hi I posted this in our clan forum a while back I dunno if i ever posted it here,
probably, anyhow I would like to ask if there is any improvements, additions,
subtractions that I could make to the text (other than remove it altogether), regards
Robbie.
free chess lesson, the opening.
in conclusion, the goals are really simple and easy peasy,
1.we develop our pieces
2.we connect our rooks (post the queen)
3. we make castling
to help us
1.we move pawns only to help us develop our pieces
2.we develop the least active pieces
3.we develop our pieces towards the centre and on squares of maximum activity
these things may seem simple but i can show you zillions of games where these
principles are violated to the detriment of the player who neglected them! Anyhow,
if you got anything out of this, or have any questions, no matter how trivial, let me
know, regards Robbie.
Originally posted by w0lver1neits not really about the Sicilian though, its intent is to give general principles that can be
Maybe you could talk a little about the center and explain that the reason why Black plays 1...c5 in the Sicilian is to prevent White from having a second center pawn after 1 e4
applied to any opening.
Originally posted by Wilfriedvahmmm, i think that posting the rooks is more a middle game feature, is it not? Although
I think if you add goal 4.influence the centre,it looks about right.
You talk about developing towards the centre but don't mention why
and you sneakily avoided the real difficult question.where to put the rooks? 😛
Purdy does argue that development is finished when the rooks have been posted. Ok,
ill think about explaining why we develop our pieces towards the center, thanks.
Hi Robbie.
I like to use actual games, especially games played by us.
Even better if it's a game they played by them.
I'm not to fond leaving them with;
"tada, we have completed all the goals in our opening...now its time to start an attack!"
This reminds me of the Old 70's Batsford opening books that would leave you in
a position after 9-10 moves saying White/Black is better.
No explanation as to why, no instructive game....nothing.
Then if by chance you found a game continuing from the position you were
dumped in you found out that although White/Black were better they actually lost.
You said it was posted in a clan forum. The lad Great Scott is in your clan.
Look at his game. Game 8854233 He is White. The Black Queen takes
on the whole White army single-handed and Black eventually wins.
Here. White to play.
White can play 12.f5 (instread of 12.b3) with the winning threat of Bf4 or Bg5+ and Bh4
Winning the wayward Queen.
It's an annoying win by Black because he totally ignored opening principles
and got away with it. Black has learned nothing and White is confused.
He has been told early Queen sorties are bad and yet he losses.
(The resignation was dodgy. The position is not resignable when White threw in the towel.)
Point the lad towards this game. He should pick up something about development
and become aware that Queens when they stray into the enemy camp often never
get out alive.
------------
A post of mine from The Beginners Club.
I've been looking at a few of your games.
A lot of you are simply not bringing out all your pieces and castling.
Here is a game I played on here, it lasted 7 moves.
All I did was develop and my threat after developing was enough
for Black to resign.
greenpawn - Rene Pogel RHP 2008
Originally posted by greenpawn34yes I agree actual games are better but in this instance its not possible for reasons i
Hi Robbie.
I like to use actual games, especially games played by us.
Even better if it's a game they played by them.
I'm not to fond leaving them with;
"tada, we have completed all the goals in our opening...now its time to start an attack!"
This reminds me of the Old 70's Batsford opening books that would leave you in
a position after 9- reatening Ne1 or Ba4 or indeed Bd3 all winning the Queen. He cannot preven it.} [/pgn]
cannot disclose. We are only considering the opening and general principles with
regard to the opening, not opening plans (i could easily have used a Nimzo Indian to
demonstrate an opening plan but that was not my objective). Its useless therefore
to talk of the Sicilian and its goals for we are only interested in general opening
principles which can be applied to any opening, black or white. Yes its annoying ,
but against a better player he would not have got away with it, he should have been
punished and taken away to jail for his wanton disregard of chess principles and i
wish he had, its our duty to punish such iniquities, for if we do not, its a thwarting of
justice, and truth and all noble and virtuous things) Anyhow, the player i had in
mind played this game, as black,
robbie the patzer king v SgtPepper99
It appears to me at this level its useless to talk of variations, Sicilians or opening
plans, but to instill a sense of chess principles which can be applied to any opening,
dont you think?
"It appears to me at this level its useless to talk of variations, Sicilians or opening
plans, but to instill a sense of chess principles which can be applied to any opening."
Totally agree. But you do need to offer something as to why a move was played
and it lays the foundation for what comes later.
Opening moves are not just about getting your pieces in apple pie order.
Showing why certain opening moves are played and giving the rough idea behind
them should not do any harm.
Getting it right is very hard, it all depends on the student and how good they are.
I doubt very much if I get it spot on but every word is carefully chosen.
In the 2nd game you left out so much. Why 6.e5 and 0-0-0 threatening mate etc.
