posted
I've always mucked about with chess, but I never really took it serious. I recently decided that I wanted to learn the game. WOW, there's a lot to it.
I've been playing on GameKnot, and I'm learning strategy with "Openings". I have a few systems that seem to be working, and it's easy to find new "Opening" strategies and play them out. What I'm having trouble with are mid-game and end-game strategies.
I have to REALLY outmaneuver my opponent in the opening, or I get squashed. Are there any good online resources or books to help with later game strategies for low-intermediate / advanced beginner players?
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yasser Seirawan's "Winning Chess..." series is an excellent place to start. These books are informative and engaging, and don't suffer from being as dry as other chess books.
I think this is the order in which they were published.
Incidentally, he suggests that tactics are one of the *first* things, and openings are one of the *last* things, that a beginner should study.
Posts: 1080 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ughh, I've always hated Seirawan. The first two books I recommend to my students under 1400 (or did, when I used to give lessons) are 1001 Winning Chess Sacrifices and Combinations by Reinfeld and Chess Fundamentals by Capablanca. The way to go about it is to solve about 5-10 puzzles a day with Reinfeld and read Capa simultaneously throughout the process.
Avoid openings until later. It's not uncommon to hear people say to avoid openings until one is already expert level, but that's a slight exaggeration, IMO. Only slight.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never studied openings. All I ever learned is tactics. I guess that's one reason I could never beat Jon. I'm hovering around 1800 these days though--without any formal education.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JonHecht: Well, I'm a huge proponent of studying the endgame first.
Agreed.
I was always terrible at openings. I knew *my* openings (King's Gambit and one that I don't remember the name of whenever I could for white, Dutch Defense or Sicilian Dragon for black), but if there was any other one I was pretty much in the dark about what I would be expected to do.
That would lead me to some arguments with my high school coach.
"That's the Vienna." "What the hell does that mean?"
When I played I was in the 1400s, but I haven't played in a tournament in over 15 years. I've won some money now and then.
Even suckered some guys at the University of Miami out of $20. Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm having some good luck with a hybrid strategy between the Reti Opening and the Hippopotamus Defense. They're both tough, unconventional, and keep me safe from the players who would normally squash me with their "systems". And supposedly the Hippopotamus throws people off because it makes it look like you have no idea how to play.
It's easily upped my game by a couple of hundred points. I was getting "whooped" by people in the 1100's, but now I'm hanging close to some of the 1300's.
It seems a lot of this strategy just comes from playing a lot. But my new set of openings is letting me live long enough to see some really good mid-game. Now, if I could just end-game.
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd say you're better off playing something more conventional than the Reti and Hippopotamus at first, preferably something a bit more open and tactical. Not necessarily sticking to "main lines" and playing along with grandmaster games until move 20 or so, that's not gonna get you anywhere if you don't actually understand why they made the moves. Instead try to apply general opening principles, like activating most of your pieces, staking some claim with pawns in the center so you can maneuver around it, castling to put your king to safety and trying to attack on the opposite side or the center.
And most of all, check more than one move ahead (or even, check THAT move). One of the biggest jumps from 1200-level play to 1600-1700-level play on gameknot is that at the former you'll see a lot of pieces moved to an undefended and attacked square, to squares that are not defended enough (i.e. the number of defenders is less than the number of attackers, or the defenders are of higher quality than the attackers), moves that leave other pieces undefended or moves that open routes of attack to other pieces. It's a matter of routine which can save you a lot of problems: can he put me in check? Can he capture the piece I just moved? Can he capture another piece because of my last move? Especially in correspondence chess this should be easy to check, but most of my friends who play at this level simply don't bother with that.
I assume your gameknot account is the same as the one on Hatrack?
---
Nighthawk, arguments about which is the "real" name of the opening are pretty useless most of the time. One of the latest openings I play with white starts as a closed Sicilian (1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5) and turns into a Ruy Lopez later (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5). The c6 black knight sometimes moves again in the Ruy to open the road to the c pawn to go to c5 and you end up with the same thing as the closed Sicilian. So which opening is it? It doesn't really matter.
---
JonHecht, how far would you say it is useful to study endgames at first? I mean, it's good to know how to mate with queen & king vs king or rook and king vs king, how to play some simple pawn endings, but most of the time in the beginning you won't reach more complex endgames than that. The game will be won/lost in the middle-game. Teaching someone how to play rook & pawn endings is probably too tedious and too unsatisfying when you never reach them. That said, I never had any specific training, I just read some books and played as much as I could. And I still don't play rook & pawn endings well, although by now I should have tried to learn a bit more about them. Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Corwin, you misunderstand the purpose of studying endgames first. The purpose is *not* simply to learn the endgame. It's the gain a deeper understanding of piece coordination; i.e., how certain pieces work together. As well, endgames allow one to calculate in a more linear fashion than middlegames, which have many more factors that must come into play, thus allowing one to practice more accurate calculations (and try to hold calculations deeper). These skills may easily be applied to the middlegame. If one knows how to mate with a knight and a bishop, then one will certainly know how to coordinate those pieces better than the average 1100.
