In Reuben Fine's 'The Ideas Behind Chess Openings' page 7 he wrote:

'OPENINGS WITH 1 P-K4, P-K4

Both White's and Black's initial moves are perfectly natural and
normal: both assist development and affect vital central squares.
As long as Black can retain symmetry, White can lay no claim to an
advantage. Consequently the task is to compel the defender to give up
his strong center positions, in other words to abandon his P at K4.
White can achieve this aim only by playing P-Q4.'

Why?

'If Black then replies with PXP he will be left with a pawn at Q3
(eventually)...'

Why?

On Mar 22, 7:45 pm, Albert wrote:

In Reuben Fine's 'The Ideas Behind Chess Openings' page 7 he wrote:

'OPENINGS WITH 1 P-K4, P-K4

Both White's and Black's initial moves are perfectly natural and
normal: both assist development and affect vital central squares.
As long as Black can retain symmetry, White can lay no claim to an
advantage. Consequently the task is to compel the defender to give up
his strong center positions, in other words to abandon his P at K4.
White can achieve this aim only by playing P-Q4.'

Why?

GM Fine was mistaken, for not only did he
err in claiming White has no advantage in
having /the first move/, but he seems to have
forgotten all about p-f4-- an alternative way to
attack e5 pawn.

A subtlety often overlooked is that there is
no such thing as perfect "symmetry", as one
side or the other always has the right as well
as the obligation to move something.

Here, he also seems to reject so-called
hyper-modern strategy altogether, in favor of
classical.


'If Black then replies with PXP he will be left with a pawn at Q3
(eventually)...'

Why?

Here GM Fine is assuming that Black either
a) has already played ...d6 earlier, to defend
his e-pawn, or b) Black cannot safely get in
the pawn advance ...d5. and must therefore
advance the pawn one square in order to
develop his QB "normally", which is to say,
not fianchettoed nor hyper-fianchettoed.


The thing to remember when reading such
authors is that, despite their often dogmatic
approach, there are a lot of instructive /ideas/
intermixed. A player who knows nothing
whatever about the openings can gleam a
lot from even the stubbornest dogmatists,
then later refine it to better fit with reality.

If you don't want to have to deal with all the
dogmatic commentary and mis-statements,
just go with a book by one of the many
modern writers, like say, Yasser Seirawan.
(Okay, I'm showing my age here; ...by say,
GM Nakamura.)


-- help bot

Offering modern alternatives:

Sam Collins writes a great first introduction to the openings:
http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-...35681&sr= 8-3

Djuric Stefan writes a very useful follow-up designed to get you involved in the ideas behind the openings.
http://www.amazon.com/Chess-Opening-...35681&sr= 8-2

help bot wrote:
Albert wrote:
'OPENINGS WITH 1 P-K4, P-K4

Both White's and Black's initial moves are perfectly natural and
normal: both assist development and affect vital central squares.
As long as Black can retain symmetry, White can lay no claim to an
advantage. Consequently the task is to compel the defender to give up
his strong center positions, in other words to abandon his P at K4.
White can achieve this aim only by playing P-Q4.' -- Fine

[...] he also seems to reject so-called hyper-modern strategy
altogether, in favor of classical.

No. All he is saying is that 1.e4 e5 is `natural and normal' and
that, if those two moves are played, White's only hope for an
advantage is to play d4 at some point. This in no way excludes the
possibility that other first moves might be played by Black (or even
by White!) or that different strategies might be called for against
those moves. He's not `rejecting' hypermodernism; he's just not
discussing it in the section `OPENINGS WITH 1 P-K4, P-K4' because they
don't belong there.

If you don't want to have to deal with all the dogmatic commentary
and mis-statements, just go with a book by one of the many modern
writers, like say, Yasser Seirawan. (Okay, I'm showing my age here;
...by say, GM Nakamura.)

Which book by Nakamura would that be? I can't find anything beyond a
chapter in each of _Secrets of Opening Surprises_ volumes 5 and 7.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Hungry Nuclear Sushi (TM): it's like
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ a raw fish that's made of atoms but
it'll eat you!

Albert wrote:
In Reuben Fine's 'The Ideas Behind Chess Openings' page 7 he wrote:

'OPENINGS WITH 1 P-K4, P-K4

Both White's and Black's initial moves are perfectly natural and
normal: both assist development and affect vital central squares.
As long as Black can retain symmetry, White can lay no claim to an
advantage. Consequently the task is to compel the defender to give
up his strong center positions, in other words to abandon his P at
K4. White can achieve this aim only by playing P-Q4.'

Why?

Because, once Black has defended his pawn on e5 by advancing his
queen's pawn, White can only capture the Pe5 with a pawn of his own
(assuming he doesn't want to lose material). The only pawns that can
capture on e5 are the d-pawn and the f-pawn and advancing the f-pawn
weakens White's king by opening up the e1-h4 diagonal to Black's queen
and dark-squared bishop.

