Well, its up to you to decide how much you focus on the openings, let everyone else play how they like.
About Openings
Sort:
True, but no, some people in my club thinks playing openings is like chess magic, it is mostly for bughouse where you try something like the Caro Kann against the f7 square attack.
My most played openings are the Queens Gambit, Closed Sicilian, Polish Opening, Nimzo-Indian Defense, King Pawn Opening, Grunfield Defense, etc. and I am still learn some more.
Openings are for getting the pieces onto decent squares early. Some involve highly tactical possibilites for either player, so require more opening knowledge.
Some involve basic principles rather than tactics. In those cases it's better to have solid foundation in the basic principles rather than memorising 20+ moves in some obscure side-line.
The second type of openings are the best to combat your theory-laden club mates. As white you could look at the English, which I used to go from 1400+ to 1800+ OTB as a junior. Or you can specialise in some rarely played sideline or unusual variation of popular openings, like the MacCutcheon in the French or Cambrige-Springs in the QGD. Or the open Ruy Lopez.
Theory freaks usually concentrate on the mainlines and think everything else is weaker, trying to refute something that can't be refuted. That's where your principles and expert knowledge will make the difference.
The opening serves one purpose, to get to a playable middlegame. Until you are AT LEAST 1900 USCF, but preferably at least 2000, the only thing you need to know about openinngs is the general ideas/principles behind them.
BingHongCommander wrote:
Sometimes, I don't get why people make such big deals about the opening. It isn't really funny anymore. Openings can give people a solid position or more attacking chances with gambits and all that, but now, people have become way to dependent with the openings. Then, when the opponent goes out of the book, they get frustrated and blame how the opening messed up? Weird, right.
If you do not have an opening repertoire, and are counting on gaining an advantage in the opening based on some cursory study of an opening, you are kidding yourself.
rdecredico wrote:
I_Am_Second wrote:
The opening serves one purpose, to get to a playable middlegame. Until you are AT LEAST 1900 USCF, but preferably at least 2000, the only thing you need to know about openinngs is the general ideas/principles behind them.
This tired old myth needs to be set out to pasture.
People in the U/1000 section know some opening theory and those that don't are not going to do as well as those that do.
It NEVER hurts to know opening theory and even better is to memorize it.
Lots easier to win games from good positions that it is from bad positions.
Claiming that opening theory is not important is like a builder telling us to not worry about the foundations of structures ... its just silly and flies in the face of reality. "No reason to worry about how you pour the concrete foundation just make sure to put nice windows in on the third floor and you will be fine."
hahahaha
Its not a myth. The opening is the easiest part of the game to play. If youre talking foundation, then the end game is the foundation of chess. People that are in the U1000 section and go around talking about all the opening theory they know is a waste of study time.
At a beginners level - general principles should suffice.
Depending on talent of the player it would do quite far into your "career", take Bobby Fischer as an example. Play through his early games ... they all follow the same pattern: put the pieces on reasonable squares and start playing reasonable moves.
A knowledge on what to do in various types of positions is of great(er) value in the openings than explicit theoretical knowledge. Witness all theory laden 2000+ juniors that face sidelines ... =) I've got a good example of this myself where I easily drew a 2300+ player OTB with a little known sideline. I later saw the same player "blunder" into a infamous drawish game against another player in the same tournament (i.e. 1.d4 d6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5?! dxe5 4.Qxd8 Kxd8 which is surpringly hard to crack if black knows what to play).
you won't be happy if someone taps you right through the opening, would you? Patzer is a trapping opening, where most people don't see threat to e5 pawn. Every principle can be violated, but only when you can reason to violate it. You can rely on tactics and strategy but if you are blindly depending on principles, high rating is far. If opponent gets confused, it's something to relax about. I have won games starting by giving my opponent all possible space of 5 ranks, but only I know that how risky play it was.
Sometimes, I don't get why people make such big deals about the opening. It isn't really funny anymore. Openings can give people a solid position or more attacking chances with gambits and all that, but now, people have become way to dependent with the openings. Then, when the opponent goes out of the book, they get frustrated and blame how the opening messed up? Weird, right.