But don't listen to me. My last student just climbed from 1100 to 1550 USCF in two months.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
JonHecht: - Almost everything I've read said that beginning players should NEVER open with anything other than an established opening. Are you saying not to study them at all, or not to spend to much time with them? - What about playing the modern? It interests me, but should I wait until I'm playing in the 1300's - 1400's before I should start studying it?
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I mean don't study them at all, beyond knowing some basic principles.
Some such principles include controlling the center, develop with threats, no knights on the rim, try to minimize moving a piece in the opening more than once, etc.
Beyond that, tactics, strategy, and ENDGAME. Capablanca's book is exemplary in that it starts with the endgame, then the middlegame, then the opening. Not to mention simply being a brilliant book.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: It was a simple question -- no need to get defensive.
Indeed. I have never played in tournaments and as I said I've never had qualified training, I was simply asking a question and stating my view of it at the same time so that JonHecht would know what to answer to.
I appreciate the view you've given into studying endgames, Jon. I probably still can't mate with bishop and knight, and if I'm gonna end up in that position in a correspondence game I'm probably gonna end up making a 50-move draw. And so I see what you mean about learning piece coordination, since learning how the bishop, knight and king work together in that position is bound to make you more attentive to them when you're playing in the middlegame (or endgames). The problem, at least for me, is that studying such an endgame alone is pretty tough. I have some books that include some details about it (I think there's one containing a full explanation) but I've never had the patience to go through it. Maybe in a more organized environment, with a teacher, I'd learn it faster. So, would you say it makes a big difference in the study plan whether you have a teacher or you're learning just from books?
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A teacher helps expedite the process, certainly. That having been said, the purpose of a chess teacher is more a guide than an instructor. In addition to answering questions and explaining certain things that the student is having difficulty with, the chess teacher more so helps to identify the weaknesses of the student. Then the teacher might explain what books/games to look at to fix up that weak spot, as well as going over some of the problems to explain it in more general terms. That way the student can learn on his own more effectively.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Herblay: JonHecht: - Almost everything I've read said that beginning players should NEVER open with anything other than an established opening. Are you saying not to study them at all, or not to spend to much time with them?
The question is: which opening? The Pirc/Robatsch might be established, but they're hard to master. The Caro-Kann can lead to early endgame like positions. If your strong point is the endgame, maybe it suits you. If not maybe not. I tried some less "classical" openings like the Pirc, or 1.Nf3 not necessarily leading into something Reti-like, and I realized, I didn't really know what I was doing. Most times I ended up in cramped positions, with plans to extricate myself that were far longer and more complex than what I could imagine. I then turned back to playing 1.e4 heading into a Ruy Lopez, and answering 1.e4 with 1...e5, and it turns out that the main openings & lines are "main" for a reason. The moves seem to flow simply and the end result can be a very playable position. And guess what? The fear that my opponents would go into "deep" lines which would be better was unfounded*. They're also casual players and don't have the time or the understanding to take advantage of a variation that's slightly in their favor. +/- or -/+ are pretty much an equal evaluation when we're talking about casual players.
* I did end up playing a line from an Adams - Kasparov game once without realizing I was heading into it. By the time I realized what was going on I was frankly more trying to understand what Kasparov had planned than how to deviate from it! My opponent ended up going into some analysis that improved on Adams' play, then wanted too much and the game ended in a draw with me missing a winning combination. But that happened once. Chances are, it will not happen again for a looong time.
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Another question and then I'm off to sleep, it's a bit late here, especially for chess: would you say that knowing at least some usual positions and plans that result from certain openings is a good thing to learn once you're a bit comfortable with middlegame/endings? To give an example: I've seen a few Sicilian games with the Rc8xc3 sacrifice, capturing a knight and sometimes a further pawn on e4. I've even won a few games with this, and in others it served as threat that put my opponent in defense. So, while this is more middlegame-related, the position arises from specific openings. Would you teach someone openings with the thought of leading into positions like this, or do you think what you learn in this case and the few games you might win with it are not worth delaying other more important aspects that need to improve?
Hope I'm clear enough, it's a bit past midnight here. Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In answer to your first question, yes. A classic book on the topic is The Ideas Behind Chess Openings. A *tiny* bit more advanced (I'd say wait until 1500 for this one, just because the analysis itself is somewhat deep) is Pawn Structure Chess, which is fantastic. Andy is hit or miss in his books, and this one is definitely a hit.
I quit over a year ago, so I may be a bit behind, but chess doesn't really change that much under the 2600 level.
To clarify what I mean when I say absolutely don't study openings, is don't study opening theory. Studying general plans and strategies that arise out of a particular opening is fine, but that's more middlegame/pawn structure strategy; which is why I appreciate that Soltis' book is named Pawn Structure Chess rather than Opening Structure of something of the sort.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I'm hovering around 1800 these days though--without any formal education.
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
And so I see what you mean about learning piece coordination, since learning how the bishop, knight and king work together in that position is bound to make you more attentive to them when you're playing in the middlegame (or endgames). The problem, at least for me, is that studying such an endgame alone is pretty tough. I have some books that include some details about it (I think there's one containing a full explanation) but I've never had the patience to go through it. Maybe in a more organized environment, with a teacher, I'd learn it faster. So, would you say it makes a big difference in the study plan whether you have a teacher or you're learning just from books?
