In chess if you memorize variations without knowing the strategy behind the moves, you are aiming at nothing, hence you will hit your target every time.

you are right, but please provide an example with games and moves please

I am sorry, was new to forum and thus the example game with notes are under the title, Theory vs. Strategy.

Yeah.  I can think of the French without knowing any themes.  Not a good result.

do you mean miss?

Nope, if the target is nothing, and you aim at it (nothing), you will hit your mark every  time. It is a play on words my friend.

So very true.

Well said!!

I now pretty much stick to as few openings as possible so I can at least try to grasp some kind of understanding of what I am playing. Against E4 I only play the french now and have done so for a good few months now and I think I understand the basic ideas and variations but still don't really have a clue whats going on really in the positions, although I have been doing well with it though. I know why I have to break with c5 and f6 and generally when to do so and why my c8 bishop can be a problem but studying the games of Korchnoi et al I see just how little I understand. But I think just playing one or two openings is the best way to go.

At my local club I have noticed when we play against school teams they tend to know loads of opening theory but if you just play one move that objectively is'nt the best move early on they tend to fall apart pretty quickly as they don't know why they are playing the moves they are, and why the objectively best moves are the objectively best moves.

Wow, bravooooo! Great illustration and well put too! Usually if you are having good results with a defense like the French, that means you have a better grasp of the defense than you give yourself credit for. Understanding the intricacies and nuences of the French Defense to the degree of Korchnoi is an extremely high standard to hold anyone too. I aggree with the ideology of forcing your opponent to play "chess" i.e. (make moves based on your own plan and strategy vs. producing Grandmaster proven variations by rote) in our game and not enter an competition memory vs. retention. Those of us who believe that computers have greatly affected chess positively and negatively, strive to be creative at the board every game. Coach Rene' and The Chess Gym

I believe the saying is:

"Aim at nothing, and you'll hit it every time"

Yes sir. You are correct, I just borrowed for chess to illustrate a point about theory vs. strategy. Thanks for your reading.

So what is the solution? What is the right balance of opening theory and tactical training?

TheChessGym wrote:

In chess if you memorize variations without knowing the strategy behind the moves, you are aiming at nothing, hence you will hit your target every time.

---

 Agreed! From my experience in playing chess, Internet players seem to be victims of this moreso than OTB players.

 

Isnt it strange how you can lose to an opponent who simply has a better memory (or puts in more opening prep time) than you and just rattles off some well learned lines of preparation but in fact knows very little about the middlegame or endgame (compared to you) and whos advantage gained from the opening phase is enough to see him/her through to victory. THAT, is a kick in the 'you know where'.

Then again, isint that the great thing about chess? Every chess player can play whatever way he/she wants.

The struggle is to balance opening theory with your own strategy. Chess games can be considered a form of art. Strive to paint a masterpiece by coming up with your own ideas and variants (side variations) in the openings and defenses you play. This can be accomplished by playing sound moves in the opening that deviate from the main variation. Chess has not been exhausted, nor has opening theory. Deviating from main opening lines at the championship level would allow for a quick draw or obtaining an unfavorable position, but at the club level, a slight departure from the main line may force your opponent to play chess and abandone any memorized variations. It will also test your opponent's resolve and understanding of the opening. Illustrating this theme, can be done by the following deviation from main line opening theory: 1.d4 Nc6 2.c4 e5!? 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.dxe5 Ne4 with a Budapest setup reached by transposition. My game went continued 5.Bf4 Bc5 6.Nbd2?? Bxf2 ##. My opponent obviously frustrated that I didn't follow any lines he had memorized, failed

to demonstrate his understanding of the position and the game for him was over after 2...e5.  

 

I totally agree with you NM TheChessGym. Nice fara (Budapest) game. It is unusual to see a 2100+ player lose so quickly! I posted some games here with 6.Rg1!? against the Najdorf and my opponents, some being 2100+ (playchess rating), fell quite quickly too. I imagine if i had have played 6.Bg5 they would have had enough theory learned to gain advantage from the opening. I have had similar experiences using the Levenfish attack against Dragon players 1800-2100 (playchess rating). Again, if i had played the Yugoslav attack, they would have been in more familiar territory.

 

I think a good tip on deviating from the mainlines to make your opponent 'play' (rather than remember) is to look back at older lines, that have probably gone out of fashion becuase of a string of poor results, and use them. You have to remember, some variations may be considered dubious but at some stage someone was developing the theory and was winning with them. For example, the Gothenburg variation of the Najdorf, or ...f5 in the Philidor (as played by Morphy).

 

You could also stay up to date with present day masters and see what new moves are being played by them but the chances are they will play new moves in the middlegame rather than opening. 

 

You cant rely on deviating too early just for the sake of it though! You really need to sense if your opponent is just remembering moves and gaining an opening advantage to see him through to the end. This should become evident if after analyzing your players games (presuming your an OTB tournament player with an up to date database/ or regularly play the same opponents on-line) that his opening repertoire sticks to the book but his middlegame and endgame moves dont appear in Fritz`s top 5~ moves. In that case, you have the go ahead to deviate as early as you like and crush him

 

So, deviating from main lines seems like a great way to win?? Well, thats not the whole truth. Sidelines are sidelines for a reason! As you play progressively stronger players you wont want to give up as much in the opening because as you move up, players will be able to use the advantage you give them (altho, this cant be said for NM TheChessGym`s opponent!). I guess the key is to balance your mainline preparation and your sideline preparation.

