Check out my Chessable courses: chessable.com/... Join my Substack for weekly newsletters: substack.com/@... Follow me on Twitter! @GMAlexColovic www.alexcolovic.com
Hi Mr. Colovic, probably don't remember me but I'm back :) I was slacking off but I did end up reading all of the free articles you have on both blog sites. I even tried to read Matthew Sadler's blogs, but I found that to be a bit difficult to visualize. Congrats on the Simplified: 1. c4 course coming soon on Chessable! Maybe you could do a Simplified: 1. Nf3 + b3 approach to finish it off? :P I've always been taught the classics, and have VERY firm beliefs in playing principled chess (Thanks Botvinnik!). I was wondering why you had this sort of approach? From what I understand in the chess philosophy if I wanted to become a very strong chess player (let's say titled, let's say further if I got lucky) I would have to play a mix of classical, principled, romantic chess. Thing's like mainline spanishes, italians, QGDs for both colors. Learning how to be a brutal attacker and focusing heavily on attacking play (I've heard that up to FM most games are still heavily decided by romanticism & tactics, even "incorrect ones"). I understand that there will always be exceptions to rules, but I'd like to look at most prodigy players and feels like that applies heavily to them. They've had trainers to teach them the basics, and they got to a title. When they say "I've played a KID/Najdorf/Grunfeld ever since I was 10!" they were titled by then. In my mind they're allowed to do so. Thinking about how Firo & Arjun right now are the best examples of that "Killer" mindset. In that sense, and I do know about your Najdorf & KID simplified (Which in my mind kickstarted Chessable's 100 Repertoires) and wondered why you didn't expand on breaking down more of those heavier openings individually? Or are you going to get back onto the grind? I also forgot the line, but there's a line on Lichess with the exchange without Bf4 that gives White like a 65% - 70% win probabilities. I could be wrong, I don't play d3. But I do know something like that exists. Why is it with databases where there's some lines with something is clearly statistically better when put into practice, and not busted by an engine to not be played?
When it comes to Chessable courses, it's always a decision made between me and Chessable, when they propose a direction where I should be going to and they we agree on the details. This is usually the explanation why I did/didn't create a course on a certain opening.
Sure, for ex. I used to play the Advance 3.e5 Bf5 4.Be3 with Nd2 next. It's similar to the Short Variation (4.Nf3 and 5.Be2) but it's less explored. Another idea is what I proposed in my 1.e4 Simplified course on Chessable, 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.Nf3 and Ne5 next, which is underrated and very interesting.
Well, I am confused. When I tried to play the Caro Kann, My c8 bishop was either passive or harassed. White constantly had more space. I was feeling under attack 9 games out of 10. Even worse than the wicked Scandi I wasted 6 years of my chess life with.
