Beginners Should Learn Opening Theory!

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #21


    royalbishop wrote:
     But then you do get those games when both sides play their openings out to 13-18 moves. So i say have a healthy balance of all worlds.

    18 moves ouch, is that what they call a quite open?  From the last two responses then my hope with chess then is that thier is an "Art" to going Off Book..  I do want to pick up a database and some current move by move type talk about some particular openings.  I like what you said royalbishop on piece cooridiation of tasking.  Recoginizing when your pieces have better value.  I read somewhere a couch would have his students count each square his pieces could effect.  I sorta try and do that sort of thing to evaluate my pieces positions..  

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #22


    maDawson wrote:

    I agree. The danger is young players learning opening theory often use it in place of middle-game/endgame knowledge as if it compensates. A good opening is no doubt, a critical factor to any game nonetheless.

    Have to say as of recently we had a talk about the Daeth Opening. And it was said by an NM that a good player can almost win with any opening due to playing skills.

    I have to say if you get a chance to apply your opening theory it will lead you to a good middle game. And i found once i there i put it to my opponent and never let up. Only time i have a problem with this in when me and my opponent are both playing sound opening theory. And the middle game starts off even on both sides.

    I have to say i give all the credit to  my quick wins to opening theory. Over 50% my opponent resigns is when i caught them violating opening theory.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #23


    Hey... work smarter not harder. It seems like every game or sport there's that overcompensation factor that misguides intermediate players. "Don't learn this because it will stunt your progress"

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #24


    Why you don't try to forget about opening knowledge and just learn how to attack?

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #25


    I regret waiting so long to learn openings because learning them is not only strengthening my midgames, learning why the good lines are considered 'good' and the other moves are not has helped improve my strategy, tactics, my overall understanding of the game even outside the opening lines I've committed to memory. If I had started earlier I probably would have improved faster than I did at the time.


    I still have a long way to go. There are blindspots, there are gaps in my knowledge, and I have a lot of general tightening to do here and there. But it's given me goals. It's given me something tangible to work on that visibly translates into results while I work on it.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #26


    The best coaching advice I've seen regarding openings is to teach tactics through the openings. If a player learns to start analysing tactical ideas from move one, they will play the openings at a higher level than someone who just tries to reach "book" positions. 

    Yes, learn to play a certain opening thoroughly. But don't worry so much about whether "theory" gives white a slight plus or considers the position equal. Work out what's going on and be able to come up with plans that meet the needs of the position. Test your ideas in blitz games and serious games. Check out what others have played in similar positions and be willing to re-evaluate your own conclusions. But don't worry too much about the "theory". 

    If you come up with your own evaluations of a position based on your own thorough analysis, you will be able to play that position with more confidence and more effectively, regardless of your rating. 

    For example, try playing the Petroff's as white for a win. Don't worry that GMs consider it drawish, work out some lines that work for you. Stay away from hackneyed gambits such as the Cochrane, just play sound developing moves and look for forcing moves. You will soon see that the Petroff's offers White some excellent winning chances against players whose ratings are below 2400.

  • 3 years ago · Quote · #27


    I teach in this way (tactics from move one) and it definitely helps my students progress quickly. I think it's the best way to understand why moves should be played at beginner levels.

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #28


    It depends.

    What is the goal of the beginner? To become a top gm or just to enjoy the game? I think you should shy away from opening theory in the former, creates too much dogma and learning to play really solid chess will find these students of the game playing theory before they ever learn it. For example, put carlsen in an opening he doesnt know the theory and you probably wouldnt be able to tell the difference, he would find it otb.

    Many middlegame and endgame concepts apply well to the opening whereas you cant really apply opening concepts to the middlegame and endgame, this is why many top teachers preach learning the endgame well because it teaches you to play good chess which can be used in any phase of the game without the opening theory clogging your brain.

Back to Top

Post your reply: