Originally posted by WilfriedvaI think we all agree with this, and that the issue is somewhat semantic, or at least the victim of inexact internet communication.
Of course fat lady,and others,was right in setting him straight.And I agree dewi's 'tone' could've been better.
But I was getting the impression people thought he shouldn't be trying to help his friend for he may cause damage.And that I don't agree with.Though he might want to find a better way of going about it.
He should find a better way, and stop doing it the way he is doing it currently. And we should encourage him to that end.
If the way we are trying to help isn't helping, we should try to find a different, better way to help, not quit completely.
I said it was a brave post, and it was.
An open post like that is really setting yourself up as an easy target.
I could see he effort he put in but was falling for all the mistakes I
made when I took my first steps at writing/coaching. It's not as easy as the
Reinfelds and Chernevs make it out to be.
I'm not saying I have it cracked (far friom it) but I have been doing it a while
and saw the pitfalls he fell into.
When you see someone keen and makig an effort but not getting it right
then you should offer what you think is fair advice.
I was going to add 'take it or leave it' but re-read it and decided it was not duff
advice and it echoed the words of advice I received all those years ago.
I recieved a charming PM from Dewi thanking me.
Good. He will be back again. It will read better.
I enjoy reading notes from average players.
(and If I see something good, a joke, a turn of phrase etc.... I will nick it.) 🙂
Fat Lady's comments are open, honest and fair. There was no mistaking what he meant.
In real life he is a very experienced junior coach.
(a crap chess player but a good coach) 😉
He more than any of us has had to undo a lot of bad coaching and at times
that must try the pateince of a Saint.
Tone is hard to judge in a post and often one wee word out of place
can make the whole piece seem a snarl when it was not intended that way.
The post that was quoted here has been removedI don't see the controversy. "2.f4 is probably a bad move". That one is correct. The stonewall is useless to people that don't understand it. "4.e3 is probably not as good as 4.c3" That one seems logical. Why bother playing a queen's pawn opening if you're gonna play Na3? Playing Na3 shows a serious lack of understanding of the Stonewall. Which is, your knight is generally useless on a3. Na3 is usually played with the idea of setting up a dark-bishop fianchetto and attacking the centre via c4. People who play 1.Na3 all the time don't usually play 1.d4 So in this game, White had no idea how to make his a3 knight useful. Probably shouldn't have put it there.
"Pin the knight on c6 via Bb5 before playing Ne5." This is a common tactic although sometimes people use this tactic to exchange pieces, reducing the tension and making it harder to win. You do not want to do this. I think if White kept the pressure on Black, he would've had an easier time defending his position.
Black might have been a little arrogant, but so is every other attacker out there. We all think the other guy cannot properly defend if we attack. "My offense is just too strong for him, he cannot find the right moves to properly defend".
Sure, White had resources but he couldn't find them. If you can't find resources to properly defend against an attack, you probably made questionable positional moves. Petrosian wouldn't have been able to play great defense when he needs to without making the right positional moves.
Originally posted by hamworldMy friend, in the position he HAD to play Na3. I think you are getting hung up on what to name the opening and ignoring the actual position.
I don't see the controversy. "2.f4 is probably a bad move". That one is correct. The stonewall is useless to people that don't understand it. "4.e3 is probably not as good as 4.c3" That one seems logical. Why bother playing a queen's pawn opening if you're gonna play Na3? Playing Na3 shows a serious lack of understanding of the Stonewall. Which is, your kni ...[text shortened]... play great defense when he needs to without making the right positional moves.
If you think he should not have put the knight there, you need to demonstrate a better move in the position. Criticizing the only sensible move in the position without showing an alternate move that counters the threat or neutralizes it in some manner is useless and wrong, and it does more harm than good.
Originally posted by greenpawn34I thought I should mention that "How to Think Ahead in Chess" was one of my very first chess books, and it had a profound influence on me. I knew very little about chess openings, and the method of preparation was eye-opening for me at the time.
Hi Dewi.
It not easy is it. But a brave post and hopefully you might pick up
a few hard earned tips as well as your opponent.
You have said far too much, you are trying to cram in 100 chess lessons
into one game. That is too much for a lad to take in.
The main lesson in that game was him missing mate in one.
Labour the fact that chess is not ...[text shortened]... . Rg1 Qh3 {Set up and fall for mate in one again.}[/pgn]
Using the book, I played the Stonewall Attack in 3 games at the LPO tournament in North Carolina in 1987. I won all three games (the first games I had ever won in a tournament, as it was my 2nd one) tied for 3rd place in the U1500/unrated, won $50 and bought my first chess clock with the proceeds.
Reading this post brought back some very pleasant memories.
Hi
I had it too. (still have a copy knocking about somewhere.)
