Article: 12849 of rec.games.chess.misc Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc Path: info!dregis From: dregis@exeter.ac.uk (D.Regis) Subject: Re: CHESS - My two-cents worth: POST1 [Openings study] Message-ID: Organization: University of Exeter, UK. References: <54lt04$8rd@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> Date: Tue, 29 Oct 1996 15:56:06 GMT In article <54lt04$8rd@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> griffith@runner.utsa.edu (Matthew Wade Griffith) writes: >Howdy folks ! Before I express my opinions, I'll offer the obligatory >curtsy and state that I am an unranked player. So please feel free to >not respect my opinions, etc. etc. > >Many posts are placed here by beginners asking for opening advice. Just >once, I would like to see someone reply, "Develop your own openings." >Granted it is unlikely that a beginner will actually discover anything >new, my common sense tells me that one will get a much better understand- >ing of opening theory if they first "create" their own openings, then play >them against a computer to find obvious flaws, then refine the opening, AND >THEN read what the books say about your opening. If you should develop an >opening which your computer cannot refute and you cannot find any documen- >tation for it - good for you ! This should have been your goal all along. >Most likely though, the opening you have developed will be a known opening >and you will now be able to grasp with greater ease what the masters have >to say. > >What sayeth the extended family ? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ :-) Hi Bro! Have you tried this? How far did you get? 1. I think the educational philosophy is spot on - "tell me and I forget, show me and I remember, involve me and I understand" - but although it may not be true that "life is too short for chess" it may be too short for your approach. 2. I dunno though, maybe playing only the first 15 moves against a computer at G/15, you could pack quite a lot in an evening, although... 3. ...you might not understand why you ended up worse (if you did). I played a girl a while ago who opened 1...e5 2...d6 3...f6 4...g5 5...h6. She lost, whereupon I asked Dr.Dave's patent Chess Coaching Question: "do you know why you lost?" (She didn't, and it took a good deal of coaxing to get it out of her, which a computer couldn't do.) Reading books is just a short-cut; you don't teach everything by the discovery method, even if it's in your repertoire. 4. But I'd also guess that playing a KNOWN opening against a computer would teach you as much, in that the errors beginners make in known openings are likely to be the same as the errors they make in unknown ones (failure to complete development, exposing the King...) 5. I often read a chapter of a book, think "yeah, yeah, I got all that" ... and then I come to the "test yourself" positions at the end of the chapter. No, I didn't get it! But rather few books have these "test yourself" positions in - openings books almost never. 6. So a compromise is: a. Buy only books with self-assessment exercises in them b. Use the time saved on Matt's method to write to your favourite chess publisher saying: "Your otherwise excellent book 'A dull defensive repertoire for the average club rabbit' would have been much improved by a page of self-assessment problems for each chapter." -- Dave Regis &8^D* a dry, fruity red From info!dregis Tue Oct 29 16:42:08 GMT 1996