Hello chess experts,

I don't have a lot of time to study chess, but I still would like to do
something in order to give my father in law a challenge, and based on my
style (fairly defensive) and lack of time, I've ended up in the
Scandinavian opening and the Colle/Zukertort system for white.

I'm wondering if you have any advice relating to how to best study the
two?

Or perhaps you have some "meta-advice" about what to avoid when studying
openings and systems?

Best regards,
Daniel

D wrote:
> Hello chess experts,
>
> I don't have a lot of time to study chess, but I still would like to do
> something in order to give my father in law a challenge, and based on my
> style (fairly defensive) and lack of time, I've ended up in the
> Scandinavian opening and the Colle/Zukertort system for white.
>
> I'm wondering if you have any advice relating to how to best study the two?
>
> Or perhaps you have some "meta-advice" about what to avoid when studying
> openings and systems?

Well, the Colle is an attacking system. Is it really for you? I play
the Reti, which often transposes into the English, Neo-Catalan or
Catalan. It's not a defensive system, but rapid attacks are rare.
There is a massive amount of theory, but nobody at my level (certainly
not I) knows it, so there's no burden there.

Ken Smith wrote a book for class players advocating the Stonewall and
the Colle for white as openings which don't require a lot of theory -
compared, say, to opening 1e4 and meeting a booked up Sicilian player.
I knew a number of B players who swore by it.

If you are a defensive player I would not recommend the Scandanavian.
The ultimate defensive opening against 1e4 is the Caro-Kann, favourite
of world champion Petrosian. The French may also be seen as defensive,
but you can't properly play the French without being prepared to counter
attack.

I have not read it myself, but Reuben Fine's "The ideas behind the chess
openings" has been frequently recommended. It will teach the general
strategies and plans for each openings, without presenting a forest of
variations.

The thing to avoid is opening books which give columns of variations
without general discussion. I have several of these, useful sometimes
in postal chess, but not otherwise.

William Hyde

Hello William and thank you very much for your advice. Some comments,
inline, below.

On Fri, 1 Mar 2024, William Hyde wrote:

> D wrote:
>> Hello chess experts,
>>
>> I don't have a lot of time to study chess, but I still would like to do
>> something in order to give my father in law a challenge, and based on my
>> style (fairly defensive) and lack of time, I've ended up in the
>> Scandinavian opening and the Colle/Zukertort system for white.
>>
>> I'm wondering if you have any advice relating to how to best study the two?
>>
>> Or perhaps you have some "meta-advice" about what to avoid when studying
>> openings and systems?
>
> Well, the Colle is an attacking system. Is it really for you? I play the
> Reti, which often transposes into the English, Neo-Catalan or Catalan. It's
> not a defensive system, but rapid attacks are rare. There is a massive amount
> of theory, but nobody at my level (certainly not I) knows it, so there's no
> burden there.

This is an interesting insight! I've always avoided openings with loads
of theory based on the thougth that I do not have time for it, nor the
inclination. Hence the "system approach". Of course I have also heard
that systems are bad for chess players, since it might stop or delay
your development if you just follow the system, but in my case, I play
for fun and I have no ambition becoming a GM or even playing
competitively, so that is why I am fine with the system solution.

So you are playing the Reti despite the theory with the hope that your
opponents also do not know it (or at least less than you)?

I did dabble with the Reti for a time but wasn't very good with it, so
that is why I dropped it, but perhaps it is worth having another look.

On lichess I am able to beat level 5 fairly often, and some times, but
not very often level 6. I have no idea if that tells you anything about
my skill level, but maybe it makes it easier perhaps to get a feel for
my situation.

> Ken Smith wrote a book for class players advocating the Stonewall and the
> Colle for white as openings which don't require a lot of theory - compared,
> say, to opening 1e4 and meeting a booked up Sicilian player.
> I knew a number of B players who swore by it.

I have heard about the Stonewall. Would you recommend that over the
Colle? Also, when you say "B" player, what is that?

> If you are a defensive player I would not recommend the Scandanavian. The
> ultimate defensive opening against 1e4 is the Caro-Kann, favourite of world
> champion Petrosian. The French may also be seen as defensive, but you can't
> properly play the French without being prepared to counter attack.

