Originally posted by nimzo5I am playing through one hundred Fischer games on my little computer, its guess the
It makes me wonder if opening books should be written in a format where instead of analyzing branches of lines it should be done based chapters of player strength.
i.e.
Chapters 1-4 are typical plans, traps etc.
chapter 5-6 is common lines in the u1400 database
chapter 7-8 slighly more sophisticated stuff for Class B players
chapter 9-12 Class A id ...[text shortened]... yer or lower who neglects playing through the old masters is doing themselves a great diservice.
move and its wonderful. No analysis, no annotations, just the games and trying to
guess the move, its absolutely wonderful, i cannot tell you how my appreciation for
Fischer has reached new heights, he is so original, i would recommend it to anyone.
Originally posted by nimzo5USCF Senior Master John Hall wrote a book entitled Opening Systems for Competitive Chess Players, where he advocates the Torre Attack, the QGD Tartakower setup against everything but 1. e4, and the Caro Kann. The format is annotated games.
It makes me wonder if opening books should be written in a format where instead of analyzing branches of lines it should be done based chapters of player strength.
i.e.
Chapters 1-4 are typical plans, traps etc.
chapter 5-6 is common lines in the u1400 database
chapter 7-8 slighly more sophisticated stuff for Class B players
chapter 9-12 Class A id ...[text shortened]... yer or lower who neglects playing through the old masters is doing themselves a great diservice.
In the introduction he has a section on how to use the book, and it has three subsections: One for Novice and Class E/D players, one for C/B players, and one for A/Expert/Master Players.
The games are annotated at three levels, and he coaches each group on how they should approach the games and the annotations, and what they need to do to be successful.
It is not exactly like your outline, but it is absolutely in the spirit. It is a good book and relatively successful, so the idea has a track record and legs.
Sometimes we experienced players tend to group all opening books together and administer our righteous disdain, but the reality is, that like many things, there are good ones and bad ones, and which ones are which may well depend on the reader as much as the writer!
The first rep book that I know of was actually in a chapter called:
Method Chess by Leonard Barden in his Guardian Chess Book. (1967).
The Goring was one of his suggestions and GM Motwani and IM Bryson
(a postal GM before computers) both admit proudly to using the 'method'
(repertoire) with great success.
There now seem to be loads to choose from.
Some try to catch with the eye with a snazy jazzy title:
A Ferocious Opening Repertoire (Everyman Chess):
An Explosive Chess Opening Repertoire for Black (Gambit Books)
A Startling Chess Opening Repertoire by Chris Baker
A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire (Cadogan Chess Books)
Others....
A Hypermodern Opening Repertoire for White - Eric Schiller..... 😕
As I said, you don't have to take them all onboard. Just one
or two from one book, another from another book.
Those that are slightly off beat but give postions you like playing.
In The Chess Opening for You, a Complete System for White and Black
by Larry Evans (Kings Indain Attack v everything as White. KID v 1.D4
and the Center Counter v 1.e4 )
He says it is important when choosing a repertoire that you 'Know Yourself'.
- Joined
- 10 Apr 03
- Moves
- 48786
As White:
Blackmar-Diemer Gambit
As Black:
Dutch Defense (vs. 1.d4 1.c4 1.Nf3, etc.)
Symetrical King Pawn Defenses (vs. 1.e4)
The book title is "The Final Theory of Chess." It is 400 pages of mostly computer analysis. The eBook is free if you go to "Downloads" page on the Open Encyclopedia of Chess Openings.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by Phillidor284Striving towards Mate from the First Move, I presume. And I should trust this... why? Computer analysis is good for pointing out tactical tricks you missed, not for opening strategy.
As White:
Blackmar-Diemer Gambit
As Black:
Dutch Defense (vs. 1.d4 1.c4 1.Nf3, etc.)
Symetrical King Pawn Defenses (vs. 1.e4)
The book title is "The Final Theory of Chess." It is 400 pages of mostly computer analysis. The eBook is free if you go to "Downloads" page on the Open Encyclopedia of Chess Openings.
Richard
I am highly suspicious of anyone who thinks the BDG is "THE" final theory on best openings. An interesting idea however as I think if there were a significant number of contributors and an intelligent system of evaluating the shared analysis you might gradually get something.
Then again, this project is years behind the pet projects of various enthusiasts using more advanced engines than fritz 10 and serious dedicated software.
I prefer not to reinvent the wheel when it comes to openings, but instead to take existing theory and find my own areas to explore.
- Joined
- 10 Apr 03
- Moves
- 48786
Originally posted by nimzo5It is understandable to be suspicious of the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit. White's repertoire was built around the BDG, as explained in the book, in part because of the tactical nature of the opening which lends itself to computer analysis perhaps better than more positional openings.
I am highly suspicious of anyone who thinks the BDG is "THE" final theory on best openings. An interesting idea however as I think if there were a significant number of contributors and an intelligent system of evaluating the shared analysis you might gradually get something.
Then again, this project is years behind the pet projects of various enthusiasts ...[text shortened]... en it comes to openings, but instead to take existing theory and find my own areas to explore.
Just for clarification, the book isn't claiming that the BDG is the single best opening. For example, "Following countless hours of computer analysis, the jury will one day come back in and the verdict returned as to whether the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit leads to a forced win, loss, or draw with perfect play" (page 1).
An interesting question is: Is there a single "best" opening? That is: If the BDG turns out to be a draw with best play and no other White opening leads to a forced win for White then by what objective measure is the BDG inferior to any other opening?
Originally posted by Phillidor284At that point then it comes down to a question of playing for positions you play well vs your opponent not as well. However, it is far more likely that the BDG will be a draw/loss long before it is remotely clear on other White choices.
An interesting question is: Is there a single "best" opening? That is: If the BDG turns out to be a draw with best play and no other White opening leads to a forced win for White then by what objective measure is the BDG inferior to any other opening?