These articles might help, but are not meant to be comprehensive. Just a bit about software you can use to help:
http://www.chess.com/blog/pawpatrol/learning-openings-thoroughly-with-lucas-chess
http://gorgonian.weebly.com/home/studying-openings
Best way to learn openings. . suggestions please
Sort:
One suggestion is to just play Chess960. I just started my first game and it's pretty interesting -- there are no openings to study, so it's just playing chess right from move 1.
what an old topic but so informative
what i usally do is find an opening and if i wish to learn it I conduct research (wikipedia, books etc.) afterwards I take the opening to an engine to see some lines i might like to play. Finally I play a load of blitz games with the opening to familiartize and get a feel for the opening so i know what to do in different cases. Finally I take it to real tournament games and employ them to the fullest of my knowledge
I think you guys did an excellent job of answering the wrong question.
respectfully, he said he was a beginner. that means he should spend time learning about tactics and the KQ vs K checkmate, and not studying dozens of master games for gameplay he will not understand.
Instead I strongly suggest that all beginners be taught "opening principles", and play senseably in their first moves; learning to avoid game losing tactics.
.... this approach is not mine. it is contained in dozens of books. most of the better chess books for beginners advocate this approach ; it makes sense and works!
The best way to learn openings is to know the ideas of the opening and NOT the certain lines.
lol
never fails
thegreat_patzer wrote:
I think you guys did an excellent job of answering the wrong question.
respectfully, he said he was a beginner. that means he should spend time learning about tactics and the KQ vs K checkmate, and not studying dozens of master games for gameplay he will not understand.
Instead I strongly suggest that all beginners be taught "opening principles", and play senseably in their first moves; learning to avoid game losing tactics.
.... this approach is not mine. it is contained in dozens of books. most of the better chess books for beginners advocate this approach ; it makes sense and works!
I answered the question that was asked.
Several years ago I once reluctantly agreed to participate in a group lesson with a well-known GM (who has made videos for chess.com). My share of the lesson was I think $60. During the entire lesson I just watched and didn't have any particular questions for this GM. Finally, at the end of the lesson, I asked him just one question: How do I play for a draw with higher rated players (I was about 1800-1900 USCF at the time)?
Instead of attempting to answer my question, this GM criticized me for asking such a question, saying I shouldn't aim for a draw, blah blah blah. A couple of the other students agreed.
I was not happy. It doesn't matter how "ridiculous" the question is, if the question is asked in seriousness, try to give some constructive help, especially since I paid a share of the lesson and asked only a single question!
Needless to say, I would never take lessons from this GM, and never recommend him to anyone -- yes, I have recommended a few people to avoid him. In fact, he is the only IM or GM I have worked with that I would say this about -- and he was the most expensive.
Nowadays, when MY students ask me questions that are perhaps "too advanced" for them, I may tell them that they're not really ready for it, but I will try to give them helpful advice ANYWAY, and I never get on their case for asking a legitimate question. They're curious about chess, trying to improve, and are simply seeking guidance.
Here's some advice of my own: Openings ARE important, at all levels. Dealing with Scholar's Mate entails learning some opening knowledge, however "trivial" it may seem at first (it actually isn't). Lots of strong players say openings aren't that important, but the caviat is that this is only true when a player has reached a certain level that they can reason things out for themselves. Unless a player is talented (a lot of us are not), that takes awhile.
Good post. It seriously annoys the crap out of me when I ask a question only to have someone else try to convince me I shouldn't be asking the question instead of just helping answer it. I hate seeing it done to other people, too.
If someone asks you if they should be studying openings for maximum effectiveness towards improvement, that's your cue. Otherwise, leave that decision up to them. It is just condescending to assume they haven't considered that.
On this particular subject, it's just baffling to me the way people line up to try to keep people from studying openings the way they want to. There has to be some harrassment squad that meets on Sunday afternoons or something.
I find the study of openings though good monographs (Shaw's work on the King's Gambit is among the best) most useful. Studying these books and any available reference games in databases while playing correspondence games in the line seems to bring the most benefits. I wrote a blog post about this topic last month.
thegreat_patzer escribió:
I think you guys did an excellent job of answering the wrong question.
respectfully, he said he was a beginner.
He didnt say he was a beginner, and has a rating of 1758. I dont think he needs to learn KQ vs K checkmate.
ananthhh wrote:
Thanks to everyone for your wonderful comments.
Am expecting more from the chess gurus around here.
This topic will be helpfull for lot of beginners like me lurking around this forum.
this is the OP. I took him at his word. I agree an 1758 isn't a beginner, but perhaps he was 3 years ago. this is an old thread.
@AndreHarding...
first of all, bear in mind I am not a chess coach and I'm not either a chess expert, some my 'experience' isn't really worth that much. I re-read both of your comments and fwiw, I agree that a beginner, even a rank beginner does need a little advice about the opening.
my whole point to everyone was and is , that this guy called himself a beginner- and stuff like going over master games and buying chessbase is way off.
this is for sure ineffective study particularly done solo. he point blank says he was thinking that a he needed to hit the book in post 3. if people thought that was off, no one said it.