When I choose an opening Caro-Kann was actually on my list! So I think
you have a point there. What made me go for the Scandinavian (for the
moment) was that it is more systematic than Caro which requires more
preparation and theory. Both (if I am informed correctly) are positional
and attainable.

> I have not read it myself, but Reuben Fine's "The ideas behind the chess
> openings" has been frequently recommended. It will teach the general
> strategies and plans for each openings, without presenting a forest of
> variations.
>
> The thing to avoid is opening books which give columns of variations without
> general discussion. I have several of these, useful sometimes
> in postal chess, but not otherwise.

Oh yes! If I have a wall of chess moves in an opening book I just "space
out". It gives me very little. I need chess opening books with text,
lots of pictures tracking the position (so I don't have to visualize too
many moves in a row) and a pinch of humour. When I can find a book like
that I do manage to stick with it way longer than the "wall of text"
books.

Best regards,
Daniel

D wrote:
> Hello William and thank you very much for your advice. Some comments,
> inline, below.
>
> On Fri, 1 Mar 2024, William Hyde wrote:
>
>> D wrote:
>>> Hello chess experts,
>>>
>>> I don't have a lot of time to study chess, but I still would like to
>>> do something in order to give my father in law a challenge, and based
>>> on my style (fairly defensive) and lack of time, I've ended up in the
>>> Scandinavian opening and the Colle/Zukertort system for white.
>>>
>>> I'm wondering if you have any advice relating to how to best study
>>> the two?
>>>
>>> Or perhaps you have some "meta-advice" about what to avoid when
>>> studying openings and systems?
>>
>> Well, the Colle is an attacking system.  Is it really for you?  I play
>> the Reti, which often transposes into the English, Neo-Catalan or
>> Catalan.  It's not a defensive system, but rapid attacks are rare.
>> There is a massive amount of theory, but nobody at my level (certainly
>> not I) knows it, so there's no burden there.
>
> This is an interesting insight! I've always avoided openings with loads
> of theory based on the thougth that I do not have time for it, nor the
> inclination. Hence the "system approach". Of course I have also heard
> that systems are bad for chess players, since it might stop or delay
> your development if you just follow the system,

As long as you don't play by rote, you will learn whatever you play.

I don't think the Colle or the Stonewall are good openings, in the sense
that black can equalize more easily against these relatively simple
systems. But neither of us are grandmasters and both systems have more
than enough fine points to keep us and our opponents confused.

but in my case, I play
> for fun and I have no ambition becoming a GM or even playing
> competitively, so that is why I am fine with the system solution.
>
> So you are playing the Reti despite the theory with the hope that your
> opponents also do not know it (or at least less than you)?

I started playing it without any theoretical knowledge, I can recall
wondering what to play at move three in some lines. I suppose that over
the years I have acquired some knowledge, but not a huge amount.

But I do know ideas. What I like about the Reti and its related systems
is the flexibility. While the opponent does have a say, white's
possibilities include a queen side attack (based on the power of the
KB), delayed occupation of the centre (often very strong), undermining
of black's centre, or king-side attack. Reti endgames can often be very
good for white.

>
> I did dabble with the Reti for a time but wasn't very good with it, so
> that is why I dropped it, but perhaps it is worth having another look.
>
> On lichess I am able to beat level 5 fairly often, and some times, but
> not very often level 6. I have no idea if that tells you anything about
> my skill level, but maybe it makes it easier perhaps to get a feel for
> my situation.

Sounds like you are reasonably good. Stockfish at level six is usually
pretty good, but when the server is crowded it can play rather badly.
I've posted a few games I played here against five or six, often very
silly games, but six will definitely crush me if I'm not trying hard.

>
>> Ken Smith wrote a book for class players advocating the Stonewall and
>> the Colle for white as openings which don't require a lot of theory -
>> compared, say, to opening 1e4 and meeting a booked up Sicilian player.
>> I knew a number of B players who swore by it.
>
> I have heard about the Stonewall. Would you recommend that over the
> Colle? Also, when you say "B" player, what is that?

Good question. The kind of B player I am referring to was rated
1600-1800 OTB years ago. So, probably 1800-2000 on Lichess.

