I haven't seen the English version of Bronstein's book but in the Russian one it's written on the inside cover page that this book is for advanced players.

Definitely agree. Nimzo/Bogo plus their recommendations vs the other d4 openings are quite useful and would fit your needs perfectly. Eugene Perelshteyn (co-author) has several videos at chesslecture.com where he annotates games he's played using the book's opening repertoire.

Today's 2700+ players also spend a lot of time looking for novelties more than ten moves deep in a variety of openings. Is that also a good way to study?

There's a good chance no human, past, present, or future, will stand a chance against Rybka today. Does that mean all chess books are worthless?

I don't know about you, but I am certain I have a lot to learn from the early world champions -- Capablanca is my current subject of study. Fischer found it worth his while in 1969 to study even Adolf Anderssen and Louis Paulsen. I can't see how it's more efficient to study only, or primarily, using a machine which spits out variations 16 ply deep and explains nothing at all.

Ok, they are recommending the Nimzo/Bogo setup. First of all you can't do anything wrong by playing openings that every world champions used at one time of his career. The Nimzo is perfectly safe and sound. Tweaking it at a later stage is also possible, because there are many equally good ways to play it. This alone is the sign of a good opening.

The problem with the suggested repertoire is that the resulting positions are not that complex. There is not much going on and tactical mistakes are unlikely, so you have to be very precise to outplay your opponent. I am not claiming that there are no sharp positions in the Nimzo, but the lines recommended in the book are pretty static and dry. The same goes for the Bogo. This is a very good drawing weapon, but it is tough to win with it. Against weak players you will have a tough time to score the full point and strong players will outplay you positionally (bishop pair + space advantage), because you don't have enough counterplay. Don't forget that in order to reach 2100 you need to beat patzers with deadly accuracy, in fact you need to score 75% against 1900 players.

Now don't get me wrong, Dzindzi is recommending the Capablanca approach to playing those openings. You exchange one bishop and then modify your pawn structure (d6 and e5) so that the remaning bishop becomes "good", but this more aimed at avoiding problems for yourself than creating problems for your opponent.

Your task is to make rapid progress, so you need to keep the position complex and unballanced with black. You can't allow weak players to get off the hook. There is a way to accomplish that - there are many others also.
I would recommend the Noteboom-System in the Slav. This variation is move-order proof and can be used against 1. d4, 1.c4 and 1.Nf3. There are not that many lines to know (it is a very narrow variation) and it is also played at grandmaster level, so it is certainly not some incorrect offbeat trash. In fact the system is so successful that white usually avoids it (see below).

The idea is to grab the c4-pawn and hold on to it (which doesn't work in the Queens Gambit Accepted). Against weak players this is already enough to win. In the theoretical mainline (that weak players usually don't know) white wins the pawn back, but the resulting position is very unballanced where you have two connected passed pawns on the queenside (= won endgame) while white has the "initiative in the center" that may work out or not. The type of position is irrational, typical patterns don't work, so that both players are essentially on their own.

The complete defence to closed openings would be based on 3 lines: Noteboom, Marshall Gambit and Meran Variation. Here are some typical games in that order:

Noteboom
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1480519
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1282924

Marshall Gambit
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1250247
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1496547

Meran (Lundin Variation)
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1112094
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1480466

Here's another game. I was obviously just on drugs for 6... Bg7 then made two huge oversights to lose (especially the last one). Any comments on what happened in between would be appreciated.