The things is LOTS Of Newby people think this is what they need to do to get good at chess. when you andre, say you need to look at middlegame tactics and even endgames... they just nod their head, and say- yes- I'll memorize a few moves and avoid the traps and all the tactics will go my way and I'll have a winning endgame.
they don't appreciate how important and involved all that stuff is, because they don't understand it.
If you don't understand something, you rarely appreciate how hard it is to master it. the Books all say chess is 99% tactics. becuase if you fall for every single fork and pin; and can't find one to save you life. you won't be winning ; not in the opening, middle or endgame. ... and yet beginners everywhere are asking what are master openings; and laying out their money for all these opening books.
they need educated. Not 300 pages on some obscure (or not) variation. but the ability to come up with a senseable opening. (opening GUIDELINES) and then Study OF tactics, positional chess, and endgames.
IF you don't know a fork, learning the trap is cheap. Learn about forks, first, then alot of traps will make more sense.
... nothing anyone said was wrong. but I think that, esp 3 years ago. people didn't emphasize enough that opening study is Not the place to start.
and btw, I'm no coach. but I learned too much useless stuff about openings when I was a newby. so I'm claiming personal experience about he perils of learnings openings before I learnt chess.
thegreat_patzer wrote:
@AndreHarding...
my whole point to everyone was and is , that this guy called himself a beginner- and stuff like going over master games and buying chessbase is way off.
He said that he uses ChessBase:
ananthhh wrote:
At first when i started learning opening, i will open any book with fancy title and i will open a chessbase software. Then i will start loading all those moves in the database, thinking that i am learning all those moves and openings.
thegreat_patzer wrote:
@AndreHarding...
first of all, bear in mind I am not a chess coach and I'm not either a chess expert, some my 'experience' isn't really worth that much. I re-read both of your comments and fwiw, I agree that a beginner, even a rank beginner does need a little advice about the opening.
I teach chess for a living -- not as a hobby, it is my full time profession. Several of my students have reached 1800-2000. Just saying.my whole point to everyone was and is , that this guy called himself a beginner- and stuff like going over master games and buying chessbase is way off.
No it isn't.
this is for sure ineffective study particularly done solo.
Not true. It's how I and lots of other people started in chess. Ubiquitous chess coaches and chess websites are a relatively new thing.
You know what my second chess book was (after a very basic introductory book)? The Soviet School of Chess by Kotov and Yudovich. It's filled with tremendous master games, but the notes are not very detailed prose-wise. But it's what I had -- my dad found it in Strand Bookstore for $1 -- and I did the best I could with it.
There was a chess coach my dad was told about through a co-worker on his job. It was a Russian master, and he charged $25 per hour (this was in 1996 or 1997). My dad said "I don't make $25 an hour, so I'm not going to pay a chess coach $25 an hour!" He would sometimes buy me chess books and expected me to improve from those. For example, he got me Wade and O'Connell's The Games of Robert J. Fischer (hardcover; I wish I had taken better care of the dust jacket) -- and couldn't understand why after awhile I couldn't play more like Fischer...
I didn't have ChessBase or ICC. Actually, I didn't even get a home computer with internet until 2001.
At least all that self-study helps me now that I'm a professional coach -- and I charge $100-$120 per hour now. If I could have coached myself in the past, with my desire and the amount I studied, I would have reached 2350 USCF at least.
The thing is, I'm quite sure other chess students had conditions far more challenging than mine.
he point blank says he was thinking that a he needed to hit the book in post 3. if people thought that was off, no one said it.
The things is LOTS Of Newby people think this is what they need to do to get good at chess. when you andre, say you need to look at middlegame tactics and even endgames... they just nod their head, and say- yes- I'll memorize a few moves and avoid the traps and all the tactics will go my way and I'll have a winning endgame.
they don't appreciate how important and involved all that stuff is, because they don't understand it.
If they're dedicated, they will eventually learn some of it.
If you don't understand something, you rarely appreciate how hard it is to master it. the Books all say chess is 99% tactics. becuase if you fall for every single fork and pin; and can't find one to save you life. you won't be winning ; not in the opening, middle or endgame. ... and yet beginners everywhere are asking what are master openings; and laying out their money for all these opening books.
No one said to ignore tactical study.
they need educated. Not 300 pages on some obscure (or not) variation. but the ability to come up with a senseable opening. (opening GUIDELINES) and then Study OF tactics, positional chess, and endgames.
IF you don't know a fork, learning the trap is cheap. Learn about forks, first, then alot of traps will make more sense.
... nothing anyone said was wrong. but I think that, esp 3 years ago. people didn't emphasize enough that opening study is Not the place to start.
and btw, I'm no coach. but I learned too much useless stuff about openings when I was a newby. so I'm claiming personal experience about he perils of learnings openings before I learnt chess.
Again, like I said, the problem is not openings, but that openings are poorly taught by most coaches and the vast majority of books.
