In his book “The Sorcerer's Apprentice” David Bronstein recommended the KIA as a solid opening, safer than 1.e4. He thought that a beginner doesn’t have to deal whole bunch of tactics, but try to get a playable game and go from there. He said that the mindset of beginners is to try for complications, but against the KIA this is not easy to achieve. He proposed also the KID for the very same reasons.
A beginner will remain so unless they know how to deal with a whole bunch of tactics. Only professionals win mainly through strategy and only then because they see all tactics. However, this only applies to non-adult beginners. Adult beginners need a closed or fixed center opening since as Kraii mentioned, they will just get hurt in open positions. Adults spend most of their time consciously learning tactical motifs to catch up with the kids who were raised on them.
I’ve just watched a couple of your other videos and find them really easy to follow. 1. d4 is typically a tricky move for me to know how to respond to (I usually start with KID and then don’t know what to do after 3 moves and proceed to lose the game), so I’m really looking forward to this vid.
The London system (back in the day Jesse) was something you only taught the London System to beginnings so they can get their pieces on the board. Even the Italian was a way to avoid the work of the Lopez.
1:20:55 Mentioning Kramnik but not Karpov is criminal regarding 7. Be3. His win againts Kasparov with this system in the 1990 WC match is unforgettable.
The problem with 2.Bg5 against the Dutch is that Black may delay ...f5 with the move order 1.d4 e6. Of course, Black needs to be ready to play the French.
Sam Shankland just finished a chessable repertoire with d4. This would have been a perfect opportunity to let him plug it! Not that a typical dojo viewer needs a complete, 2700 level repertoire with 400+ variations per chapter, but he really challenged himself to present something well researched that always ends in a playable position. Worth discussing with him at the very least!
I think the Bayonet Attack is actually not that difficult to play for white. If you keep your knight on f3 as long as possible, black can never *quite* get his pet structures, and white can even consider the "unforgivable" exchange of DSB for knight on f4 for the sake of ruining black's pawn structure on the kingside, breaking his attack and prying open the center while white is better-developed. After all, white has wisely avoided wasting time moving pieces backwards in Bayonet lines while black has still shuffled his knights around a few times. If the center opens up on black in the King's Indian too *late* in the game, it often ends badly for black. Black really needs the center to either open early, *before* he's wasted time repositioning his pieces for the Death Star attack, or to stay closed the entire game -- opening the center *after* the kingside pawns have started rolling can be catastrophic.
The advantage of 1.d4 for beginners is that all coaches agree that you should play 1.e4 and wait to play 1.d4 if you are at least 2200. Well, your opponent will think you are underrated or stupid, play the QGA and keep the pawn, giving you a piece at the end of the line.
I was intrigued by GM Eugene’s discussion at the beginning of the video regarding material vs time. Is there an accepted rough formula for material vs time? I believe I heard GM Kraii say in a prior video 1 pawn equals about 3 tempi. Is it a linear formula? Does 2 pawns roughly equal 6 tempi? I would imagine that there are many exceptions to the rule, but a formula would be useful to start.
There is probably no formula, it depends on the position. In the fully accepted Danish white is a little bit worse (three tempi for two pawns), in the fully accepted Evans (7. ... dxc3) white is better (again three tempi for two pawns), in the fully accepted greco gambit (8. ... Nxc3 9. bxc3 Bxc3 10. Ba3 Bxa1) white is winning (4 tempi for an exchange and two pawns). If there were a formula there would be no point in playing Gambits. Your coach would just tell you "x pawns = y tempi and now go play the 1. d4". The point of playing gambits is developing an understanding and appreciation of time so that you can evaluate positions accordingly. It easier to do that by playing a gambit (where you know you are probably a little bit worse but you have compensation) than playing a pawn sacrifice at a random point of the game hoping it is not losing.
I also think it depends which pawns, as Odysseas mentions. You just have to get to know one gambit and play it yourself and you start to get a feel for it. What they don't mention is that some gambits involve a sacrifice to create positional problems--not tempo. I would describe the Cochrane gambit, center variation (against the Petrov) as such a gambit: You sac a knight for two pawns and you get two center pawns and black none--the refutation is far from "natural". In fact, the Queen's gambit itself is an example, and that's why you'll hear some people say it's not a true gambit. I also like to consider lines like the Italian Knight Attack mainline as reverse gambits, where it's black who has given up a pawn for a lead in development and it's not even dubious: However, White can push for a slight edge for a very long time. The longer he can hold out, the easier it is to consolidate and black cannot prove compensation for the lost pawn.