[Event "reno"]
[Site "reno"]
[Date "2010.04.03"]
[Round "3"]
[White "Christopher Harrington"]
[Black "Allen"]
[ECO "B27"]
[Result "1-0"]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 g6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Qxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Qa4 Bg7 7.e5
Ng8 8.Bf4 Nh6 9.Bb5 O-O 10.O-O e6 11.Bxc6 bxc6 12.Rfd1 Nf5 13.Rd2
f6 14.Rad1 g5 15.exf6 Bxf6 16.Be5 Be7 17.Ne2 Qe8 18.Ng3 d5 19.Nd4
Nxd4 20.Qxd4 a5 21.Qg4 Qg6 22.b3 h6 23.Re1 Re8 24.h4 Bf6 25.hxg5
Qxg5 26.Qxg5+ Bxg5 27.Rd4 Kf7 28.Bd6 Rd8 29.Bc7 Rd7 30.Bb6 Re7
31.Bd8 Re8 32.Bxg5 hxg5 33.f4 gxf4 34.Rxf4+ Ke7 35.Ref1 Ba6 36.R1f2
Kd6 37.Nf1 e5 38.Rf6+ Kc5 39.c3 Bxf1 40.Kxf1 Rac8 41.g4 d4 42.cxd4+
exd4 43.Rc2+ Kd5 44.g5 Rf8 45.Rxc6 Rxf6+ 46.Rxf6 Ke4 47.Ke1 Kd3
48.Kd1 Rc2 49.Rf3+ Ke4 50.Kxc2 Kxf3 51.Kd2 1-0

Obviously with 44...Rf8 I hastily dismissed the c pawn as defended but perhaps I had the wrong idea anyway and 45. Rcf2 Rxf6 gxf6 is still was not as good as 44... d3. Then in the game how about moves like 46...Rc1...Rc2...with possible ...Rxa2 or ...Ke5. At the time I just freaked out that if Rxa2 maybe the Rook would be stuck at the edge but looking at it now I shouldn't have been worried. I also just realized that this was the second game I walked into a simple deflection trick to lose or almost lose. In poker you're allowed to not pay attention for a few hands!

I don't like breaking up your kingside with the f6 g5 idea on moves 13-14, seems dangerous and vulnerable (for instance Firebird says 17. h4 would have been great for your opponent). I know I'd be happy to take white against the structure you end up with here

Allen, I've noticed a certain recurring theme in your games.

Here are two positions you played:





In the first you played .. e6, in the second you played Bd2. Neither move necessarily a blunder at all, but I think they show a pattern you may want to consider.

In the second game, one of the most natural ideas for black in that position will be to play b4. Whether this is done of his own accord to continue his queenside play, or whether white provokes it with a4, it'll happen almost always. So what does that change about the position? And similarly for the first position, what does e6 change there? Here are both positions after certain modifications:





It's probably not difficult to see that they both create huge holes. In the first game e6 naturally creates huge holes on d6 and c6. And in the second b4 will create a 'partial hole' on c4. Of course holes are only a weakness if they can be exploited. So can they, and how?

In the first game, that hole can definitely be hugely exploited. Ne4 directly hits at both weaknesses simultaneously and black is already in alot of trouble. For instance after 1. Ne4 Nf5 (trying to cover the d6 hole) 2. Bg5 (attacking one of the holes) Qc7 3. Bxc6 dxc6 4. Bf6! (getting rid of the dark square defender further increasing the vulnerability of these holes) black is already strategically lost.

The second position is alot more subtle. What it has to do with is how would you now exploit your opponent's inevitable b4 advance; what weakness would you target? In this case it is the c4 square. A knight on that square would look incredibly eying all those juicy central dark squares. And what is the most direct route to get there? Nd2->Nc4. But you put your bishop on d2! And if you take this one step further. If black wants to shore up his weakness on c4, what will he play? He'll play d5 when suddenly the pawn on c5 becomes a weakness which a bishop on e3, for instance, would be immediately targetting.

In the second instance black could have hopped on this inaccuracy by immediately playing 1. Bd2 b4!! when your knight is more or less forced to the really terrible a4 square unless you want your pieces to all end up stepping on each other after Ne2. And your bishop isn't doing much besides taking up a useful maneuvering square and potentially getting in the way of your queen along the d file.

