Egads, not done with month one yet!

I just got access to Month 2. It looks very cool.

Unfortunately, I think I need another week to finish the Month 1 stuff, so I am already behind

Since I probably will not use their opening material, I think I will try to cancel that part of my subscription.

No, don't cancel it. My thoughts are to keep it. If you don't use it now, you can all ways use it later. It's still cheaper than a book. Just my opinion.

Blue Devil Knight wrote:I just got access to Month 2. It looks very cool.

Unfortunately, I think I need another week to finish the Month 1 stuff, so I am already behind

Since I probably will not use their opening material, I think I will try to cancel that part of my subscription.

Twelve months adds up to quite a few books, actually.

I confess I am unsure about the opening course too. At this stage I willto keep it. That might force me to eventually use the openings that good players do rather than all the offbeat openings that I currently use.

Hoopy: good point about offbeat openings. Right now I play all offbeat: the Bird, Caro-Kann, and Slav. They are all solid, but especially the Bird black can equalize. Of course in any white opening black can equalize with good play, so I'm not sure that makes the Bird bad. The question is, how easy and natural is it for black to equalize. Jury is out in my own games.

Caro-kan and Slav are not offbeat. In fact, Slav is probably the latest trend in 2700+ tournaments. Bird, yes, you may consider changing it. Reading about opening repertoires, I found 2 main ideas. One focus on offbeat openings, like London/Colle/Bird/Sokolsky. They said that from the opening you may get an equal position but as the opening is quite rare and you play iy everytime, while your opponent mau meet it once in a while, you should know better how to handle the position. Another advantage is that these offbeat openings are relative easier to be learned and requires much less time for study. The problem with the offbeat openings is that after you reach a certain level they are just plain bad. we may have good results when the opponents are weak, but once you get stronger, you will meet stronger opponents. They know how to react and soon you may discover that offbeat openings remain offbeat for a reason. Most offbeat openings have a certain variation which either is a dead/forced draw or is very difficult to get reasonable counter play. The second ideea is to focus on mainstream openings, but to choose less trendy variations. for example, Exhange Ruy Lopez or Worral Attack in Ruy Lopez for white, a less topical variation of Sicilian for black (like Kan or Taimanov, there is theory there but much less than in Najdorf or Dragon). Indeed, you will have to learn some lines. but the opening is sound, it will not be refuted and you can learn it for life. well, at least for your chess life. It is mych easier to maintain an opening, change a varition here and there, than to learn a new opening every 2 years. Also, it is much easier to migrate from a variation to other inside the same opening than to change openings. For example, if you are not satisfied with Kan you can very easily go to Taimanov. If you play Worall Attack in Ruy lopez, you can go quite easy to mainstream/closed vatiations.

Randy: intesting thoughts. I got so sick of dealing with Philidor, Scandy, etc etc with e4 I just jumped into 1 f4. It is more solid than the kooky things like Blackmar Diemer (basically a reversed Dutch as you know). So far I really like it, and if it can take me to 2000 (which I will likely never reach anyway), then it is fine for me IM and GM still play it, which is reassuring.

But in terms of pure attack, nothing beats a good Ruy Lopez. If black actually plays e5/Nc6, then we are in for fun. The problem is that rarely happens, so if they are going to play offbeat responses to my e4, then I will force them into my offbeat opening 1 f4.

So far so good. While I have some bad losses, I'm not losing because of the openings, and of course at my level the openings should be the least of my worries. Any opening at my level is pretty much playable.

I think that, given enough time, if there is a will anyone can reach a national master level (around 2200). but yes, at 1200 tactics is much more important. well, the same is at 1800 or 2000, however, here some openings theory is required.

Randy wrote:I think that, given enough time, if there is a will anyone can reach a national master level (around 2200).

A little disagreement. I agree that 2000 rating is possible for everybody if they put their heart into it, but not 2200. Their is a big difference between 2200 and 2000 rating that one cannot overtake that easily by just reading books. For that jump a good chess coach that works with you on your games is neccesary.

with the current rating inflation, the 2000 rating from 1999 was perhaps more valuable than 2200 now.. or very close, in the worst case.

Maybe so but against a 2000+ rated player i know i have a chance of winning the game. Against a 2200+ rated player i have to do my utmost best and hope i have a good day to draw. But that can be a personal issue.

I spoke about the opening course to ICS this week and was told that on Monday they are providing a complete overview of the opening course so we can see exactly what is coming up and how the future months will be structured so maybe put off cancelling it at least until you've seen what they are planning to do.

Sounds good.

In general, it would be nice if they gave more advice on what to do besides the course (e.g., X slow games a week, with postmortems etc etc).