|
|
| |||||||||
| From | Message | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
euro_pop_legend 15-Oct-24, 07:23 |
 Deleted by euro_pop_legend on 27-Dec-24, 12:33.
|
||||||||
|
euro_pop_legend 15-Oct-24, 07:55 |
Deleted by euro_pop_legend on 15-Oct-24, 09:45.
|
||||||||
|
euro_pop_legend 15-Oct-24, 09:45 |
Deleted by euro_pop_legend on 27-Dec-24, 12:33.
|
||||||||
|
euro_pop_legend 01-Jan-25, 21:51 |
Deleted by euro_pop_legend on 01-Jan-25, 23:07.
|
||||||||
|
Just "mopping up" a bit with some explanation... diffused across different countries and not concentrated in the USA as much which was much more commercialized....thus more #1 hits per USA music artist can and will occur. Let me give you an example of #1 vsa #2 hit.And yes,lets use,for example a 1985 #1 USA hit called Ghostbusters,but I could use other #1 hits vs a #2 Euro hit.Most music fans ALL across the majority of the planet would AGREE that Sandra's #2 Euro hit called "In The Heat Of The Night",far,far,FAR exceeded the quality and fame of the #1 hit in the USA called Ghostbusters!Just reading a chart does not always speak the truth.One must look much deeper than simply some USA chart calling for #1! Even this movie "montage"just made recently,shows you how Sandra's cult fans still worship her.And even this simple music video shows much more than a #1 ghostbuster hit based upon the advantages of a USA movie: www.youtube.com In The Heat Of The Night. Based upon her 1985 #2 hit in two Euro countries. So...ghostbusters?Trust me,I will take Sandra's #2 hit(like millions of others)over the USA #1 hit from a movie!Only this music video was mixed in with some past movies.All her other In The Heat Of The Night music video's were NOT from a movie.This music video was only fan based,not official. My apologies for future readers,since this thread went to music,but it was not me.I had presented a gift of Euro music TO another friend of mine FROM Europe,not the USA.It was only one post.Then "someone else"has intervened and tried to tell me as a music pro all my life that Sandra was a nobody.Wrong and wrong again.Sandra was rated one of the very TOP Euro Pop stars all throughout MOST of continrntal Europe,between 1985-1992. We in Europe are very proud of our Euro singers,even if they are from those classic 1980's!! One of my homes is in a collectivity of France,but I spent many years in Germany back then. Sandra Lauer had sold over 63 million Records between 1978 and the present(both Disco and Pop).Even Cyndi Lauper sold 50 million,mainly in the USA.If Sandra's 63 million records,many top 10 hits and OUTSELLING the top rated Madonna Ciccone in record sales in Europe,is not "good enough"for a USA Pop fan...that is only because that same USA classic Pop fan simply DOES NOT comprehend the brilliancies of many of the Euro singers from the 1980's/1990's. Not everything can be "summed up"in a link by how many #1 hits a Euro singer or USA singer has or had during the infancy of the internet in the 1980's.And in todays world with Taylor Swift,music streaming and more,one cannot even accurately compare todays music stars to the ones from the 1980's.Just saying. Best to all!Now,just get back to the thread theme(anyone)in the future! TA, Joe |
||||||||
|
So,as GK suggested.... I suppose that is different in the regular Club forums. In summary,it was "I"that received a PM FIRST by someone else,not the other way around as mentioned earlier.That is important to note. Thanks all for understanding. |
||||||||
|
Getting back to the original theme of this thread,after a detour... Yes and no on that statement. Actually defining your opening and finding the best opening or opening defense is actually of more key importance "initially"before concentrating on your middlegame,because the "middlegame"can and will vary depending upon the opening...thus strategies will flux greatly and sometimes too complex such as in some Najdorf or Dragon variations.Many defense players with the black prefer to actually avoid the Sicilian and stick to more mainlines of the Ruy Lopez.The Sicilian has been considered argumentally in most chess circles the best opening defense for win ratios. But as to actual 1,2,3 learning....opening,middlegame and endgame... baddeeds in the second post of this tread is absolutely correct. He mentioned about endgame study first.THIS comes before the more complex middlegame or opening phase,even though endgames can also get quite complex but usually more open. So study endgame mate positions,puzzles,tactics and more first,before anything else.But...also get acquainted with opening and opening transpositions that will occur to other openings or opening defenses. So,things like Rook and King endgames vs a King or two Bishops and King vs a lone King