The point is pawns are the only pieces that can't go backwards. You really need to be really conservative when making moves that open up potential holes in your position. A move like e6 in the first position is going to make most strong players' eyes bleed. And similarly, you need to always consider what your opponent's most likely pawn moves will be - and how that can be exploited, and how it will impact your future development and plans. Or in this case, you actually gave him a chance to play a move he's probably going to play eventually regardless, but in a much more dangerous way.

Pawns are the one piece in this game where mistakes can't be undone, and your position is defined by your pawns. Devote some time to pawn play and your game will definitely see improvement.

And for comparison a very simple position where creating a 'hole' is completely irrelevant:



A position that has been reached thousands of times after some variation of: 1. e4 c5 2. c3 Nf6 3. e5 Nd5 4. d4 cxd4 5. cxd4

And now one of the strongest moves in this position is 5. .. e6. Again with a huge hole on d6:



But it obviously doesn't mean anything. In response to any normal move from white such as Nf3, black will play d6 himself getting rid of the hole and having a great position.

I didn't replay the game, so I will just comment on what I see. That variation is a tricky line that became popular lately. The theoretical move is 6...d6, but 6...Bg7 has been played by Ponomajorov once and isn't too bad either. You should follow it up like Pono with 8...f6 right away. The idea is to clear the path for your center pawns and use the strange development of the white pieces (Qa4, Bf4) to your advantage.

You should also know that Eugene Perelshteyn*, the co-author of the opening book you are using, didn't follow his own recommendation and played 6...d6 7. e5 dxe5 8. Nxe5 Qd4 going straight into the queenless middlegame.

In any case, you need to constantly work on openings because this is by far the easiest way to produce results in chess. The big guns play it with 2...Nc6 and they must have a reason to do so.

*I always have to laugh when I read such names since it is simply the misspelled version of Perlstein which is german for "pearlstone". Typical for Ellis Island I would say.

A bad player will make mistakes in any position, so I don't think that playing sharp openings is necessary to beat 1900 and lower rated players. IMO a 1400 player should choose simple openings like Queen's Gambit Declined (as black) with simple plans to follow and simple development of his pieces. Look at AC's last game - Sicilian is undoubtedly a sharp opening, but he had serious problems with developing his pieces. Also, an opening repertoire should be adjusted to player's style and from what I saw in those 4 games AC is not an aggressive player, so instead of sharp openings I would recommend classical ones. Classical openings are much easier to understand than Sicilian.

Tactics, tactics...

In the rook ending, you blundered away a pawn but the position should still be drawn for you.

Your suggestion of 46...Rc1+ 47.Kg2 Rc2+ 48.Kf3 Rxa2 won't work because you are losing after 49.g6. 48...Ke5 is better, and maybe still good enough to hold the position.

Anyway, your move 46...Ke4 is better - the King moves in to support the d-pawn. White played 47.Ke1.

47.g6 was another possibility. Then your only move is 47...Rc1+

[A key point: the idea of playing Rc1+ is not to win the pawn on a2 but to try to get the rook behind the passed g-pawn (the rook is almost always best placed behind a passed pawn, whether your own or your opponent's)]

so we can continue 47...Rc1+ 48.Kg2 Rc2+ 49.Kh3 Rc1 (threatening Rg1) 50.Rf2 (with the idea of Rg2) 50...Rc8 (or 50...Rc7 - the queen ending after 50...d3 51.g7 Rg1 52.Rg2 Rxg2 53.Kxg2 d2 54.g8Q d1Q is difficult to evaluate, but 50...Rc8 is fine for Black) 51.Rg2 d3 52.g7 Rg8 and Black is okay - the White King has been driven too far from the d-pawn.

