Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Jennifer Shahade's avatar

I haven't learned a new Black Opening against 1.d4 for ages, but you've got me tempted here!! Congrats on the course!

Expand full comment
Michał Kaczmarek's avatar

Hi Nate,

You have published a 100 Repertoire for White (which I am studying now), a 100 Repertoire against 1.e4 and now you are going to publish a 100 Repertoire against 1.d4. If someone wanted to learn from your opening courses, one would need to spend twice as much time studying openings for Black than openings for White. (If someone chooses other, bigger opening courses, it would usually mean anyway this 1:2 ratio.)

By "twice as much time" I mean continued commitment rather than one time effort: you need to repeat variations, play through master games originating from these variations, etc.

But does it make sense to have repertoire for Black twice as big, if we consider the efficiency of our study time? Given that we will have both White and Black in roughly 50% of our games? (I am not saying it doesn't make sense -- I simply don't know what to think about it).

One might argue that positions we are getting against 1.e4 are completely different than those we are getting against 1.d4 (which could be similar to those against 1.Nf3 and 1.c4). But similarly, when playing 1.e4 as White, we are getting completely different positions against 1. ... e5, Sicilian, Caro-Kann, French etc.

Shouldn't it be a 200 Repertoire for White, and 2 x 100 Repertoires for Black :)? (Or 100 for White and 2 x 50 for Black.)

I wonder what are your thoughts, given your expertise in both chess and data science :).

Thanks,

Michał

Expand full comment
6 more comments...

No posts