From: "Eric A. Petrusic"
To: d.regis@exeter.ac.uk
Subject: "An openings survey at East Devon" and other thoughts

[e-mail slightly edited by DR]

Hi Dave,

   This evening, after some carousing, I dropped by and was reading
"An openings survey at East Devon."  It strikes me that so often a
great fuss is made about playing open games first, then playing closed
games once you are stronger.  Probably this has a lot to do with the
advice Reti and other grandmasters have given about learning the
tactics and so on.

   Not to say that Reti doesn't know what he's talking about, but I
disagree with this "natural" progression.  My experience goes like
this: when I first started playing, one of the earliest influential
books I read was _My System_.  Six months into my chess odyssey, I
learned all about positional chess and took it to heart.  "Play open
games!" the masters said, and "Faugh!" replied I.  My opening
repetoire was built around 1.d4, the French defense, basically
anything Reti told me not to do, because I'm stubborn and like to do
things my way.

   Predictably, my chess skills grew around my opening choices.  I
became a fairly strong positional player for my skill level, but was
weaker and unsure of myself in more open games.  I favored strategy
over tactics; probing of weak points over sacrificial pyrotechnics;
Capablanca over all.

   Then, I began to get bored.  You mention in your article about how
it might be time to change from the open to the closed games when you
start to get bored with the open games, but in my case the reverse
occurred - I began to play around with the open games more and more
when the Queen's Gambit Declined sapped my will to live.  After
reading _My 60 Memorable Games_, I started playing around with the
Sicilian and a little 1.e4.  After reading _Tal-Botvinnik 1960_, I
started thirsting for the attack.  I started studying tactics
tirelessly, and all of a sudden, my opening repetoire didn't suit me
anymore.  Now it's 1.e4, 1...e5 or 1...c5, and g6 Indians.
Come-and-get-me chess instead of quiet, controlled buildup chess.  Use
your aggressive feelings, boy!

   And now I feel like I'm a stronger, more complete player than ever.
The thing is, I don't see my early closed game experience as the wrong
path, or wasted time - I feel like my positional background has, if
anything, made me a much stronger attacking player since it gives me a
better instinct of how and where to arrange my pieces.  There's also a
great benefit in being able to weigh whether I should play quietly or
"noisily" in a given situation, and being comfortable in either.

    I think what is really critical is for players to understand how
to play in *both* open and closed games.  Tactics are indeed vitally
important, but perhaps not less so is a positional sense.  Was it not
Spielman who said, "I can see the combinations as well as Alekhine,
but I can not get into the same positions."?  The order of learning
may not be so important as the fact that both are learned.

   Furthermore, no one ever seems to consider that Reti was pushing
his own rhetoric constantly in his "advice" - it certainly furthers
the hypermodern cause to portray the closed openings as a higher
calling than the silly romantic gambit tripe of the old-schoolers.

   By the way, I think too much emphasis is placed on opening
knowledge.  It is definitely important to understand the principles of
the opening, but not nearly important as publishers would have you
think to know the exact moves.  Play anything!  Inspired by Bronstein,
I started playing damn near anything a couple of months ago.  I find
that you learn a lot more by thinking on your own than relying on
Informant's latest novelty.  Shocking, I know.

   Anyway, it's nearly 2 am here in the States, so I'm off to bed.
Hope you can extract some nuggets of wisdom from my diatribe.

   later.

-- 
Eric A. Petrusic                    "It's people like you
                                      what cause unrest"