What about benoni it aint no baloney.for me there are 2 options which are fighting for an advantage one is e4 f4 or positional option with bf4 h3 and pawn on e3
As a Nimzo/QID player I can confirm the Petrosian System is really annoying, you cannot equalise in normal fashion and you’re slightly worse for a very long time.
Okay, in the other video David recommended the Leningrad Dutch (his only recommendation in the whole video) and now he says he lost 4 games in a row with the Dutch! And I was already beginning to learn it!
1.d4!, the best Anti-Berlin of all ;)
This is the best "Not Yet Discovered" chess show on TH-cam.
Thanks!
In his book “The Sorcerer's Apprentice” David Bronstein recommended the KIA as a solid opening, safer than 1.e4. He thought that a beginner doesn’t have to deal whole bunch of tactics, but try to get a playable game and go from there. He said that the mindset of beginners is to try for complications, but against the KIA this is not easy to achieve. He proposed also the KID for the very same reasons.
A beginner will remain so unless they know how to deal with a whole bunch of tactics. Only professionals win mainly through strategy and only then because they see all tactics. However, this only applies to non-adult beginners. Adult beginners need a closed or fixed center opening since as Kraii mentioned, they will just get hurt in open positions. Adults spend most of their time consciously learning tactical motifs to catch up with the kids who were raised on them.
I’ve just watched a couple of your other videos and find them really easy to follow. 1. d4 is typically a tricky move for me to know how to respond to (I usually start with KID and then don’t know what to do after 3 moves and proceed to lose the game), so I’m really looking forward to this vid.
The London system (back in the day Jesse) was something you only taught the London System to beginnings so they can get their pieces on the board. Even the Italian was a way to avoid the work of the Lopez.
1:20:55 Mentioning Kramnik but not Karpov is criminal regarding 7. Be3. His win againts Kasparov with this system in the 1990 WC match is unforgettable.
Quick question,
Looking at the avatars displayed on the grid; Does Jesse have that much hair?!
The problem with 2.Bg5 against the Dutch is that Black may delay ...f5 with the move order 1.d4 e6. Of course, Black needs to be ready to play the French.
With regard to h4 in the opening for white, another Canadian chess player told me that h4 is “...not a move. It’s a statement.”
Fun video. :)
I got a lot of Dutch defenses back when playing in person was a thing. It's one of the best reasons to play d4. I always went for 2 Bg5
Nowadays the cunning way to start the Dutch would be via 1.e6 or 1.d6
@@ham204jan -> now the hans niemann clip on the french
Sam Shankland just finished a chessable repertoire with d4. This would have been a perfect opportunity to let him plug it! Not that a typical dojo viewer needs a complete, 2700 level repertoire with 400+ variations per chapter, but he really challenged himself to present something well researched that always ends in a playable position. Worth discussing with him at the very least!
I shouldn't play D4 until I got around 2000 rating? I guess I'll never get to play it and go for another 5000 e4 games...
I play D4 and i am about 1400
I think the Bayonet Attack is actually not that difficult to play for white. If you keep your knight on f3 as long as possible, black can never *quite* get his pet structures, and white can even consider the "unforgivable" exchange of DSB for knight on f4 for the sake of ruining black's pawn structure on the kingside, breaking his attack and prying open the center while white is better-developed. After all, white has wisely avoided wasting time moving pieces backwards in Bayonet lines while black has still shuffled his knights around a few times. If the center opens up on black in the King's Indian too *late* in the game, it often ends badly for black. Black really needs the center to either open early, *before* he's wasted time repositioning his pieces for the Death Star attack, or to stay closed the entire game -- opening the center *after* the kingside pawns have started rolling can be catastrophic.
The advantage of 1.d4 for beginners is that all coaches agree that you should play 1.e4 and wait to play 1.d4 if you are at least 2200. Well, your opponent will think you are underrated or stupid, play the QGA and keep the pawn, giving you a piece at the end of the line.