and many other endgames like "pawn storming".Interesting enough however what I just mentioned is not written in stone!Players of all strengths have "different insights"and some prefer to concentrate on a specific opening and work on it tirelessly.Then,the middlegame comes easier to them as well as in some circimstances...the endgame as well. But as a "general rule of thumb"...endgame study usually comes first to improve yourself to higher rating levels.How about me?Well,not to contradict what I just wrote... but I actually studied hundreds of openings first,then jumped to the endgame study.I found that my middlegame fell in place on its own and I learned the middle game wins,strategies and ploys based upon my opponents weakness's and weaker play or from a stronger opponent who crushed me by midgame.My theory was learn the midgame second, for you will never reach the endgame and be swept away by move # 20. But that was me in the early 1970's,not others. TA |
||||||||
|
'Before the end game... In developing one's game, the main focus should be on the end game, but supplemented (complemented?) by studying middle game motifs - especially tactical motifs to begin with. I think it is right to focus on a very limited opening repertoire, and play through as many published games featuring your choice of opening. Staying with openings, you will look for the shape of the game. One of my favorite openings is the French, especially the Winawer line. 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4... I like this opening for both sides. The shape of the game is fairly constant, and quite often one might recognise, even well into the middle game, that the thing began as a 'Winawer' (this is true of a lot of openings). Yet the thing leads to exciting games, with plenty of action. The shape of the game determines what the middle game will look like. A good anthology of games with your chosen lines reveals whether the game settles into a sharp, tactical struggle, or something requiring more careful manoeuvring. Which do you prefer? All this leads to an endgame. Does the anthology of published games you are studying indicate any common features in the end game? J.R. Capablanca expressed the view that your choice of opening ought to have not merely the middle game in view, but the ending as well. He probably knew this already when he faced, with the Black pieces, Em. Lasker, the World champion, in a game to decide the famous Tournament at St Petersburg, 1914. It was a Ruy Lopez, and Lasker chose the Exchange variation: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Bxc6 dxc6 ... Now White is ill-advised to take the 'hanging' e-pawn, as black gets it back at once with ...Qd4 or ...Qe7. Best is probably castling or 5.d3. Now, apart from the sharp line (5.0-0 Bg4 6.h3 h4) - a dubious course for Black - the game is likely to settle into a positional struggle between Black's bishop pair and White's better pawn structure and the likely development of a king side pawn majority. Pawn majorities - in the centre or on the wings - can form a salient feature in a middle game, but they more generally come into their own in the end game. So Em. Lasker chose his opening with the end game as much in mind as the middle. He judged that the relative pawn structures were likely to have more value than Capablanca's bishop pair. He outplayed his opponent, won the game and won the tournament. That by no means 'proves' that the Exchange Ruy Lopez is 'better' for White. The game almost at once settled into the K-side majority vs bishop pair game 5.d4 exd4 6.Qxd4 Qxd4 7.Nxd4 ... a playable line. If Black now plays 7...Bd6, a fine move, we have this position: Black had a fine game will into the early middle game - not much in it either way, until several moves later, Black ceded the bishop pair in order to straighten out his Q-side pawns. But that left them a trifle vulnerable, all lined up along Black's 3rd rank. White was in response able to establish a knight firmly at e6, rather cramping Capa's style. So, his K-side majority, though still in existence, diminished in immediate importance as White imposed a crimp on Black's game that eventually led to Black shedding the Exchange, and finally to resignation. So the game led to a late middle game win (I do NOT regard any game with 3 pieces remaining on both sides as an 'end' game - call it the 'late middle game'), but that does not mean that the end game was not in the minds of either player. The end game is a vast study - and a deal more interesting than might at first appear. Did you know that two pawns can defeat a rook (the kings far away)? Two pawns on the 6th rank will do it; one on the 7th and the on the 5th will also. Did you know 3 pawns in the 5th rank will defeat a rook? When I first discovered that a Q vs P end game is NOT always a win for the Q, that was an eye-opener. I could bang on all day in this mode, but one has to call a halt somewhere! I'll leave you with this interesting endgame position: White to play. Win, draw or lose? Have fun with it! |
