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
>>
>
>