I like playing the stonewall from either side (in fact even starting
with 1NF3 can lead to a stonewall-like formation which has won me some
very nice games OTB). I am not so fond of the Colle, though I think its
reputation among strong players is better.

>
>> If you are a defensive player I would not recommend the Scandanavian.
>> The ultimate defensive opening against 1e4 is the Caro-Kann, favourite
>> of world champion Petrosian.  The French may also be seen as
>> defensive, but you can't properly play the French without being
>> prepared to counter attack.
>
> When I choose an opening Caro-Kann was actually on my list! So I think
> you have a point there. What made me go for the Scandinavian (for the
> moment) was that it is more systematic than Caro which requires more
> preparation and theory. Both (if I am informed correctly) are positional
> and attainable.

I like the Scandanavian, but only in the variation where black does is
prepared to gambit a pawn, playing Nf6 rather than recapturing the pawn.
After Qxd4 I find it very easy to lose.

I don't play the Caro-Kann, but I have noticed that I am annoyingly
unsuccessful against it. Time and again when I think I have an edge I
find that black's defensive resources are sufficient, and I drift into
an inferior endgame.

I started chess as a defensive/technical player. And many of my wins
were and are defensive ones (they have to be, given how often I get in
serious trouble in the opening). But I became a much stronger player
when I learned to enjoy the attack (and especially the counter-attack!).

All the great "defensive" players, even Petrosian, knew well how to
attack, and did so when the position called for it.

William Hyde
>
>> I have not read it myself, but Reuben Fine's "The ideas behind the
>> chess openings" has been frequently recommended.  It will teach the
>> general
>> strategies and plans for each openings, without presenting a forest of
>> variations.
>>
>> The thing to avoid is opening books which give columns of variations
>> without general discussion.  I have several of these, useful sometimes
>> in postal chess, but not otherwise.
>
> Oh yes! If I have a wall of chess moves in an opening book I just "space
> out". It gives me very little. I need chess opening books with text,
> lots of pictures tracking the position (so I don't have to visualize too
> many moves in a row) and a pinch of humour. When I can find a book like
> that I do manage to stick with it way longer than the "wall of text"
> books.
>
> Best regards, Daniel
>

On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 16:07:15 -0500, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com>
wrote:

>I have not read it myself, but Reuben Fine's "The ideas behind the chess
>openings" has been frequently recommended. It will teach the general
>strategies and plans for each openings, without presenting a forest of
>variations.

I would be delighted if some GM of what was then Fine's stature (e.g.
a serious world championship candidate) would do a new book along
these lines but in fairness it's long ago dated and anybody who took
Fine's advice too directly to heart would be dead meat amongst modern
strong amateurs much less the "big boys".

I mean - right now I'm reading Keres' book on the 1948 World
Championship Match/Tournament and am having a highly enjoyable
experience (it's an excellent book and worth your time) but I wouldn't
dare to use their 75 year old opening theory against Class A / Expert
competition now. (Heck I wouldn't even use the openings I used in my
teens now!)

On Sat, 2 Mar 2024, William Hyde wrote:

> D wrote:
>> Hello William and thank you very much for your advice. Some comments,
>> inline, below.
>>
>> On Fri, 1 Mar 2024, William Hyde wrote:
>>
>>> D wrote:
>>>> Hello chess experts,
>>>>
>>>> I don't have a lot of time to study chess, but I still would like to do
>>>> something in order to give my father in law a challenge, and based on my
>>>> style (fairly defensive) and lack of time, I've ended up in the
>>>> Scandinavian opening and the Colle/Zukertort system for white.
>>>>
>>>> I'm wondering if you have any advice relating to how to best study the
>>>> two?
>>>>
>>>> Or perhaps you have some "meta-advice" about what to avoid when studying
>>>> openings and systems?
>>>
>>> Well, the Colle is an attacking system.  Is it really for you?  I play the
>>> Reti, which often transposes into the English, Neo-Catalan or Catalan. 
>>> It's not a defensive system, but rapid attacks are rare. There is a
>>> massive amount of theory, but nobody at my level (certainly not I) knows
>>> it, so there's no burden there.
>>
>> This is an interesting insight! I've always avoided openings with loads
>> of theory based on the thougth that I do not have time for it, nor the
>> inclination. Hence the "system approach". Of course I have also heard
>> that systems are bad for chess players, since it might stop or delay
>> your development if you just follow the system,
>
> As long as you don't play by rote, you will learn whatever you play.

