Great vid Dennis. I think we all know people who are that dogmatic about chess positions...

I did have a laugh at his comments of the French...

I love Tarrasch. I think he is a gold mine for improving players. Improving players need "dogma" in order to make sense of the infinite possibilities of chess. Dogma gives me a structured way to approach and "grow" in chess. Dogma brings order to the universe and sorts out all the chaos. Chess seems so simple when you study Tarrasch.

In this era of "Too Much Information", there is a bewildering array of conflicting advice about what openings to play and how to approach and think about chess. Students can waste literally hundreds or thousands of hours approaching chess and openings in a haphazard or "wrong" way without making any progress. Just 2 weeks ago I met a lifetime 1200 player who was booking up on 1.b3 for White and 1...b6 for Black. Tarrasch sorts everything out for the student, cuts out all the B.S. so the student can approach chess and chess openings in a direct, simple, and classical manner that will build a solid classical foundation.

Later on of course the student will "evolve" beyond Tarrasch and "dogma", just as a musician will evolve beyond I IV V chord progressions. But I happen to think Tarrasch is an extremely important chess figure and unduly forgotten these days...

This is all just my opinion based on my personal experience, of course.

Good video, i watched the whole thing while typing a work project in another window.

A video of the highest quality- entertaining, informative and instructive! Thank you very much.

I have to agree with Katar about Tarrasch being good for people trying to find rhyme and reason to this complicated game. Dogma, in that respect, can be an aide. As you advance you need to know when to break or severely bend the rules of dogma.

As far as the three chord progressions... can you enlighten me? I play rock & roll so I only know two chords! Yep, two bar chords and I'm set!

Haven't watched the video yet, waiting until after the Wildcats play tonight to enjoy it.

Steve, for $25 I would be willing to email you the identity of that elusive third chord that you so desperately seek.

HEHE

I play lead mostly, so two chords is just fine, thank you.

Is it by any chance a corrugated umpteenth?

My impression of Tarrasch:

"1. e4. From here on out, black must make a series of 'only-moves'. d5 Black steps on a landmine - this move is known to be inferior to 1 ...e6."

great video

Finally got the chance to watch the entire video - Good job, Dennis! One of your best!

With regards to dogma, when we see some of Tarrasch's comments many readers of various levels will quickly conclude that they are indeed bold statements that history has shown to be overstatements. However, Tarrasch does make many good and very valid points, especially concerning middle game and endgame play. For example, and you pointed it out right away, at minute mark 20ish the idea of homing in on a weakness and not giving any weakness in your own camp is a very good point.

The problem for the aspiring student is to separate the dogma (if we are to give the term a negative connotation) from the sound advice.

I think this video helped to clarify this point.

Lol Wolfgang

For me it seems that Tarrasch's 'positive' dogma is more associated with strategy than opening theory. But I think this goes for chess in general. So often openings are disregarded as useless then revived decades down the line. Strategy is the most important thing, but opening trends come and go.

The arrogance of a hundreds years hindsight comes to mind about the commentary. No attempt at understanding or explanation. Terrible.

Hi Pobble,

You might be confusing at least two questions:

1. Is Tarrasch a dogmatist?
2. Does Tarrasch's dogmatism mean we can dismiss him, disparage his understanding of the game, believe ourselves wiser and more gifted, etc.?

The answer to the first question is a rather obvious yes, at least applied to the Tarrasch of Three Hundred Chess Games. I offered lots of support for that thesis. To say that is not to dismiss him as a doddering fool, however. From your rather dismissive comment I'm not sure you watched the whole video, but if you do it will be evident that I view him as a great player, and that while his critique of White's plan and the Advance French in general was far too sweeping, the strategic plan he put into play against it was very strong and instructive even for today's players.

Of course, there are things we know today - or think we do - that they didn't know then. But Tarrasch didn't know, either, that 3...c5 was the only good response to the Queen's Gambit or 5...Nxe4 the best defense to the Ruy Lopez. Plenty of great players of the era chose alternative defenses in those openings, and those players (e.g. Chigorin, Rubinstein, Lasker and Capablanca, to pick four big ones) were at the very least his peers.

Further, contrary to the remarks about "a hundred years of hindsight" and the claim that I made "[n]o attempt at understanding or explanation", I can think of at least two concrete places where I made such attempts. First, with respect to the Advance French line in the main game; second, about the Tarrasch QGD, I noted that its relative disfavor nowadays is thanks to the effect of the Rubinstein-Schlechter plan with g3. I also found his argument about the QGA interesting and took it seriously enough to offer a counter-argument; I didn't just dismiss it with a laugh.

Maybe you listened to the very start of the video and got offended on Tarrasch's behalf, but upon recalling the specifics I really can't see that your offense is justified. I'm "guilty" of calling Tarrasch a dogmatist, but that's a fairly simple statement of fact. Any non Kool-Aid drinker should be similarly "guilty". This does not mean that I diminish him as a great chess mind in the history of the game, however! Conversely, though, the fact that Tarrasch was a great player and chess thinker does not mean that he's immune from criticism, or that anyone who critiques something he wrote must genuflect, apologize, and say "what a worm am I" as he does it.