Some opinions I have found on the Open Games vs Closed games debate. But improvement comes from leaving your comfort zone and challenging yourself, so don't expect to improve as quickly with that approach. If you don't want to challenge yourself that way, and prefer to play more closed openings, then that's fine. I think the point Markovich is trying to make (and I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong) is that if you can't calculate well enough to play the tactical positions in open games well, then you should play them more often to practice that calculation ability. Ok! I don't want to become a GM but I like to win and that's why I prefer to open the positions just when I see some concrete options which are inside my calculation horizon which, by the way, is an approximation to Yermo's ideas. I have done my efforts by playing open games and I have enjoyed them but many times I've got positions that I can't resolve correctly (no matter if I was winning or losing I didn't have any clue). Even more when you are a 40 years old player who started studying the game after 30.
The problem with open positions is than not everybody can be a master of them. Calculation and endings knowledge is enough. The good thing about an open repertoire, as suggested by Markovich, is that can be used for life and you don't need too much subtle knowledge closed positions, piece placement and chains of pawns.
0 kommentar(er)