True. But I find, like most activities, that it takes more and more time
to improve the more you learn. For me, since I only dabble when I have
time, the road feels very long and winding indeed. ;)

That reminds me, I had the pleasure of being coached by an IM for a
brief time, and he had the same realization and eventually quit chess.
The reason was that he felt excatly the same when contemplating going
from IM to GM and came to the conclusion that it would consume his life
and that it was not a sacrifice worth making, so he stopped playing
professional chess.

> I don't think the Colle or the Stonewall are good openings, in the sense that
> black can equalize more easily against these relatively simple systems. But
> neither of us are grandmasters and both systems have more than enough fine
> points to keep us and our opponents confused.

That's my thinking exactly. I don't prepare for 1900+. The people I play
I estimate to be in the range of 1400 to 1900, and I think you can do
quite well with systems and the two above ones in that range.

>> for fun and I have no ambition becoming a GM or even playing
>> competitively, so that is why I am fine with the system solution.
>>
>> So you are playing the Reti despite the theory with the hope that your
>> opponents also do not know it (or at least less than you)?
....
>> I did dabble with the Reti for a time but wasn't very good with it, so
>> that is why I dropped it, but perhaps it is worth having another look.
>>
>> On lichess I am able to beat level 5 fairly often, and some times, but
>> not very often level 6. I have no idea if that tells you anything about
>> my skill level, but maybe it makes it easier perhaps to get a feel for
>> my situation.
>
> Sounds like you are reasonably good. Stockfish at level six is usually
> pretty good, but when the server is crowded it can play rather badly. I've
> posted a few games I played here against five or six, often very silly games,
> but six will definitely crush me if I'm not trying hard.

Ahhh! That would probably explain the few wins I have on level 6. I find
the difference between level 5 and 6 way bigger than the difference from
level 4 and 5. At level 6 I really need to focus and concentrate. Level
5 is way more lenient.

Then I discovered a weird "bug" and that is that at some levels the
computer absolutely refuses to exchange queens, so what happens
sometimes is you can offer very stupid queen exchanges, and instead of
taking them, level 4 and 5 refuses and thus ends up in a much worse
situation. Very strange.

>>> Ken Smith wrote a book for class players advocating the Stonewall and the
>>> Colle for white as openings which don't require a lot of theory -
>>> compared, say, to opening 1e4 and meeting a booked up Sicilian player.
>>> I knew a number of B players who swore by it.
>>
>> I have heard about the Stonewall. Would you recommend that over the
>> Colle? Also, when you say "B" player, what is that?
>
> Good question. The kind of B player I am referring to was rated 1600-1800
> OTB years ago. So, probably 1800-2000 on Lichess.

Got it!

> I like playing the stonewall from either side (in fact even starting with
> 1NF3 can lead to a stonewall-like formation which has won me some very nice
> games OTB). I am not so fond of the Colle, though I think its reputation
> among strong players is better.

That's another bonus for me. Focusing on a small set of openings that
can be played with both colors and in many situations in order to save
me some time. The idea is to be able to get 3-8 "safe" moves from the
start, and be comfortable with the situation those 3-8 moves will take
me.

1NF3 is a classic trick in my book to "confuse" the opponent or at least
keep him on edge for a move or two not knowing what to expect, so I like
starting with it when I play systems.

>>> If you are a defensive player I would not recommend the Scandanavian. The
>>> ultimate defensive opening against 1e4 is the Caro-Kann, favourite of
>>> world champion Petrosian.  The French may also be seen as defensive, but
>>> you can't properly play the French without being prepared to counter
>>> attack.
>>
>> When I choose an opening Caro-Kann was actually on my list! So I think
>> you have a point there. What made me go for the Scandinavian (for the
>> moment) was that it is more systematic than Caro which requires more
>> preparation and theory. Both (if I am informed correctly) are positional
>> and attainable.
>
> I like the Scandanavian, but only in the variation where black does is
> prepared to gambit a pawn, playing Nf6 rather than recapturing the pawn.
> After Qxd4 I find it very easy to lose.

