Good Afternoon,
I'm not sure if I'm posting in the correct forum, but hopefully this question will be valid. I'm a bit of a novice player and am looking to improve my game. As a result, I've purchased the Batsford Modern Openings book, and although I know it's a bit outdated by now, I have moved my study onto more online-based tools.
I've been using a study a user posted to get to grips with the Caro-Kann, and found myself with a question related to the image posted. The engine says 4...h6 would be the better move, however, the author argues that 4...h5 is more restrictive for White. In these situations, as a novice player, am I better off following the engine or more established lines? And can anyone give me an argument for why one may be better than the other?
Thank you for your time
Good Afternoon,
I'm not sure if I'm posting in the correct forum, but hopefully this question will be valid. I'm a bit of a novice player and am looking to improve my game. As a result, I've purchased the Batsford Modern Openings book, and although I know it's a bit outdated by now, I have moved my study onto more online-based tools.
I've been using a study a user posted to get to grips with the Caro-Kann, and found myself with a question related to the image posted. The engine says 4...h6 would be the better move, however, the author argues that 4...h5 is more restrictive for White. In these situations, as a novice player, am I better off following the engine or more established lines? And can anyone give me an argument for why one may be better than the other?
Thank you for your time
"The engine says 4...h6 would be the better move, however, the author argues that 4...h5 is more restrictive"
- At higher depth the engine says 4...h5.
"why one may be better than the other?"
- An opening book is obsolete while being printed. Games are being played and analyzed every day.
A data base is more reliable than an opening book.
"The engine says 4...h6 would be the better move, however, the author argues that 4...h5 is more restrictive"
* At higher depth the engine says 4...h5.
"why one may be better than the other?"
* An opening book is obsolete while being printed. Games are being played and analyzed every day.
A data base is more reliable than an opening book.
@midori-laser said ^
Good Afternoon,
I'm not sure if I'm posting in the correct forum, but hopefully this question will be valid. I'm a bit of a novice player and am looking to improve my game. As a result, I've purchased the Batsford Modern Openings book, and although I know it's a bit outdated by now, I have moved my study onto more online-based tools.
I've been using a study a user posted to get to grips with the Caro-Kann, and found myself with a question related to the image posted. The engine says 4...h6 would be the better move, however, the author argues that 4...h5 is more restrictive for White. In these situations, as a novice player, am I better off following the engine or more established lines? And can anyone give me an argument for why one may be better than the other?
Thank you for your time
Do you recommend Caro-Kann? What has been your experience with it so far? What kind of things should I pay attention to?
I know it is better to look at that study for that but I found it would be best to ask someone who benefitted from the study.
@midori-laser said [^](/forum/redirect/post/ZwcKDAe7)
> Good Afternoon,
> I'm not sure if I'm posting in the correct forum, but hopefully this question will be valid. I'm a bit of a novice player and am looking to improve my game. As a result, I've purchased the Batsford Modern Openings book, and although I know it's a bit outdated by now, I have moved my study onto more online-based tools.
>
> I've been using a study a user posted to get to grips with the Caro-Kann, and found myself with a question related to the image posted. The engine says 4...h6 would be the better move, however, the author argues that 4...h5 is more restrictive for White. In these situations, as a novice player, am I better off following the engine or more established lines? And can anyone give me an argument for why one may be better than the other?
>
> Thank you for your time
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
Do you recommend Caro-Kann? What has been your experience with it so far? What kind of things should I pay attention to?
I know it is better to look at that study for that but I found it would be best to ask someone who benefitted from the study.
A data base is more reliable than an opening book.
Yes, I agree with you on that. The Lichess database is probably more helpful than an opening book can become. Also, I wouldn't put much time on openings rather than/after learning their main ideas.
> A data base is more reliable than an opening book.
Yes, I agree with you on that. The Lichess database is probably more helpful than an opening book can become. Also, I wouldn't put much time on openings rather than/after learning their main ideas.
I think you're better off studying what you have seen in games using the Player portion of the database versus studying theory. Usually once a week I sit down and analyze what I have seen in my games and make adjustments then. I checked the players database (in your rating range) and it looks like you will be out of theory by move 4 or so. If you enjoy studying theory, keep at it, just don't expect to use it often.
I think you're better off studying what you have seen in games using the Player portion of the database versus studying theory. Usually once a week I sit down and analyze what I have seen in my games and make adjustments then. I checked the players database (in your rating range) and it looks like you will be out of theory by move 4 or so. If you enjoy studying theory, keep at it, just don't expect to use it often.
For the position after 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 e5 Bf5 4 h4, Nunn's Chess Openings (1999), Batsford's Modern Chess Openings (2008), Small Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings 3 (2010), and Practical Chess Openings (2025) all seemed to indicate a preference for 4...h5, while considering it to be worthwhile to also mention 4...h6.
"... 4...h6 is a good move which does not make any positional concessions. 4...h5 is a reliable and more common alternative, which has the drawback of letting White use the g5-square. ..." - First Steps: Caro-Kann (2018) by IM Andrew Martin.
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/7800.pdf
IM Martin mentions that Botvinnik chose 4...h6, so, it does not seem likely that there is an obvious reason that either choice is clearly superior.
