Book 1: Chapter 3: Basic Opening Principles

       Chapter 3 of Build Up Your Chess: The Fundamentals covers some basic opening principles, specifically (1) rapid piece development, (2) center control, and (3) preventing your opponent from achieving 1 and 2 for himself. What I would have liked to see in the lesson were examples of how failure to follow the opening principles can lead to small advantages for the opposing player who does follow them. Instead, the examples were of poor moves leading to severe punishment. While this is, obviously, a common enough occurrence in chess, it fails to focus on following the opening principles more than it does on what happens when you don't. This same focus on the failure to follow the opening principles, versus implementing them, carries into the quiz puzzles.

       The quiz was 12 puzzles again, but this time it was worth 25 points. I managed 17 points partly because I was focusing on trying to develop my pieces, control the center, and prevent my opponent from doing either; instead, the puzzles were about punishing your opponent (who hadn't followed the opening principles) – but punishing him didn't necessarily involve following any of the opening principles. So, in a way, this chapter was more on tactics not taught than the opening principles. This isn't to say the lesson or the puzzles weren't instructive. They were. I learned quite a bit, but the lesson loses its focus from start to finish. At the very least, add a fourth principle: 4. Abandon opening principles if you can gain a material advantage or checkmate. That might just sound like common sense, but chess principles can be common sense. Had that been part of the stated lesson, I would have done better on the puzzles, I think.

       Two more minor objections. As there are fewer forcing moves in this chapter, as far as solutions go, it's harder to come up with Artur's preferred solutions. On one question in particular, 3-9 quiz puzzle, there was an opportunity to sacrifice a Bishop or a Knight for an eventual check on the King. I sacced the Bishop, preferring to save my Knight for the attack. Artur chose to sac the Knight, saving the Bishop to deliver the check instead of the Queen (as per my version). Anyway, the problem is that I saw no clear advantage to Artur's way, but he didn't mention my way, so I was left having to score myself 0 out of 3 points, when his way got 3 out of 3 points. Now, I'm not claiming my way is just as good, but how about partial points here like in other puzzles? Or, if it's clearly wrong, then why not mention it, as it does seem intuitive. Working through both solutions leaves me stumped as to why my way is inferior. Also, on some puzzles, it's impossible to predict Artur's line because he injects a significant mistake by the opponent. It's hard to predict or assume those mistakes sometimes. Nevertheless, I must rely on Artur's authority, so I'm scoring myself as he dictates. I have no problem with that. I think the benefit is that I'm still working through the solutions and posing questions to Artur when things don't seem to make sense. So even in disagreeing with him, you are doing exactly what he would hope you do: engage and think deeply about the moves. Thus, despite the dissonance, the chapter is beneficial.