So far I haven't had that problem, but, on the other hand, I haven't
really spent that much time with it.

> I don't play the Caro-Kann, but I have noticed that I am annoyingly
> unsuccessful against it. Time and again when I think I have an edge I find
> that black's defensive resources are sufficient, and I drift into an
> inferior endgame.

Caro is interesting. I know a programmer, a thoughtful guy, kind of
strategic. And then I found out that he found chess as a new hobby, and
lo and behold, his favourite opening is the Caro, just as I would have
expected knowing his temperament. ;)

> I started chess as a defensive/technical player. And many of my wins were
> and are defensive ones (they have to be, given how often I get in serious
> trouble in the opening). But I became a much stronger player when I learned
> to enjoy the attack (and especially the counter-attack!).

My IM told me that I do need to get more comfortable with attacking and
adviced me to play the Trumpowski from time to time as "medicine".

> All the great "defensive" players, even Petrosian, knew well how to attack,
> and did so when the position called for it.

True.

Best regards,
Daniel

>
> William Hyde
>>
>>> I have not read it myself, but Reuben Fine's "The ideas behind the chess
>>> openings" has been frequently recommended.  It will teach the general
>>> strategies and plans for each openings, without presenting a forest of
>>> variations.
>>>
>>> The thing to avoid is opening books which give columns of variations
>>> without general discussion.  I have several of these, useful sometimes
>>> in postal chess, but not otherwise.
>>
>> Oh yes! If I have a wall of chess moves in an opening book I just "space
>> out". It gives me very little. I need chess opening books with text,
>> lots of pictures tracking the position (so I don't have to visualize too
>> many moves in a row) and a pinch of humour. When I can find a book like
>> that I do manage to stick with it way longer than the "wall of text"
>> books.
>>
>> Best regards, Daniel
>>
>
>

The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Mar 2024 16:07:15 -0500, William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I have not read it myself, but Reuben Fine's "The ideas behind the chess
>> openings" has been frequently recommended. It will teach the general
>> strategies and plans for each openings, without presenting a forest of
>> variations.
>
> I would be delighted if some GM of what was then Fine's stature (e.g.
> a serious world championship candidate) would do a new book along
> these lines but in fairness it's long ago dated and anybody who took
> Fine's advice too directly to heart would be dead meat amongst modern
> strong amateurs much less the "big boys".
>
> I mean - right now I'm reading Keres' book on the 1948 World
> Championship Match/Tournament and am having a highly enjoyable
> experience (it's an excellent book and worth your time) but I wouldn't
> dare to use their 75 year old opening theory against Class A / Expert
> competition now. (Heck I wouldn't even use the openings I used in my
> teens now!)
>

Variations change wildly, ideas change far more slowly - though some
changes are outlined in Watson's book on strategy.

I've played unbooked with opponents up to the IM level and done well
enough. No doubt I would have done better with a comprehensive
knowledge of the openings I was playing - but not if I gained that
knowledge at the cost of studying tactics and positional play.

Lines go in and out of favour, often for quite irrational reasons. A
single well-known defeat can drive people away, even if the loss had
nothing to do with the opening. Where is the Tarrasch QGD now? In or
out of favour? I think it's been "refuted" two or three times so far,
only to show up in world championship matches later.

I am reminded of the story of a strong Canadian player who, though rated
2300, had as little opening knowledge as I. But since he was going to
play for Canada in the student olympiad, he felt it was his
responsibility to rectify this defect.

The olympiad went well, he scored (IIRC) 4/7 with a performance rating
of 2450.

The only game he lost was in a Grunfeld whose line he had learned from
ECO, terminating in equality at move 18 as given by Karpov. His soviet
opponent won handily saying in the post-mortem that the position was
well known to be lost - in the USSR.

In the other games he was out of book fairly rapidly, and the opponents
had to find their own moves.

I could go on, but it's time to go to lichess. I have rooks to blunder!

William Hyde