Everyone appeared to have it! I recall it was a main rep of everyone
in the Edinburgh Chess League in the 70's. (massive exageration but it
was fairly common to see the Stonewall, an opening that Fred sold well in
that book, on the lower boards in the lower divisions.)
It does give a good grounding for what is to come regarding opening prep.
The ideas behind why certain pieces go on certain squares etc..
For an experiment I'll see if I can find a Stonewall, Dragon, Lasker defence
player on RHP. I am going to do a Blog today (I have no idea what it will be about,
I have no games, ideas or pictures of fridges.) This may kick me off.
The post that was quoted here has been removedI never said "Knights on the rim are dim." Ever. The key difference is that the Catalan has c4 played. c2-c4 is never played in the stone-wall. White could've played c4, with is the main reasoning behind Na3. He obviously did not understand what to do with the knight on a3. I
I just don't like Na3. It's a good move, but White didn't understand what to do with that knight. I prefer 5.Bd3. Also tactically sound.
Tactics are what cost White the game. Instead of getting into tactical positions White didn't understand, he should've played the quiet move 5.Bd3 After 5...Nxd3 6. cxd3 Nf6 7. Nc3 White is practically bailed out and can afford to try to win. Against a stronger player, why would you embark on risky tactics? If he understands the tactical positions better than you, you should not go into them. Going into tactical positions against better players does not work as well as trying to positionally outplay them.
I'm pretty sure Mikhail Tal didn't go "oh yeah, this player is better than me, I'm gonna take tactical risks and hope I win". The man was always sure he was better than the other guy.
You don't see grandmasters going into tactical positions against better computers. I guess what I'm trying to say is don't take risks against better players especially when you have no idea what you're doing 5 moves into the game.
Originally posted by hamworldSomeone else suggested to me that 5. Bb5+ with the idea of Ba4, protecting c2, is also a reasonable idea. I was definitely off to suggest that Na3 was the only move.
I never said "Knights on the rim are dim." Ever. The key difference is that the Catalan has c4 played. c2-c4 is never played in the stone-wall. White could've played c4, with is the main reasoning behind Na3. He obviously did not understand what to do with the knight on a3. I
I just don't like Na3. It's a good move, but White didn't understand what to do ...[text shortened]... yers especially when you have no idea what you're doing 5 moves into the game.
The post that was quoted here has been removedI'm not gonna post anything. Wait I just did. 😛
I never said 5. Bd3 is better than 5. Na3 The problem is, having to play Na3 in that position. Why should White have to defend so early? Hell, why should he play the Stonewall anyway? "I prefer 5. Nd3"
"5 Bd3 Nxd3 6 cxd3 gives White a worse position than after 5 Na3." Er, I could use an explanation here, other than "White has doubled pawns." Besides, white is already in a worse position! He gave up the right to a better position when he started botching up the Stonewall. That's the way I see it.
I think it's fair to say I have an irrational bias for 5.Bd3 I have no problem with admitting that.
There is a strong cliche-hate here that doesn't seem to make sense. White didn't care about the cliches. Why would he start listening to them now? I seriously doubt the message the White player is gonna take home is "Knights on the rim are dim". No, the general ideas he's gonna get are "Avoid playing the Stonewall, and play Qf3 when Black is going all kamikaze against your kingside if you do play the Stonewall." It's weird. The Stonewall is supposed to reduce the need to study opening theory here. White's complete ignorance of the Stonewall made it very difficult for him to win. If White understood the theory better, he would have been much better off.
It's a useless cliche that doesn't help/hurt anyone with a 1400 level of tactical understanding.
Hi Hamworld
Cliche's have the place but are often over used....
(Hence the term 'cliche' you greenpawn dimwit.......The Duck)
.....they get tossed about all over the place and very often for the wrong reason.
Here it was forced (I know you like Bd3 but stay with me.).
The time to start pointing out Na3's as potential game losing errors is
when they are not forced and moved to a3 for no other reason than the fact
it was White's turn to move.
Regarding the actual game.
Everyone is running around expressing great concern for an unmoved a1 Rook.
I know I'm out of touch with what's happening in the Chess world but the
last time I looked the object of the game was to checkmate the King.
After this I'll Google the FIDE site to see if they have changed it to capturing the a1 Rook.
That Knight will take 4 moves precious opening moves to nick an undeveloped,
unmoved scaffy Rook which will have no significant role to play till I decide to
open the centre (I may not want to).
Saving the useless Rook commits me to a strategy. I refuse to be blackmailed
into a strategy. (not much choice after 1.d4 and 2.f4 - yuk!)
Meanwhile White has holes in his position (1.d4 and 2.f4 - yuk!) which at the
moment can be only exploited by Knights....Not Rooks.
His agile Knight is worth more than a lumbering Rook.
So sac the Rook....and a Knight...and a Bishop....