Originally posted by EladarIn my yoof I aspired to become some kind of master. I achieved that aim, just not the chess variety, and then swapped it for a doctorate. Now I just aim to enjoy my chess so I'll play 1. g3 and not worry overly much about the likelihood of my ever being world champion.
Of course I think there is one more thing that needs to be discussed:
What does the beginner or novice expect to achieve? Are we all shooting to become GM's and IM's?
Yes, at first I played the Colle, I just wanted to get out of the opening and still was able to play.
Then I fiddled around a bit because I didn't like the closed games that I was getting playing the Colle. I tried the English, didn't get any help. I didn't have a clue as to what I was trying to do.
Now I'm playing 1.b3 because I got help from a fairly strong player (1800-1900 now, but was just getting back into chess).
I didn't suck then because I didn't play 1.e4. For quite some time I played 1.e4 and responded to 1.e4 with 1.e5. It didn't help me at all.
Do you know what? Playing the Colle and playing 1.b3 still allowed me to get better. No matter which opening I used, I still had to develop board vision. I still practiced puzzles and got better.
Imagine that, doing chess puzzles and playing games makes a bad player a bit better. I imagine that as time progresses and if I continue to play I'll actually get a bit better too.
I also imagine that you will not achieve the level of GM.
So where does that put us? It means we simply play chess and are not among the very best. There are people we can pound and there are people who can pound us.
Originally posted by EladarProfound, are you saying that by playing and doing puzzles you will improve? I'd frankly never have guessed it.
Yes, at first I played the Colle, I just wanted to get out of the opening and still was able to play.
Then I fiddled around a bit because I didn't like the closed games that I was getting playing the Colle. I tried the English, didn't get any help. I didn't have a clue as to what I was trying to do.
Now I'm playing 1.b3 because I got help from a fai ...[text shortened]... ong the very best. There are people we can pound and there are people who can pound us.
Do you care for efficiency? If so consider the logic (you enjoy chess, surely you value logic??) of the numerous points which Nimzo and Greenpawn have made regarding the merits of embracing classical openings, and put your bongo down. If not, keep banging away.
Originally posted by EladarWhen were you playing 1.e4 (e5) and under what conditions (blitz, CC etc)? Was this before you were playing the Colle or after?
I didn't suck then because I didn't play 1.e4. For quite some time I played 1.e4 and responded to 1.e4 with 1.e5. It didn't help me at all.
Originally posted by WeeDSteMI care more about the destination and the road as opposed to the how quickly I get there.
Profound, are you saying that by playing and doing puzzles you will improve? I'd frankly never have guessed it.
Do you care for efficiency? If so consider the logic (you enjoy chess, surely you value logic??) of the numerous points which Nimzo and Greenpawn have made regarding the merits of embracing classical openings, and put your bongo down. If not, keep banging away.
There is no award for reaching the highest level first. In the end there is only the enjoyment of the game and the struggle to get better and gain a better understanding of what you are doing.
If it takes 5 years, great. If it takes 10 years, then that's OK too. In the end we all reach our top. In the end it really doesn't matter where that top is. We all end up playing against people at our general level. We all win some and lose some.
Originally posted by EladarIt's very common for adult players to start out playing 1.e4 join ICC or similar and get absolutely pummeled for a couple months playing blitz.
It was mostly blitz, sometimes OTB with people around me. I played 1.e4 e5 first.
Behavioral finance studies show that for adults the pain of losing is greater than the joy from winning and so what tends to happen is the adult player not used to being bad at something will seek some alternative to avoid taking the punishment.
This usually means adopting some ready made opening system so "they can just get a game"- this means the Colle, the KIA etc. They play the KID, the French, The Pirc or similar openings with a closed center so that they don't get blown out of the water in 10-15 moves.
My contention is take that same adult, slow down the time control to at least g/15 and ideally g/45 or more and really focus on playing over the classics and in a couple years they will be able to hold their own in any open game. The opening itself will matter little, because they will have a strong notion for time, material and quality.. the cornerstones of chess.
You can tell a player who has their open games down cold, they are just as dangerous in closed games because they threaten to crack it open and know what to do when it is.
just my .02 and I will leave it at that.
play what you like and enjoy the game. I just wish someone had given me this advice when I was starting out as an adult player.
Believe me, there was still a lot of pain. I used to kick myself right and left. It was an evolution away from that. First there was the intellectual understanding that getting better at chess means losing to better players. As long as I didn't do something stupid, I generally didn't get upset at losing at all. Now I'm even OK with blunders. Chess has really taught me that it's OK to be human. It's been a real humbling experience.
If I had someone had worked with me while I was playing 1.e4, then I probably would have stuck with it. I've fumbled around pretty much by myself and was taught 1.b3 basics by a higher rated player who was good enough to be a coach and get paid for it. He volunteered his time with me because he was just getting back into chess.
I've still gotten better. I believe I will continue to get better if I continue to play. I still think there is plenty to learn. Hopefully I'll continue running into good people who will lead me along the way. I'm thinking about trying out a chess club or two around here during the summer. It's kind of busy for me during the school years.
Originally posted by ThabtosExcept they don't. When you look at databases of high end play not all openings are equal. The numbers back up most of the conventional wisdom about opening viability: Sicilian is a powerful response to e4, hypermodern openings are as solid as a lot of old classics, a3 sucks, etc.
When you look at the DB figures, has anyone ever though at the possibility that a master could play 1.a3 and probably have the same excellent results? Being masters and all? Especially as there are only a few of them, so they HAVE to play some much weaker players a lot.