After 47.Ke1, your 47...Kd3 is not the best - you should have taken the chance to play 47...Rc1+ to get the rook behind the g-pawn: 48.Kd2 (48.Kf2 Rc2+ will be similar to the lines analyzed above)48...Rg1 49.g6 Rg2+ 50.Ke1 Ke5! 50.Ra6 d3 51.Rxa5+ (there's nothing better) 51...Kd4 and Black plays d2+ and Kd3(c3) next and White will have to take a draw with Rd5-c5+.

But okay, 47...Kd3 is also not losing. After White played 48.Kd1 you should play 48...Rc5! 49.g6 Rg5 and it should still come out to a draw.

Yeah, poker and chess are not the same. Many chess players find poker boring because they don't have to think on every move.

You made a good decision. This book is a good starting point. Avoid the companion volume on White openings as it got bad reviews (cliff notes: very sloppy analysis).

The recommendations against 1.d4 and other flank openings are fine and well-tested by top players (not necessarily the exact variations in the book).

For White, you might want to get "A Killer Chess Opening Repertoire - new enlarged edition" by Aaron Summerscale and Sverre Johnsen. The book is about to hit the bookstores. They recommend an attacking repertoire starting with 1.d4 that contains quite a bit of sting against someone unprepared.

http://www.chesscafe.com/ is a good source for book reviews. I particularly like Carsten Hansen's Checkpoint column.

Since Im a big fan of Cunningham as a poker player I know a bit of his style and I have a hard time to see openings like Noteboom and Marshall fit in there.

I have done misreads in the past, but I would think that weird offbeat openings and wild gambits pretty much are out of the window.

Here one variation is 1.-e6 2. Rxa7 Rxb2 3. Rxa6 Rb5 picking up the e5 pawn. Black is likely slightly better having fewer pawn islands.

1.-e6 is likely better than 1.-Rxb2 which allows 2.Rxe7 and now Black has to take e6 now into account (either immediately or after 3.Rxa7). Note that after 3. Rxa7 and 4. e6 the most pressing threat is 5. e7 and the pawn queens.

As suggested, playing such positions against a strong program from both sides is an excellent way to complement the study of Silman's book.

Very reasonable, but the prop bet (afaik) is a one game, must win situation which is going to require a different preparation than if we were giving Allen general chess improvement advice. The noteboom is perfect for this objective as it's super easy to play, you're definitely playing for a win and any analysis HL might have seen 20+ years ago would be completely wrong at this point. Plus it's counter-intuitive because it seems that the mainline gives white a huge edge when in reality it's very balanced and sharp.

I still seriously doubt that HL will play any sort of mainline opening so this next paragraph is a bit of a digression. Shandrax is certainly right that the NB can be played vs 1. Nf3, 1. d4 or 1. c4. The real problem move-order wise in the Noteboom is 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3. Here I fully believe the best move is 2...Nf6 but then 3. c4 leaves us in a spot. Anyway, that's not really important for the purposes of this thread.

Another black defense that could fit the bill here is the Tarrasch QGD, Von-Hennig Schara gambit if possible. Again, you can play it vs a lot of move-orders and the opening has lots of winning chances.

Seriously, we need some details about HL:s opening reportoire posted here

My impression is that Allen wants advice on becoming a better chess player.

Winning the prop bet appears to be a secondary concern.

Black is fine here, with a more advanced passed pawn supported by an active king.

Tactics, tactics. After 2.-Kd4, Black leaves c6 undefended and you need to be careful making sure you have a convincing answer. After 3. Rcxc6 Black can play 3. - d2 and things get tricky.

Another trick is to defend d3 with 2.-Re3. If White is not careful and e.g. plays 3. g6 then Black plays the somewhat surprising 3.-d2 and wins. Note that this does not work after 3. Kf2 because of 3. -d2? (better is 3.-Re2+) 4. Kxe3 4. d1Q (4. d1N+ Kd2 4. Nxc3 Kxc3 is about the same) Rd3+ 5. Qxd3 Kxd3.

I think that White should play 2.Rd2 after 1.-d3 though. Then 2.-Kd4 fails to 3. Rd8+ and the d3 pawn is a goner.