If i would have to wait untill i'm rated 2200, i'll probably never get to play 1d4
What a novel idea! And such a good one!
Will you do a video for Black in meeting both 1.e4 and 1.d4 as well?
Already did! Check the past videos :)
I was intrigued by GM Eugene’s discussion at the beginning of the video regarding material vs time. Is there an accepted rough formula for material vs time? I believe I heard GM Kraii say in a prior video 1 pawn equals about 3 tempi. Is it a linear formula? Does 2 pawns roughly equal 6 tempi? I would imagine that there are many exceptions to the rule, but a formula would be useful to start.
There is probably no formula, it depends on the position. In the fully accepted Danish white is a little bit worse (three tempi for two pawns), in the fully accepted Evans (7. ... dxc3) white is better (again three tempi for two pawns), in the fully accepted greco gambit (8. ... Nxc3 9. bxc3 Bxc3 10. Ba3 Bxa1) white is winning (4 tempi for an exchange and two pawns).
If there were a formula there would be no point in playing Gambits. Your coach would just tell you "x pawns = y tempi and now go play the 1. d4". The point of playing gambits is developing an understanding and appreciation of time so that you can evaluate positions accordingly. It easier to do that by playing a gambit (where you know you are probably a little bit worse but you have compensation) than playing a pawn sacrifice at a random point of the game hoping it is not losing.
I also think it depends which pawns, as Odysseas mentions. You just have to get to know one gambit and play it yourself and you start to get a feel for it. What they don't mention is that some gambits involve a sacrifice to create positional problems--not tempo. I would describe the Cochrane gambit, center variation (against the Petrov) as such a gambit: You sac a knight for two pawns and you get two center pawns and black none--the refutation is far from "natural". In fact, the Queen's gambit itself is an example, and that's why you'll hear some people say it's not a true gambit. I also like to consider lines like the Italian Knight Attack mainline as reverse gambits, where it's black who has given up a pawn for a lead in development and it's not even dubious: However, White can push for a slight edge for a very long time. The longer he can hold out, the easier it is to consolidate and black cannot prove compensation for the lost pawn.
What about benoni it aint no baloney.for me there are 2 options which are fighting for an advantage one is e4 f4 or positional option with bf4 h3 and pawn on e3
Nc3 nf3 then early nd2 followed by e4 and be2 is also a very good option
Kostya covered the Benoni during the Queen's Indian segment of the video.
Good Content !. What opening will be your best reply to d4 ?
We have a full video on this! Check the Dojo Talks playlist
As a Nimzo/QID player I can confirm the Petrosian System is really annoying, you cannot equalise in normal fashion and you’re slightly worse for a very long time.
Classification: Nimzo + QID/Ragozin/Benoni complex, London, Benoni/Benko, Dutch e6
Good content.
You guys really need to set up an actual spreadsheet! LOL.
No love for the trompowsky? Have been really interested in a trompowsky/London system repertoire lately.
I played it for awhile and just ended up not caring for how quickly I traded the bishop for the knight almost every game
Trompowsky's not bad! Classic 'system' opening - low theory but can be repetitive
A jem of a video💭
i really am in love with the 4.e3 slav . I ve played it for half a year now but i can t find any books.
Do you know any?
Yep, the newer edition!
Nc3 against the Dutch is John Bartholomew’s recommendation in a free book in Chessable.
Okay, in the other video David recommended the Leningrad Dutch (his only recommendation in the whole video) and now he says he lost 4 games in a row with the Dutch! And I was already beginning to learn it!
This is a great channel, just getting back on chess youtube and there's all these GMs making content. How awesome!
Thanks!
Jesse: let’s suggest a line for all of blacks responses to d4
Kostya: well…I’ll recommend 2
Eugene: here’s 5
I presume that Nigel Powers just hates the opening and not the people.
Masters, hit 1.5x times speed!
;-)
Any chance there would be "1.Nf3! According to the Dojo"? :D
This show is underrated
Don’t think the Catalan is a good choice for beginners, likely will turn into a gambit😮
Note to self, play the Benoni as black
It can work for some!
@mxstoe Just take a look at what happens in TCEC
It's not good against perfect play. It can certainly be played against non-master competition.
@@TheFlagMaster. carlsen beat kramnik with the london , so you should now use it!!!!!!!