How to improve in Chess • page 4/4 • General Chess Discussion • lichess.org

But even then there are common openings that violate that principle. The Nimzo Indian for example, or the Ruy Lopez that violates it even more by x-raying a potential pin. Sometimes the pin isn't even the real point but rather inducing some weakening pawn advances to create weaknesses or outposts on the opposite color.

I would have to qualify Lasker's #4 to include "without good reason," normally the imminent threat of immediately attacking it again, or because it is the key or only defender of something else that you can attack. But even then there are common openings that violate that principle. The Nimzo Indian for example, or the Ruy Lopez that violates it even more by x-raying a potential pin. Sometimes the pin isn't even the real point but rather inducing some weakening pawn advances to create weaknesses or outposts on the opposite color.

teerdurchzogen

#32

@RamblinDave Thanks for the context, indeed very valuable, as it seemed odd a former world champion would have expressed such an odd rule that basically rules out ever playing the Ruy Lopez again or many tactical opportunities created thanks to help of bishops pinning knights.
Capablanca btw in his Chess Fundamentals also states at one point that he prefers after 1. e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 the move 3. Bb5 over 3.Bc4 as it develops and attacks at the same time. I don't think I really understand that, though, because after all, doesn't 3.Bc4 attack the vulnerable f7 square? In the Philidor after 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. e4 he dislikes the move Bg4 by Black, because it violates Capa's rule (and of course the rule has exceptions) of not developing any bishop before one knight, preferably the King's Knight is developed, and also it would trade a better piece against a worse (Capa values Bishops much higher than Knights). Similar to what Lasker said. After all we can quote the old masters all day long, but then we should include at least try to be accurate:
"We shall now go back to the endings in search of a few more principles, then again to the middle game, and finally to the openings once more, so that the advance may not only be gradual but homogeneous. In this way the foundation on which we expect to build the structure will be firm and solid." This introduces chapter 2 of "Chess Fundamentals". So Capa valued the endgame high and for my liking he is too strict, but he also thought it makes sense to acquaint yourself with all parts of the game and to do this in kind of a circle training. First endgame, then middlegame, then opening. Sure. But he did not say study 100 Endgames You Must Know, then read Silman's Collected Works on the middlegame and only then learn about the opening. Actually he is not even just saying: These and these are the opening principles. Instead he gives examples where he pursues a move by move method, explaining basically every step. This is what books on opening principles do, just more elaborated: They provide you with lots of examples that shall help you to understand statements like "Control the center". What to do with the center, why control it? That's where opening and middlegame studies merge and I can hardly imagine Capablanca or Lasker or anybody else would have voted against it.

@RamblinDave Thanks for the context, indeed very valuable, as it seemed odd a former world champion would have expressed such an odd rule that basically rules out ever playing the Ruy Lopez again or many tactical opportunities created thanks to help of bishops pinning knights. Capablanca btw in his Chess Fundamentals also states at one point that he prefers after 1. e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 the move 3. Bb5 over 3.Bc4 as it develops and attacks at the same time. I don't think I really understand that, though, because after all, doesn't 3.Bc4 attack the vulnerable f7 square? In the Philidor after 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. e4 he dislikes the move Bg4 by Black, because it violates Capa's rule (and of course the rule has exceptions) of not developing any bishop before one knight, preferably the King's Knight is developed, and also it would trade a better piece against a worse (Capa values Bishops much higher than Knights). Similar to what Lasker said. After all we can quote the old masters all day long, but then we should include at least try to be accurate: "We shall now go back to the endings in search of a few more principles, then again to the middle game, and finally to the openings once more, so that the advance may not only be gradual but homogeneous. In this way the foundation on which we expect to build the structure will be firm and solid." This introduces chapter 2 of "Chess Fundamentals". So Capa valued the endgame high and for my liking he is too strict, but he also thought it makes sense to acquaint yourself with all parts of the game and to do this in kind of a circle training. First endgame, then middlegame, then opening. Sure. But he did not say study 100 Endgames You Must Know, then read Silman's Collected Works on the middlegame and only then learn about the opening. Actually he is not even just saying: These and these are the opening principles. Instead he gives examples where he pursues a move by move method, explaining basically every step. This is what books on opening principles do, just more elaborated: They provide you with lots of examples that shall help you to understand statements like "Control the center". What to do with the center, why control it? That's where opening and middlegame studies merge and I can hardly imagine Capablanca or Lasker or anybody else would have voted against it.

SpaceXBest

#33

What should I approach to development of my pieces?

Parahumanoid

#34

To improve at chess you need to practise analytical skills with complicated positions...
Write down your analysis and then compare it the masters analysis...
Do this with hundreds of positions

To improve at chess you need to practise analytical skills with complicated positions... Write down your analysis and then compare it the masters analysis... Do this with hundreds of positions