Originally posted by greenpawn34In the 2nd game you left out so much. Why 6.e5 and 0-0-0 threatening mate etc.
"It appears to me at this level its useless to talk of variations, Sicilians or opening
plans, but to instill a sense of chess principles which can be applied to any opening."
Totally agree. But you do need to offer something as to why a move was played
and it lays the foundation for what comes later.
Opening moves are not just about getting your ...[text shortened]... ully chosen.
In the 2nd game you left out so much. Why 6.e5 and 0-0-0 threatening mate etc.
Hi GP, by this time the game was practically over, she lost it in her first five pawn moves.
- Joined
- 12 Nov 06
- Moves
- 74414
Its generally better to develop the side first that we are planning on castling upon
Wait I'm confused, you already know which side you are going to castle on, on the second move?
We could move a pawn, f3, but that doesn't help us develop any pieces and we know that pawn moves are made in the opening simply to help us develop our pieces, so that cannot be correct
Pawn moves are made simply to develop pieces? There is absolutely nothing wrong with 5.f3. In almost every opening a pawn moves that does not help develop pieces.
if we take the Bishop, they will recapture and control more central squares because they will have a pawn on e6 and they will get a half open file for their rook, the f file, and we will have given them these advantages, all by ourself. so we dont want to help them in this way
9.Bxe6 is a good move, possibly better than Qe2 or Bb3. White has loads of tricks starting with 10.Ng5 Qd7 11.Qf3 d5 12.O-O-O d4 13.Bxd4 exd4 14.e5 and it gets real complicated from there. But its no reason to dismiss the move.
Originally posted by KnightStalker47You do know the difference between planning and a concrete chioce, no? no wonder you are confused, will I explain the difference? No its not Bxe6 is a rubbish move, positionally dubiuos and it increases our oponnents mobility and control of the centre . Your comments are unsubstantiated and useless. f3 develops nothing and is reminscent of the very habbit we are trying to get our students to abandon, making useless pawns moves, I know not what you do for a living but please refrain from taking up teaching.
[b]Its generally better to develop the side first that we are planning on castling upon
Wait I'm confused, you already know which side you are going to castle on, on the second move?
We could move a pawn, f3, but that doesn't help us develop any pieces and we know that pawn moves are made in the opening simply to help us develop our pie ...[text shortened]... xd4 exd4 14.e5 and it gets real complicated from there. But its no reason to dismiss the move.
- Joined
- 12 Nov 06
- Moves
- 74414
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes and thats why it has been played by Nigel Short, Anand and a few others rated over 2500, but you would know better than them right? Did you even look at the line I posted?
No its not Bxe6 is a rubbish move, positionally dubiuos and it increases our oponnents mobility and control of the centre.
5.f3 is sometimes played at the grandmaster level as well. But I guess they don't know basic opening principles like you do!
Originally posted by KnightStalker47Am I trying to convey opening principles to Short and Anand, no then stop talking nonsense , sure I'll tell a beginner yes you play that move because Short and Anand play it . Yes you play that move because grandmasters play it, its called the grandmaster principle. As I stated you have no idea what you are talking about and producing a ream of variations to substantiate your claim of validity when we are talking of teaching basic opening principles to beginner's proves it.
Yes and thats why it has been played by Nigel Short, Anand and a few others rated over 2500, but you would know better than them right? Did you even look at the line I posted?
5.f3 is sometimes played at the grandmaster level as well. But I guess they don't know basic opening principles like you do!
- Joined
- 12 Nov 06
- Moves
- 74414
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf you tell a beginner that a move is useless(5.f3), when it is in fact completely playable, that can only do more harm than good. When you say Bxe6 is a rubbish move, when it is actually played by the best players in the world, that can only do more harm than good. If you are going to teach please do not project your dogmatic biases onto them, it will stunt their growth.
am I trying to convey opening principles to Short and Anand, no then stop talking nonsense , sure I'll tell a beginner yes you play that move because Short and Anand play it . Yes you play that move because grandmasters play it, its called the grandmaster principle. As I stated you have no idea what you are talking about and producing a ream of v ...[text shortened]... of validity when we are talking of teaching basic opening principles to beginner's proves it.
Originally posted by KnightStalker47No I will offer them your advice ,"you play that move because Anand plays it", and when they are in a position which they have never seen before they wil say to themselves I wonder what Anand plays in this position and then they will make a useless pawns move to f3 and wonder why they get mated in three moves. Don't offer me any more advice, your statement is a logical fallacy from beginning to end.
If you tell a beginner that a move is useless(5.f3), when it is in fact completely playable, that can only do more harm than good. When you say Bxe6 is a rubbish move, when it is actually played by the best players in the world, that can only do more harm than good. If you are going to teach please do not project your dogmatic biases onto them, it will stunt their growth.