||||||||
|
yes,archduke_piccolo is correct As to mid game vs opening study second,for the most part midgame would come into play,tactics,ect. and a second tier learning phase.But again not set in stone. But openings should be looked over,at least gently.For what I have noticed,especially with the new generation of newbees to chess is what is called: "boredoom".If you tend to simply go over endgames,then mid tactics and more without showing opening techniques like central board control(d4,d5,e4,e5),many lose interest in chess and leave the game.Many want to simply learn how to open best for the first few moves and simply play!As they play,THEN one can start to gently discuss endgames and midgames on another bosrd or computer screen.I have always been advocate of showing others chess the way it was meant to be...on a OTB real wood chessboard.Moving around the board,getting a solid 3D look at positions and more tends to set a stronger image on ones brain,rather than a phone or desktop screen. Again,yes,endgames are usually first for learning but must be intemixed with technically some openings(as stated above).Else boredom can and will set in.Similar to when I taught others on the drum set many moons ago.In drums,one must first learn to hold the sticks properly and with Rock vs Pop(for example)the sticks are usually held differently.Then comes the drum roll.One should learn how to create and control a drum roll...and this takes much time consuming effort on the part of the student AND the teacher.But too much "drum roll"and no playing anything on the rest of the drums and no smashing those cymbals makes "Johnny" a bored kid and he wants to quit learning the drums!!! See the analogy to chess learning?Way too many chess coaches stick to an initial endgame plan like a whip yielding master and many students lose interest,even if the reasoning of the endgame study is sound advice.Above,those board examples are great,but to a 1200 or less player,I say let them play a good number of opening games just to see how they do,including falling down like a childs first steps.One can learn in many psychological ways by failing first and study why they failed.Just learning to move the pieces is really part of opening play.Endgames can then be interjected on day 3,for example.And not all chess learners are created equal.More than once, I had a kid playing the drums really well,but did not know the drum roll!! So,while the drum roll should come first after holding the sticks(like a chess endgame study first),THIS student advanced the drums in a way suited to himself. Same with chess study.It depends. Below,you will see my old link from the deeper chess theory club: gameknot.com Notice the different approach to endgame study(above) which shows 1400-1599 to begin concentrating more on endgames.So,it depends if the player is a beginner or has moved up thr rating ladder a bit... which one can do WITHOUT initial endgame study in any detail. Again,it depends and it is not written in stone.That chart was not created by me,but was an assimilation of the facts from several combined sources of the GM's and IM's I gathered over the decades. |
||||||||
|
studying opening in the approx range of 1200-1399.So,as you can see....20% this and perhaps 70% endgame study and then 10% midgame initially...an intermix is best. Remember...Johnny will get bored by only flipping around R/K vs K endgames or B/N vs King and pawn endgames for example.Let them play,show them the ropes,then sweep away the pieces and do the endgame dance.For,if you do the endgame dance first,that will not always work and they will have no idea why they are dancing in the first place. |
||||||||
|
"How you play your middle game is more important than choosing your opening!!? My Uncle was a strong player, was still playing over the board in tournaments into his late 70s he said to me .... don't waste too much time and energy trying to find some miracle quick fix to victory opening stick with 2 or 3 solid openings and concentrate on being able to play a decent middle game, he said ... bad middle game results is lost endgame!? My Uncle only ever played 1.Nf3 followed by 2.d4 as white" YES!!!i play SODIUM attack only as white player. no need memorize all open an stuck.improve tactic chess imporove strategy chess!!!!learn endgame then middle game.no worry to much about open.get good at one and two open move! |
||||||||
|
-YES.Agree archduke an that what i saying! |
||||||||
| |||||||||
