Another advantage of a gambit repertoire
If you play a repertoire during a long time, you become a person of habit.
A lot of these habits have (has?) grown during a period with lesser knowledge of the game and have become counter productive. The advantage of a gambit repertoire is that you have to replace it some day by a more solid repertoire. At that moment you can get rid of those improductive habits and look with new eyes to the opening. That's the process I'm in now.
Last week I followed a lot of video lectures from Mark Diesen, Pete Tamburro etc.. That is an excellent way to play thru a lot of grandmaster games in a pretty short time. The information is easier passed on than by a book. Especially what is important and what not.
It is good to have some knowledge of the different styles of the respective grandmasters. I'm impressed by the style of Botvinnik which is consequent logical and good to follow. I'm impressed by the style of Kasparov who has very creative solutions for logical problems. I'm impressed by Capablanca who makes things look easy. I'm impressed by Karpov who plays quiet, solid and irresistable.
None of the grandmasters seem to try to steer the game into certain waters. No one tries to avoid complex situations, no one seems to steer to an early endgame except maybe Kramnik who likes to trade queens early. No one shows a biased preference of open or closed positions. So for now I leave the vague concept of steerability as a dead end.
It's great fun to study the mastergames and quite interesting.
A lot of these habits have (has?) grown during a period with lesser knowledge of the game and have become counter productive. The advantage of a gambit repertoire is that you have to replace it some day by a more solid repertoire. At that moment you can get rid of those improductive habits and look with new eyes to the opening. That's the process I'm in now.
Last week I followed a lot of video lectures from Mark Diesen, Pete Tamburro etc.. That is an excellent way to play thru a lot of grandmaster games in a pretty short time. The information is easier passed on than by a book. Especially what is important and what not.
It is good to have some knowledge of the different styles of the respective grandmasters. I'm impressed by the style of Botvinnik which is consequent logical and good to follow. I'm impressed by the style of Kasparov who has very creative solutions for logical problems. I'm impressed by Capablanca who makes things look easy. I'm impressed by Karpov who plays quiet, solid and irresistable.
None of the grandmasters seem to try to steer the game into certain waters. No one tries to avoid complex situations, no one seems to steer to an early endgame except maybe Kramnik who likes to trade queens early. No one shows a biased preference of open or closed positions. So for now I leave the vague concept of steerability as a dead end.
It's great fun to study the mastergames and quite interesting.
You just named the great ones who were allround in their approach (like most world champions), but even they steered their games, albeit just by choice of opening. Maybe it is a dead end for now, but it is good to know there is no such thing as good or bad openings. The question is: Is this opening good for me? Do I like the positions which they lead to?
ReplyDeleteTempo, I just would like to know what exactly you do in order to "study" the mastergames ? I mean, what procedure or method.
ReplyDeleteThanks.
Shakhmat, I just absorb the lectures to get familiar with the different middlegame plans and I try the idea's in my own games.
ReplyDeleteFier,
ReplyDeleteI haven't made up my mind yet about my openings. There is a lot to investigate and I'm learning every day. I'm in no hurry.
hello tempo, im picking my head up from deep considerations at CC chess at RHP (corresp chess and red hot pawn for those not initiated as cognisenti):
ReplyDelete(its exhausting, but i must get these dark five wins to be rated at RHP, whomever or by however it may be... i must have a tool to make a tool inorder to make a tool. :) )
there is not much i can say, as yo already know or have the ability to find. two things.
i REALLY appreciate the sense of your saying, the sensibleness of the idea of adopting a gambit reporatore. when i jumped from YEARS OF rapids (3/12) to blitz (3/8), my coach told not to play d4 or Nf3 but e4 and gambits, to 'force you to play for the initiative', or get 'used to the idea of playing for it'...
now, no longer playing those, i appreciate those tempos, no pun intended.
second, have you looked at the far simpler tombe, fines ideaBehindTheChessOpenings? he presents it so simply, and cogently. and thereafer, soltis pawn structure?
do you pair sets of openings that relate, i.e. the slav or caro for d4 and e4, but relating in structure?
or kings indian reverse and dragon, or dragon and english as white? coordinated efforts...
well, back to work... i must get those 0.399% wins down from 0.42992 in my bullet games. see comments, my last post.
dk
Trans,
ReplyDeleteI ordered the book of fine. I am busy with Soltis book. Which is a rather optimistic formulation.
i actually believe, in my 'heart of hearts' (or truist or deepest heart), that schereshevksys 'endgame strategy' fits with those two as a triumphate.
ReplyDeletethis fits with your penchant of PCT study and opening and planning initiative, all together, if you follow.
dont read one or two, but all three as one.
the plan of the plan!
bottvinnik was known for having plans inside HIS plans...
trans is fine if you prefer, no worries, but david is ok out here too. trans is clearer to new readers, of course.
dk