The alternative would be for White to try to remove the Pd6 and then
take the Pe5 with a piece. However, dislodging the Pd6 will take an
awfully long time. That has to be done with a pawn, too, since the
Pd6 is protected by the Pc7.

'If Black then replies with PXP he will be left with a pawn at Q3
(eventually)...'

Why?

Three reasons.

1) White will almost surely have played Nf3 before he plays d4. So,
when d4 is played, e5 is attacked twice. If Black isn't going to lose
material, it needs to be defended twice, too. The most natural way is
to play ... d6 and the alternatives are bad: ... Qe7 blocks in the
king's bishop; ... Qf6 blocks in the king's knight; ... Bd6 blocks in
the queen's bishop and demotes the king's bishop to acting as little
more than a pawn.

2) It discourages White from playing e5.

3) It lets Black get his queen's bishop out in the most natural way.
The alternative is to fianchetto it (i.e., play ... b6 and ... Bb7),
which is slower.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Accelerated Homicidal Painting (TM):
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it's like a Renaissance masterpiece
but it wants to kill you and it's
twice as fast!

On Mar 22, 8:13*pm, help bot wrote:
On Mar 22, 7:45 pm, Albert wrote:

In Reuben Fine's 'The Ideas Behind Chess Openings' page 7 he wrote:

'OPENINGS WITH 1 P-K4, P-K4

Both White's and Black's initial moves are perfectly natural and
normal: both assist development and affect vital central squares.
As long as Black can retain symmetry, White can lay no claim to an
advantage. Consequently the task is to compel the defender to give up
his strong center positions, in other words to abandon his P at K4.
White can achieve this aim only by playing P-Q4.'

Why?

* GM Fine was mistaken, for not only did he
err in claiming White has no advantage in
having /the first move/, but he seems to have
forgotten all about p-f4-- an alternative way to
attack e5 pawn.

Our Greg returns to his usual modus operandi, which involves
ignorance of the book in question, and disconnecting mouth from brain.
Actually Fine devoted several pages to the King's Gambit in that book.
If Greg had troubled to read pages 58-61 of Idea's Behind the Chess
Openings he would have seen that Fine hardly forgot about "p-
f4" [sic].

* Here, he also seems to reject so-called
hyper-modern strategy altogether, in favor of
classical.

Utter nonsense. Ideas Behind the Chess Openings devotes 5 pages to
Alekhine's Defense (1.e4 Nf6), one page to Nimzovitch's Defense (1.e4
Nc6), 27 pages to the Nimzo-Indian (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4), 16
pages to the King's Indian and Grünfeld, and 10 pages to the Réti-
Catalan -- hypermodern openings all.
However, a discussion of "hyper-modern strategy" is not very
appropriate to the chapter on symmetrical king pawn openings. Guess
what kind of opening Fine was discussing when he wrote the paragraph
the OP cites above? For most of us, the heading "OPENINGS WITH 1 P-K4,
P-K4" serves as a fairly strong hint, but our Greg goes his own way.

* If you don't want to have to deal with all the
dogmatic commentary and mis-statements,
just go with a book by one of the many
modern writers, like say, Yasser Seirawan.

If you want to know what GM Fine actually wrote, read the book,
rather than what help-bot imagines its contents to be.

(Okay, I'm showing my age here;

Oh, you're showing much more than that, Greg.

wrote in message
...
On Mar 22, 8:13 pm, help bot wrote:
On Mar 22, 7:45 pm, Albert wrote:

In Reuben Fine's 'The Ideas Behind Chess Openings' page 7 he wrote:

'OPENINGS WITH 1 P-K4, P-K4

Both White's and Black's initial moves are perfectly natural and
normal: both assist development and affect vital central squares.
As long as Black can retain symmetry, White can lay no claim to an
advantage. Consequently the task is to compel the defender to give up
his strong center positions, in other words to abandon his P at K4.
White can achieve this aim only by playing P-Q4.'

Why?

GM Fine was mistaken, for not only did he
err in claiming White has no advantage in
having /the first move/, but he seems to have
forgotten all about p-f4-- an alternative way to
attack e5 pawn.

Our Greg returns to his usual modus operandi, which involves
ignorance of the book in question, and disconnecting mouth from brain.
Actually Fine devoted several pages to the King's Gambit in that book.
If Greg had troubled to read pages 58-61 of Idea's Behind the Chess
Openings he would have seen that Fine hardly forgot about "p-
f4" [sic].

**Yes. In fact the King's Gambit is a very powerful opening against all
comers* - and the particular point, to quote Thomas Johansson in his "The
King's Gambit for the Creative Aggressor!"

Das Konigsgambit fur den erfindungsreichen angriffsspieler! [ROFL]

is that after
1. e4 e5
2. f4 d6
the author says "this 'Philidor approach' gives white a small advantage,
almost instantly, in control of the centre and easy development." and he
says this on the first page of chapter 1.

