@noahlz said in #17:
> Side note: I'll never forget my first chess coaching session, where I asked my coach (an FM) about the various trappy openings I faced online. He was puzzled at first, and then he remarked,
> "Oh, you're talking about those chess dot com guys! Don't worry about that, nobody plays like that in slow chess because you have 90 minutes to figure out the defense to their wild opening and then punish them." - which turned out to be true.
For me this sums up why classical (slow) chess is real and enjoyable chess (for humans below super GM level) and why fast chess is not. Others may disagree. That 90 minutes is necessary to figure out unsound openings, unsound gambits and unsound tactics unless, as I said, you are a super GM, with immense openings knowledge and a huge and automatic chess patterns memory. That 90 minutes is necessary for mere mortals to enjoy what chess can be and allow them to play positions and plans as well as tactics and complete wins somewhat accurately or put up stubborn defences as long as possible when losing. There is much more learning and satisfaction in that, at least for the adult improver.
For kids it is different when they have played many, many thousands of blitz chess games from 6, 7 or 8 years old. Their brains end up fully wired for that via their high neuroplasticity and they learn incredibly fast and deeply. I do wonder however if other non-chess capacities can always be properly developed under this process.
@noahlz said in #20:
> > pls reply Nohlz
>
> Yes, beginners need to know basic openings, Four Knights is how most start and it's fine.
>
> Eventually you'll learn opening lines "the hard way" (losing a lot) etc is the point I made in my post.
Ben Finegold: Openings Dont Matter
Also Ben Finegold: has 3 Opening Courses on Openings