There are thousands of posts here that you can never be sure is true or not., but accusing someone of lying isn't the right way to go about it.
hmm... yes, you're probably right, but just I cant' stop not believing that conversation. I've seen that pedagogical method so many times, and I'm not a fan of it.
the intention of the thread is good though, and I dont want to discourage anyone. I just would advise those teachers not to carry a lot of "aesthetical worries of such" in the lessons.
let me make myslef more clear. if someone would start a thread saying "I drew against GM Christiansen in a simul! here's the pgn", and if I'd say I don't believe that, yes, it would be very rude, and I wouldn't do that.
here, even if Arrakis would be lying, we all know it's only for pedagogical purposes, it's not a bad intention, and not a very bad thing. so I don't accuse him doing such a bad thing as lying, I'm just stating that this particular teaching style is not the best (for me at least).
sorry if I offended anyone.
Originally posted by diskamylNo problem. Just style of teaching is down to personal preference. 🙂
let me make myslef more clear. if someone would start a thread saying "I drew against GM Christiansen in a simul! here's the pgn", and if I'd say I don't believe that, yes, it would be very rude, and I wouldn't do that.
here, even if Arrakis would be lying, we all know it's only for pedagogical purposes, it's not a bad intention, and not a very bad thin ...[text shortened]... ular teaching style is not the best (for me at least).
sorry if I offended anyone.
Originally posted by diskamylThe book GM Secrets Endings by Andrew Soltis uses this pedagogical method that you so dislike. In fact, I have read numerous reviews trashing the book for this reason. However, until I picked up Devoretsky's endgame manual, this was simply the best endgame book I have ever read; In fact, I would argue that it's one of the best endgame books available for sub 1400 players.
let me make myslef more clear. if someone would start a thread saying "I drew against GM Christiansen in a simul! here's the pgn", and if I'd say I don't believe that, yes, it would be very rude, and I wouldn't do that.
here, even if Arrakis would be lying, we all know it's only for pedagogical purposes, it's not a bad intention, and not a very bad thin ...[text shortened]... ular teaching style is not the best (for me at least).
sorry if I offended anyone.
Good thread Arrakis.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Grandmaster-Secrets-Endings/dp/0938650661
I haven't read that book but I'm pretty sure there's nothing like "I once had a student who told me 'I have found a secret formula where white wins all kinds endgames.' and I asked him what would make him think that way, and he said 'my friend told me. with that formula, in all kinds of endgames, white wins.' now let's look at the formula he's talking about (..)"
Originally posted by diskamylMaybe you should trust the person who did read the book...
I haven't read that book but I'm pretty sure there's nothing like "I once had a student who told me 'I have found a secret formula where white wins all kinds endgames.' and I asked him what would make him think that way, and he said 'my friend told me. with that formula, in all kinds of endgames, white wins.' now let's look at the formula he's talking about (..)"
Edit: It's not quite like that, but it's a supposed conversation between a teacher and a student, and the question and answers are very leading and contrived.
I do trust you. my point in the exaggeration was "yes, he could have used that method, but not to the extent that I was reffering in this thread".
two variations from this point.
1) in the book, the method is not used to that extent. OK. that may be great book. I suppose (only suppose, do not claim) I (myself) would like the book if that method wasn't used at all.
2)in the book, the method IS used to that extent. OK. I'm wrong in saying "I'm pretty much sure" in the previous post and I'm sorry. and I still suppose (only suppose, do not claim) I (myself) would like the book if that method wasn't used at all.
Originally posted by diskamylgive it a rest, damn it. it does not matter.
I do trust you. my point in the exaggeration was "yes, he could have used that method, but not to the extent that I was reffering in this thread".
two variations from this point.
1) in the book, the method is not used to that extent. OK. that may be great book. I suppose (only suppose, do not claim) I (myself) would like the book if that method wasn't ...[text shortened]... uppose, do not claim) I (myself) would like the book if that method wasn't used at all.
Originally posted by ArrakisYou are certainly right, especially playing at your level of chess. The Knight move, however, prevents barricading in my queenside bishop, and allows me to box in his bishop with my queenside pawns. What it doesn't do at all, is improve my position, as you pointed out. It's more of an intimidation move.
You get an A+ 😵
If Black were to play 4...Ne5 he would be guilty of doing the same thing White is doing:
A) Moving the same piece twice in the opening before developing the other pieces.
B) Attacking before developing his pieces
C) Neglecting development
D) Failing to improve his position.
Black's knight stands well on c6, but not e5 at this sta ...[text shortened]... 4.
4...e6 which also threatens d5 at some point is much superior, as Eric Cartman pointed out.
The reason I don't see any real harm in it, is that white's already broken that ol' "don't move same piece twice" rule. I can still proceed with normal development, moving my knight back after f4
I think that line would go: 5.Bb3 c4 6.Ba4 Bg7 7.Nc3 a6 8.f4 then knight back to c3! (probably doesn't deserve an exclamation point, but it certainly makes me feel better about myself). Here, I like the advanced pawn, white's kingside weakness, and the options for that bishop (yet to be developed). As a self-proclaimed beginner/student, what are the black weaknesses here, besides a 1-piece development delay?
Originally posted by diskamylIt's true. The first incident I drew from memory from years ago, the second case, "How does Black defend against the attack on f7?" was asked a couple of days ago by one of my students here at RHP.
sorry, I don't believe any of your students told you that. your post is too "educationally made up" that it's just annoying.
Originally posted by ArrakisThe problem with all this is the standard attack against the 2 knights defence: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Bg5, this line's been played with success for years and the focus of the attack is f7. It breaks every one of the rules you've listed (although rule C is the same as B and "Failing to improve his position" is somewhat vague), except it actually is dangerous for black, unlike the various Scolar's mate based attacks.
A) Moving the same piece twice in the opening before developing the other pieces.
B) Attacking before developing his pieces
C) Neglecting development
D) Failing to improve his position.
The problem with this stuff is that for every opening "rule" that's ever been invented I can find a perfectly respectable opening where it's broken. For example in the Ruy Lopez/Spanish the bishop is moved a number of times during the opening and white doesn't complete his developement before attacking in the Keres attack against the Scheveningen.
These rules should probably be expressed in terms of risk - if you move the same piece repeatedly in the opening you risk falling behind in developement, if you attack before completing your developement you risk a counter attack against a weakly defended position, and so on.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtWhen you sit down to teach basics you have to give some general rules. Of course there are times when those rules may be broken, but not in the line I have given. It's a good example.
The problem with all this is the standard attack against the 2 knights defence: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Bg5, this line's been played with success for years and the focus of the attack is f7. It breaks every one of the rules you've listed (although rule C is the same as B and "Failing to improve his position" is somewhat vague), except it actu ...[text shortened]... pement you risk a counter attack against a weakly defended position, and so on.
As far as your variation, "the standard attack against the 2 knights defence: 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Bg5, this line's been played with success for years and the focus of the attack is f7." it's not even playable. How does White's bishop on c1 jump the pawn on d2 to play 4.Bg5? That's what you said.
You must realize that when you say things, whether they are true or not, they make an impression on our beginning players. Being that you are a fairly strong player yourself I must assume that you meant to say 4.Ng5 since you mentioned the attack on f7. But when you say this line has been successful for years, that's misleading. It has been successful against players who did not know how to defend against it. It is successful against WEAK players. I have played the Max Lange Attack for years which can come out of this opening and it's known that if White get's d4 in before the attack then White has a winning position, but Black doesn't have to allow that.
The fact is that 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5? is a bad line and none of the top Grandmasters will play it in a serious game anymore. So please stop misleading my students.