19 Jun 18
Originally posted by @ragwortYes, good post. There is no way around it, chess requires effort and patience to master, there are no short cuts.
Although recommended in books I'm not sure a classical repertoire is necessarily the best for non theorists. To win in symmetrical positions tends to require accurate move after accurate move (think of Karpov playing the Petrov) whereas the flexible pawn structures of Pirc KID can be more fertile ground to find ideas with which to outplay a similar rated op ...[text shortened]... ending Ng6 protecting f4}
[/pgn]
Then you find 10 years ago a load of GMs start playing it.
Adopting a hype modern opening like the KID, the black player is trying to avoid symetrical positions, this is a very valid reason to take up such an opening. But how does one come to learn the value of this approach, if you haven't spent time playing classical, symetrical openings? When you teach a new player, you would never start with the KID, it would be a complete waste of time. I tried to play this opening after about a year of playing fairly seriously (well, i played most days for a year, if you can call that serious). I gave it up pretty quickly. Tbh, i have been playing for 15 years now and I still avoid this opening with both colours!
20 Jun 18
Originally posted by @marinkatomb"hype modern openings"? I realize this is a spell checker induced error, but it brings out an important point. A lot of the advocacy of some systems is just that. Typically to sell some book.
Yes, good post. There is no way around it, chess requires effort and patience to master, there are no short cuts.
Adopting a hype modern opening like the KID, the black player is trying to avoid symetrical positions, this is a very valid reason to take up such an opening. But how does one come to learn the value of this approach, if you haven't spen ...[text shortened]... kly. Tbh, i have been playing for 15 years now and I still avoid this opening with both colours!
I tend to agree. The problem with things like the King's Indian is that players can use it to avoid openings tactics - which I did years and years ago to the detriment of my game. Beginners need to be able to cope with these and the best way to do that is playing e4 and that family of openings as the pieces come into contact quickly. The caveat is that in a competitive game, such as for a chess club in a league game, one should play to one's strengths - so avoiding tactics via the KIA is appropriate - beginners should play for tactical fireworks in friendlies where only ego is at stake.
20 Jun 18
Originally posted by @nevareIt depends on one's objective in the next game. If it is a training game then it makes sense to play into positions one finds difficult - in the context of this discussion that means beginners playing classical lines after 1. e4. On the other hand if the game is competitive one should aim for positions one is most comfortable in - in the context of a beginner struggling with opening tactics the KIA is a good tool for coping.
So are you saying classical and tactics or safe and sound? It feels like you said both.
26 Jun 18
Originally posted by @nevareIt took me years to appreciate this, but against good players this is all you can really hope for, other things equal. Anything else is "hope chess".
Lasker said your only job in the opening is to get a playable middlegame. Ha!