By the way: "... For new players, I cannot recommend books that use [an encyclopedic] type of presentation [of opening theory], because the explanatory prose that elaborates typical plans and ideas is usually absent, thus leaving the student without any clear idea why certain moves are played or even preferred over other apparently equivalent moves. .... For inexperienced players, I think the model that bases opening discussions on more or less complete games that are fully annotated, though with a main focus on the opening and early middlegame, is the ideal. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2010)
In 2004, NM Dan Heisman wrote about the issue of knowing the difference between 9 d4 and 9 h3 after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 O-O Be7 6 Re1 b5 7 Bb3 d6 8 c3 O-O.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140626225952/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman37.pdf
"... At [the 1800] rating most of the players are aware of the difference and why it is supposed to be a difference. It may not greatly affect the probability of victory if you chose one line or the other, but at least the Black players will have some idea as to what to do, theoretically, if you play the rarer 9.d4. ..."
Might be a different story at lower ratings.
On the other hand, a lower-rated player might find something useful, in a recent book, about something like 1 d4 d5 2 Bf4, while not having much luck with a 2008 book.
For the position after 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 e5 Bf5 4 h4, Nunn's Chess Openings (1999), Batsford's Modern Chess Openings (2008), Small Encyclopaedia of Chess Openings 3 (2010), and Practical Chess Openings (2025) all seemed to indicate a preference for 4...h5, while considering it to be worthwhile to also mention 4...h6.
"... 4...h6 is a good move which does not make any positional concessions. 4...h5 is a reliable and more common alternative, which has the drawback of letting White use the g5-square. ..." - First Steps: Caro-Kann (2018) by IM Andrew Martin.
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/7800.pdf
IM Martin mentions that Botvinnik chose 4...h6, so, it does not seem likely that there is an obvious reason that either choice is clearly superior.
By the way: "... For new players, I cannot recommend books that use [an encyclopedic] type of presentation [of opening theory], because the explanatory prose that elaborates typical plans and ideas is usually absent, thus leaving the student without any clear idea why certain moves are played or even preferred over other apparently equivalent moves. .... For inexperienced players, I think the model that bases opening discussions on more or less complete games that are fully annotated, though with a main focus on the opening and early middlegame, is the ideal. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2010)
In 2004, NM Dan Heisman wrote about the issue of knowing the difference between 9 d4 and 9 h3 after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 O-O Be7 6 Re1 b5 7 Bb3 d6 8 c3 O-O.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140626225952/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman37.pdf
"... At [the 1800] rating most of the players are aware of the difference and why it is supposed to be a difference. It may not greatly affect the probability of victory if you chose one line or the other, but at least the Black players will have some idea as to what to do, theoretically, if you play the rarer 9.d4. ..."
Might be a different story at lower ratings.
On the other hand, a lower-rated player might find something useful, in a recent book, about something like 1 d4 d5 2 Bf4, while not having much luck with a 2008 book.
I dont think anyone can say for sure what is best and what not. When the engine revolves around two option around the same evaluation we could say they are both good enough.
However this doesnt always translate to human play.
If you want to study theory for the sake of it so be it but there are no real answers only pros and cons.
What I would recommend though is what @Ironusmaidenus suggest look at the online players database (I like to look at only blitz rapid and classical not bullet and daily games) and from a certain elo and up so that you get a grasp of 'practicality'. At the end of the day it doesnt matter what is best but what gives you the best chances. If you see the players database h6 and h5 score pretty much the same for black so in the end of the day it is a matter of preference and style.
I dont think anyone can say for sure what is best and what not. When the engine revolves around two option around the same evaluation we could say they are both good enough.
However this doesnt always translate to human play.
If you want to study theory for the sake of it so be it but there are no real answers only pros and cons.
What I would recommend though is what @Ironusmaidenus suggest look at the online players database (I like to look at only blitz rapid and classical not bullet and daily games) and from a certain elo and up so that you get a grasp of 'practicality'. At the end of the day it doesnt matter what is best but what gives you the best chances. If you see the players database h6 and h5 score pretty much the same for black so in the end of the day it is a matter of preference and style.
@midori-laser said ^
Good Afternoon,
I'm not sure if I'm posting in the correct forum, but hopefully this question will be valid. I'm a bit of a novice player and am looking to improve my game. As a result, I've purchased the Batsford Modern Openings book, and although I know it's a bit outdated by now, I have moved my study onto more online-based tools.
I've been using a study a user posted to get to grips with the Caro-Kann, and found myself with a question related to the image posted. The engine says 4...h6 would be the better move, however, the author argues that 4...h5 is more restrictive for White. In these situations, as a novice player, am I better off following the engine or more established lines? And can anyone give me an argument for why one may be better than the other?
Thank you for your time
Both playable
If h5 watched out for g5 infiltration.
If h6 watched out for Rh3-g3 or g3 then g4.
In both you should thrive to break the center by c5 before opponent clumps you
@midori-laser said [^](/forum/redirect/post/ZwcKDAe7)
> Good Afternoon,
> I'm not sure if I'm posting in the correct forum, but hopefully this question will be valid. I'm a bit of a novice player and am looking to improve my game. As a result, I've purchased the Batsford Modern Openings book, and although I know it's a bit outdated by now, I have moved my study onto more online-based tools.
>
> I've been using a study a user posted to get to grips with the Caro-Kann, and found myself with a question related to the image posted. The engine says 4...h6 would be the better move, however, the author argues that 4...h5 is more restrictive for White. In these situations, as a novice player, am I better off following the engine or more established lines? And can anyone give me an argument for why one may be better than the other?
>
> Thank you for your time
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
Both playable
If h5 watched out for g5 infiltration.
If h6 watched out for Rh3-g3 or g3 then g4.
In both you should thrive to break the center by c5 before opponent clumps you