Well said, my friend. I advocate deviating from main line variations not as a sure-fire way of winning, but as a means to force your opponent to play chess. I totally concur that such an exploit beyond regular club play could be very dangerous against strong tournament-savy competition. However even at the tournament level players can be taken out of their preparation as early as move one! Unfortunately, (as you so eloquently stated) side variations and non-mainline variations are "side" lines for a reason. The tournament player has to work hard for the win and is forced to utilize databases, pgn files, and computer engines to stay abreast on theory or they won't make it out of the opening against strong opposition. Cllub players however, are free to roam the vast horizon of moves from the very dubious to the very eccentric with confidence of forcing their unwary booked opponent into uncharted waters. Thanks for your input my friend.

I have recently had a long hard look at my previous games to see how many of them were won or lost purely through the opening. Since I have been quite theory obsessed I assumed that the games I won were because of this. However I could'nt find a single game where I won purely because of my opening play (except against very low rated players). They were always won or lost due to later blunders or poor endgame technique. I think we also try to copy our heros too much without understanding them. Here is an interesting thing that Jonathan Rowson said on the subject of openings in his book "Chess for zebras" :

"The main reason openings matter so much more at the elite level is that during the game the margin for error is so much smaller, and the level of concentration and technique is so much higher. This means if you get a serious advantage out of the opening there is a very real chance you will win the game. Moreover, if you get nothing out of the opening it is much harder to outplay your opponent because they normally know how to play chess rather well! You are not likely to win because your opponent exchanges the wrong pieces, or needlessly exposes his king, or blunders a pawn."

Also he once asked Tony Miles after a game if he felt he could get a reasonable advantage out of the opening (He had played an unusual Tromposky) and Miles replied that he wanted an unbalanced position that he was comfortable with, and then try to outplay him between moves 25-40.

After hearing all this I decided to experiment more in the openings. Against e4 e5 I have always tried things like the Kings gambit or Ruy Lopez etc and tryed to remember more of the theory than my opponent. Even when I have it is usually only a very small advantage. I have recently started playing the Center Game (e4 e5 d4) and have a 100% win success rate! There is very little theory on it and it is very easy to start experimenting and just attacking blacks king. All my wins so far have been before move 40 and one was checkmate in 24 moves! I have found it clear to see that although players tend to know the moves they don't really have any opening understanding. For example one player rated around 1750 (so you would assume they would know how to open a game reasonably) replyed e4 e5 d4 Bd6?? with an extremely easy advantage for white which is far more than you would expect out of a more well known opening. The opening just gives you a basic position, but one where it is very easy to start an attack and start sacrificing pawns and pieces to mate the king! I have just started a game with it against someone rated around 2100 and have a reasonable game so far.

I also now believe it is more important to remember general principles and sayings rather than opening variations. For example "loose pieces get taken" has helped me alot. When you start making a plan you just see which of your opponents pieces and pawns are not protected (and the same for your own) and try to think of how you could either attack two of them at once or attack one and threaten something else at the same time. Just the other day I was playing in a final at my club and reached what my higher graded opponent had thought was an easily drawn position. However earlier in the game i had noticed that he had an awquardly placed pawn that could only realistically be defended by a pawn to b6, but his only counter play was b5 and when he played it I attacked his c5, won it and with it the game.

So anyway I definitely think we should all experiment more in the openings, rather than being elitest and saying "well fritz says thats really bad" or "Anand dos'nt play that anymore so I don't either" and just play chess. And if you really must keep copying GMs, make it Morosevich as he experiments alot early in the game.

 

Openings are important but not undully so i have improved rapidly latley by hammering out as many opening traps as i can like you said you will all ways hit the target if they fall for the traps then graet if they try to avoid it then they have atleast 1 peice that is out of place making the game easier to play so if you just settle for peices on good sqares then you shouldn`t go far wrong. You will never out do this fundemental no matter how cleaver the opening!

Wow, guys I think we have contact! Great insight from practical experience Amnesiac. Bigmac30 also gives our readers food for thought. This blog lays great groundwork for a book all to itself. I am learning from all the input that has been generated from this issue. Thanks for contributing guys and good stuff! Coach Rene'

TheChessGym wrote:

In chess if you memorize variations without knowing the strategy behind the moves, you are aiming at nothing, hence you will hit your target every time.

---

 This sounds vaguely similar to one of my favorite Hitchhikers Guide quotes.

 

" There is an art, it says, or rather, a knack to flying.

    The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
    Pick a nice day, it suggests, and try it.
    The first part is easy.
    All it requires is simply the ability to throw yourself forward with all your weight, and willingness not to mind that it's going to hurt.
    That is, it's going to hurt if you fail to miss the ground.

    Most people fail to miss the ground, and if they are really trying properly, the likelihood is that they will fail to miss it fairly hard."