I like that one for AC. "Meetin 1.d4" by Jacob Agaard and Esben Lund is a good book on that defense. So is "Complete Defense To Queen Pawn Openings" by Eric Schiller, surprisingly so since Eric is the Ken Warren of chess. If you're familiar with German Keilhack's "Die Tarrasch-Verteidigung" is the nuts.

That, and I might try something like the following the day of the game: "Well Howard, I've improved but unfortunately you're probably still a big favorite so how about we double the bet and I win draws with black."

Stop making posts like this or I might have to reward this forum with a 1k freeroll tournament or something if I judge it contributed to my victory over HL.

Nice, informative post.

I got the book "Pawn Power in Chess" by Kmoch some time ago. I wasn't really a beginner at that time, so some of it I already knew, or at least I wasn't fully unaware of some concepts. And being that I'm not great at chess yet anyway and I maybe don't 'study' properly, I don't know if I feel fully qualified to speak to the usefulness of the book.

So, anyone going to suggest he check out the book, or are there better resources? Or have I missed someone saying it already?

Na4 would be terrible indeed, but what's wrong with Ne2? White has a clear advantage on the king side and this knight is just another piece that can be used there (f5 and Nf4 or g4, Ng3). In fact, it can do much more on the king side than on the queen side where black is better. And I wouldn't give b4 two exclamation marks. I think black should develop his pieces before doing anything on the queen side.

In the other game, e6 is obviously a positional mistake but black has already a difficult and passive position.

Obv. 6.-Be7?? loses a piece after 7.Qd5.

A useful rule of thumb is to trade piece (not pawns) when you are ahead material. There's also one that says to trade pawns (not pieces) when you are behind --but the trick is not to get behind. The reason is that in many pawnless endings a single extra piece is not decisive e.g. King+Knight vs King or King+Rook+Knight vs King+Rook are both drawn (first 1 always, 2nd often). However, the presence of extra pawns is enough to change the verdict to a win for the extra piece e.g. King+Knight+pawn vs King+pawn or King+Rook+Knight+pawn vs King+Rook+pawn.

Move 17 is another crucial moment in the game. How would you have reacted to 17. - c5 ?

If you play 18. Nf5 Black now has 18.-Bxf5 (I like this better than 18.-c4 immediately) 19. exf5 c4 and the bishop gets trapped after 20. Ba4 b5. Note also that after the flashy 20. Rxe5 intending 20.-dxe5 21. Bxc4 when you have two pieces for a rook, which is a good trade, Black can play 20.-cxb3! and now both the Rook and Knight are hanging, so Black still regains the piece.

This is a typical tactic in these kind of position and well worth knowing.

Now going back to 17. - c5, the only move is 18. f4! when the attack on the Black Knight saves the endangered White Bishop, e.g. 18. - c4!? 19. fxe5 cxb3 20. axb3 dxe5 and now White has 21. Nf3 which unpins the Knight while protecting the White Queen.

"Open up any book on how to improve at chess and one of the first things it will emphasize is that you need to understand typical pawn structures that arise from the openings you play. This is good advice, but when I started out in the early 1970s books offering this sort of information were few and dated. Hans Kmoch's Pawn Power in Chess, which appeared in the 1950s, was probably the first book to deal extensively with the topic of different types of pawn structures. It was an original work, but filled with jargon and mainly covered Ruy Lopez and Benoni type structures. Middlegame works by Euwe/Kramer and Pachman were helpful if you wanted to master the Minority Attack in the Queen's Gambit Declined, but not terribly useful for openings that had come to the fore after the Second World War. In 1976, Andrew Soltis broke new ground with his Pawn Structure Chess. This book was arranged by opening and did a good job of providing the reader with a solid grounding in the basics." John Donaldson, IM.

I'd also be inclined to recommend "Pawn Structure Chess" over "Pawn Power in Chess".