I'm glad at least that you think for yourself and don't just listen to what chess authors say about tactics and openings -- most chess authors are completely out of touch with what beginners or weak players need, or even worse treat them in a condescending fashion.
Sorry to resurrect this thread, but, as a rank beginner I can feel what the OP was asking. He probably was low ranked 4 years ago when this thread started.
At my position right now I have access to a plethora of information that makes it hard to pick solid chessbase videos or books to begin a basic study.
One thing that is always on a beginner's mind when given the advice 'don't bother learning openings, start with tactics (forks, skewers, pins, discoveries etc) and end games. As a beginner my mind screams,'but how am I to reach and end game if I can't get past the opening?'
I do spend a lot of time working on tactics. I am studying end game themes, but it is rare that I get to a K v K + R or K v K + Q end game. I either blunder in the opening or entering the middle game or I manage to checkmate in the early stages of the middle game. I do understand the principles of openings (Don't move a piece twice, castle early, don't bring the queen out too early etc) but still fall prey to opening traps.
This is why a lot of beginners want to know one or two simple openings for white and black to allow them to at least get past move 10 (castled if possible) to allow them to at least have a chance of entering the middle game more regularly. I have ideas of ones that I would like to learn as white and as black, funnily enough as white I want to learn the sicilian as I seem to have people and computers hitting me with that opening when I play e4, as soon as that pawn moves down to c5 I groan because my standard ideas of trying to control the center go out the window and I start to worry about what is coming next. A simple knowledge of the aspects of an opening you are likely to encounter as a beginner may help aleviate some of the worries about what you need to do to defend yourself and get you safely to the middle game.
I know that this is a bit of a ramble but, I am at the 1000 stage so a rank beginner and I thought you may like to know how us guys in the tadpole pond think (you have all been there and probably can't remember the nervousness of facing a move that you cannot remember how to counter.)
Thanks for listening and hopefully we'll be able to get us little (and fairly old I might add) guys over that first hurdle so we don't get butchered in the first 10 - 15 moves ;)
To learn an opening, you must play the opening. Get the basic gist of what is to be done (put a pawn here or a piece there) and then just play it. Aftey you've done this a bit, you'll learn a lot more when you go over an opening book or whatever they have these days and see why what you did was bad or good.
Try out Chessable. It's IM John Bartholomew's website for learning and memorizing openings.
I don't know. I have/had myself same problem. Here is my approach/problem.
- I did not care about openings much. Just give me any position - playable that is.
- I found my chess style. I did not knew what i like. Do i like agressive attacking style.. or do i like positional defensive style. I can do both and i can fail at both. Sometimes i see tactics sometimes i don't. Sometimes i see clear weakness sometimes i rush without strategic ideas or attacking plan.
- I tried many openings.. i can't say which ones are bad or good. They are too many. Should i play this , should i play that.. what is my opponent repetoiare... should i choose opening based on his prereferences or mine.. is just completely mess.
I like one opening for one or two things, but then i don't like that opening for other bad things... what to do.. do i play this or not. i started to play some random out of books openings. I just wanted to play chess. Then i found truth. I got stronger in random, chaostic positions where i can improve slowly position and to attack. My opponent does not feel in own waters.
So best is to choose some lines that are not true attacking or true defensive and are not too well known or too much theory heavy.
I might open with 2-3 commom moves but then quickly deviate for some variation or to play 1.d4 for example but don't go for positional play.
Watch some strong, prefereble masters how they play blitz and justcopy paste their style , openings and see how you go.
Also one thing i think is importhant. You might not go very far.. but i think is better to play openings based on how you feel that that very moment. Forget about your opponent, just play what you like and want to play, enjoy chess and at same time improve yourself. Also they say if you are below 2000 openings don't matter that much.
The way I see/study openings changed when I learned the Yugoslav attack in the sicilian dragon.
It is problably one of the easiest to understand openings. You dont even have to memorize the movements, but see the "position" and the idea of the attack that white is planning.
So basically you put your bishop in e3, your queen in d2 (both in the c1-h6 diagonal), a pawn in f3 and then push with the h and g pawn, try to open the h file, exchange the dark square bishops in an attack to the king.
After you see a couple of examples you can play the attack without memorizing many things, because you have a clear idea of the plan.
The problem with most openings is that the plan or plans that arise in the middle game are more difficult to grasp, more subtle, so after you play the movements (that you have memorised because you do not understand the overall plan) you don´t know what to do. A GM might point that there is a clear plan that is to get a passed pawn, or exploit the weakness of a certain square, but honestly, at certain levels that´s not a plan that can be carry out due lack of knowledge.
In summary, for every opening you wish to play you first have to find out (search in books or internet) what positions are typical and what are the plans/strategy for the middle game.
The second step is to discard the openings whose middlegame strategy is too complicated for your knowledge.
At the same time, you have to study strategy in general, so in the future you can revise those openings you discarded and see whether you understand them now with the new knowledgment.