GM Alburt write in "Comprehensive Chess Course (Vol II)", "We beg students who are addicted to opening manuals to remember that most players who spend their time studying theory never reach A-level."
I think the point that d l Maza was making here is that studying tactics increases your chess ability, whereas studying openings increases your chess knowledge. Knowledge is not as easy to translate to over the board success as is ability.
18 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by RahimKWhile he may not have put it the best way, Sicilian Smaug makes a point that deserves elaboration. That beginners (ie anyone who considers me a strong player) have a tendancy to put too much emphasis on openings is well understood. The many of us who are in a position to advise beginners dutifully council against this. However, we don't always do it well. When I hear the kind of things more experienced players often say it's clear why many novices believe that they should avoid any and all examination of their openings. Not only is this belief detrimental of their development as players, but after getting wiped out a few times they are likely to shun the advice of these more experienced players and go their own way (which will probably involve hours of opening study to the exclusion of all else). It's not as though the beginner's choices are limited to either devoting all their time to openings or ignoring them completely, but you wouldn't know that listening to the advice they are often given. Beginners should not spend time memorizing variations from specialized opening manuals. Beginners should (in addition to tactics, endgames and all the other important stuff) understand opening principles, learn the ideas behind their chosen openings and analyze the openings from their games so that they are not making the same mistakes over and over. We should take better care that in counciling against the former we are not also discouraging the latter.
I don't like the words you chose. I'm talking about those people who spend hours and hours memorizing this and that for openings instead of studying tactics or endgames. Once they are out of their beloved opening, they have no idea what to do and end up losing their game. Don't waste your time on openings till your a decent player.
18 Dec 05
Originally posted by trallphazMost opening lines aren't going to end with a winning position for either side, but rather what happens with good play from both sides. Yes, all that memorization work is for two things:
knowing what to play to have the winning position derived from the sicilian 20 moves deep in a game would be a handy thing to know at any level, i would think.
- A slight edge, maybe
- Not losing the game in the opening
18 Dec 05
Originally posted by Freddie2004No. It's better to focus on the basics, because that's what wins games. The more refined stuff can wait until the basics are mastered.
Surely it should be encouraged for lower rated players to understand all aspects of the game equally as opposed to some more than others? 😕