**people who disagree should tell Boris Spassky their fascinating opinions.
It certainly served him against 2500-2600 players, which is probably no
inhibition to anyone reading in this newsgroup.

Phil Innes

Here, he also seems to reject so-called
hyper-modern strategy altogether, in favor of
classical.

On Mar 23, 12:13 am, help bot wrote:
On Mar 22, 7:45 pm, Albert wrote:

A subtlety often overlooked is that there is
no such thing as perfect "symmetry", as one
side or the other always has the right as well
as the obligation to move something.

And Fischer had some startling comments about symmetry.
After the moves 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. g3 g6 3. Bg2 Bg7 4. O-O O-O 5. d3 d6 ( a
symmetrical position), Fischer wrote:
'"Believe it or not", Black stands better! Now whatever White does,
Black will vary it and get an asymmetrical position and have the
superior position due to his better pawn structure! In Filip vs
Fischer, 1962, similarly Black gets the upper hand: 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 g6 3
g3 c6 4 Bg2 d5 5 cxd5 cxd5 6 Nf3 Bg7 7 O-O O-O 8 Nc3 ...; and Black,
breaking the symmetry at the proper time, gets the advantage by
8...Ne4.'
That is genius! Let him who hath the understanding...!
After only 5 moves - a symmetrical position - and /black/ is better!


This is the game he was commenting on:
[Event "Bay City Rd: 2"]
[Site "Bay City Rd: 2"]
[Date "1963.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "0-1"]
[White "A Reinhard"]
[Black "Robert James Fischer"]
[ECO "A05"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "48"]

1. Nf3 Nf6 2. g3 g6 3. Bg2 Bg7 4. O-O O-O 5. d3 d6 6. e4 c5
7. Nc3 Nc6 8. h3 Rb8 9. Be3 b5 10. e5 dxe5 11. Bxc5 b4 12. Ne4
Nxe4 13. dxe4 Qa5 14. Be3 Ba6 15. Re1 Rfd8 16. Qc1 Nd4 17. Kh2
Rbc8 18. Nxd4 exd4 19. Bg5 d3 20. a3 Rxc2 21. axb4 Qb6 22. Qe3
Bd4 23. Qf3 Rxf2 24. Qg4 d2 0-1

On Mar 22, 10:23 pm, David Richerby
wrote:

No. All he is saying is that 1.e4 e5 is `natural and normal'

Bingo! This assertion is the giveaway
that the writer rejects the hyper-modern
strategies (i.e. abnormal) in favor of
classical (i.e. normal).


and
that, if those two moves are played, White's only hope for an
advantage is to play d4 at some point.

Perhaps it is okay to believe White
cannot obtain a *theoretical advantage*
via 2. f4, but I read it as an assertion
that there is no other way to fight for an
advantage, which is simply incorrect.


This in no way excludes the
possibility that other first moves might be played by Black (or even
by White!) or that different strategies might be called for against
those moves. He's not `rejecting' hypermodernism; he's just not
discussing it in the section `OPENINGS WITH 1 P-K4, P-K4' because they
don't belong there.

Perhaps not, but the "KIA" lines belong
in there, somewhere; maybe GM Fine is
tossing such moves because they achieve
no "theoretical advantage"? Or maybe he
considered them "abnormalities", like say,
schizophrenia... .


If you don't want to have to deal with all the dogmatic commentary
and mis-statements, just go with a book by one of the many modern
writers, like say, Yasser Seirawan. (Okay, I'm showing my age here;
...by say, GM Nakamura.)

Which book by Nakamura would that be?

Any book by him would be more up-to-date
than those by Yasser Seirawan, which have
already been written and published. By the
same token, books by YS are in modern,
algebraic notation, while this stuff by GM
Fine is way, way out of date.


I can't find anything beyond a
chapter in each of _Secrets of Opening Surprises_ volumes 5 and 7.

In the near /future/, SGM Nakamura will
come to dominate chess "books" (videos,
actually), replacing hacks like Ray Keene
and Eric Schiller. You would know that,
if you weren't so old and so stuck in the
present... .


-- help bot

On Mar 23, 10:21 am, wrote:

Here, he also seems to reject so-called
hyper-modern strategy altogether, in favor of
classical.

Utter nonsense. Ideas Behind the Chess Openings devotes 5 pages to
Alekhine's Defense (1.e4 Nf6), one page to Nimzovitch's Defense (1.e4
Nc6), 27 pages to the Nimzo-Indian (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4), 16
pages to the King's Indian and Grünfeld, and 10 pages to the Réti-
Catalan -- hypermodern openings all.


Fella, you *really* ought to learn how to
read.

The key term "here" clearly specified that
what was being discussed was the exact
paragraph posted here in rgc at the top of
this thread -- not the book. LOL!

Just take your time, TK; we will try to
understand if you can't keep up with the
rest of us.


-- help bot