In article <20071130101154.770b4e08@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Chris Babcock <cbabcock@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>One of the first games where I use that wording, someone falls for a
>trap that I specifically warn about. Is trying to provide a balanced
>view a lost cause? Should I avoid mentioning any specific article? I
>like the resource, but it requires critical reading skills that I
>suspect to be missing or dormant in the majority of the general
>population. What do you think is the best way to introduce this source?
I would not change what you're doing, personally. The only way to
know an opening is to play it, and ideally to play both sides. If
that means that sometimes you'll run right into its failure modes,
that's the necessary price of learning.
I've been involved in a *lot* of failed Lepantos as Italy. It's not
my first choice of Italian opening, but Italy has a tough game
initially and there are constellations of players where I can't find
a choice I like better. I've probably had games that look pretty
much like the newbie game you're deploring, but you can't tell from
the moves whether this is uncritical acceptance of an opening
"book" line, or just a desperate attempt to find a workable opening
in a diplomatically difficult situation.
I don't think you can learn Dip from a book; but you can get a lot of
neat ideas, and then find out the hard way which ones work for you
and which don't. (It does vary with individual play style. I have
had mysteriously good results with Austria, a power that's very unpopular
in my local group, but can't play France to save my life. Other
people's excellent French openings just don't click for me.)
Mary Kuhner mkkuhner@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
