8196 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Is this thread Beyondo Stupid, or just plain vanilla stupid?
Hope no one is trying to memorize it. That would be dumb.
I never realized how stupid I am until I tracked this thread.
Thanks for all your input. I will re-enter to make two related comments in response to the most "scathing criticism" I received from the person who said the argument was "bullcrap" and then said:
I know some tactics and endgames, and I've learned some opening theory. Where's the problem?
Can you see the "verbal" problem here? 1) In my discussion I too referred to "opening theory" as a good thing, a very great thing in fact. But the opening theory I referred to was aligned with Emanuel Lasker's ideas of a) while fighting for the center b) achieving the 7 goals enumerated above and c) I also mentioned that one way in which I taught my little chess champions was to give them about 30 very short games to play over in each of the two openings I recommended they use in championship play. What is the difference between item b) and item c)?
To my conventional way of thinking, chess players have long got these two matters 100% backward: almost all the books mostly ignore item b) and really concentrate on item c) and they call item c) "chess opening theory." Clearly all of us can see that item b) from Lasker is actually chess theory and item c) is actually chess PRACTICE. Once in awhile someone like the Everyman Chess publishing house (in, sadly, just a few of their opening books) combines idea b) and c). That way of teaching particular openings is, in my not-so-humble opinion, the way that openings ought to be taught.
What's the point here? Clearly -- beginner or master -- you're going to have dramatically different pawn structures after playing the Petroff Defense vs. the resulting positions after initiating the Sicilian Defense. Because of that, you'll normally expect to put your minor pieces and heavier pieces on distinctly different squares in one opening vs. in the other. That being true, your middlegame and endgame plans must be very, very different.
In another person's discussion-thread about openings I made this comment . . . .
According to this site's Game Explorer utility: the most common position reached in significant games after a dozen moves is the one reached after:
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Be7 8.Qf3 Qc7 9.O-O-O Nbd7 10.g4 b5 11.Bxf6 Nxf6 12.g5 Nd7**
My research may be inaccurate and there well could be more popular "jumping-off" positions into the middlegame after say, 1. d4; but this Sicilian position was the one I discovered and believe to be the single most commonly encountered after 12 moves are played.
OK . . . so obviously if you play any version of 1. e4 or 1. e4 c5 that can transpose to this position (or for that matter, if you play chess at all) learning the ideas behind the best continuations from this position would be a godsend for anyone interested in improving their play, no? Once these ideas are learned and understood . . . well I don't have to draw you a roadmap here . . . . If you understand the ideas,then "studying" a line here beyond move 12, you would NOT need to memorize unrelated, distopian move orders and variations but rather would more or less deeply understand the position and more easily find the important threads so that if . . . IF . . . WHEN the opponent varies, which he surely will, you will not be as flummoxed.
Loved ALL of your comments. Thanks again!
** By the way, notice how many of Lasker's 7 opening desiderata are as yet UNaccomplished in the presumed most common early midgame position which occurs! You could find the same situation in the Ruy Lopez, QGD, or Nimzo-Indian after 12 moves. Which GASP! suggests that even the advice of a 27-year World Chess Champion is best used as a set of highly useful guidelines rather than as GOSPEL. The same is obviously true of almost all other move-variations and move orders as well. As far as actual "THEORY" of opening play, a la Lasker, another way of solving the issue is to say, "Fight hard for the center and connect the rooks as soon as practical to do so."
I think the key to deciding what kind of study you should do is to first figure out what your goals are in chess. If your goal is to just get to Class A or Expert or something like that and be happy then studying openings is about understanding the relevant plans in the position, usually by reviewing master games.
If you are looking to beat strong masters you'll need more then a general overview. You'll need to pose problems for your opponent right from move one. Of course this is a waste if you can't use those problems to create new problems or grab some time of advantage against good players.
To make an example of what GM opening preparation is like- in Avrukh's 1. d4 GM repertoire books he systematically goes through and solves pretty much every legitimate response black has to the openings he has prepared at the time of writing the book. He goes through a database and finds every idea that legitimately tries to threaten white's agenda. This makes sense because it allows him to spend hours and hours on each line with computer assistance instead of needing to solve the problem at the board under time pressure. He still needs the ability to tackle novelties otb, but by and large he can feel confident that he will have some small advantage in the game.
So if effective opening prep means familiarizing yourself with hundreds of lines just to achieve something small like a slightly better structure or the bishop pair, is that worth it for you? Like I said to begin with, opening prep depends on your goals in chess.
(...) The Correct dissection of this Topic is actually really easy if you can just think with a (low) Degree of Sensibility not much Diffecult for ChessPlayers like us
I think the thing is to not over focus on openings. I will learn traps in openings, I believe that is important but I try to not focus on it too much, I have a small repitoir for white and black, lopez, sicilian, queens gambit, scandinavian. Knowing how to get into an open, semi-open and flanked game is important for a learning player I believe.
Very small repertoire^^
Lopez + Sicilian + QG
well yeah, but their just the one's I know lots of lines for.
Black's first move/Defending Principles?
by ZeroSymbolic7188 a few minutes ago
I don't play sound chess
by Mandy711 3 minutes ago
Where did disable chat option go?
by Liquid_Pro_Quo 6 minutes ago
No more multiple games for Standard members?
by Phylar 8 minutes ago
6/18/2013 - Tal-Starodub, Petrozavodsk 1984
by KingHunter2000 8 minutes ago
Open declaration about Account sharing.
by Slo-Panda 9 minutes ago
Losing to this gives me an anuerism.
by Ragnarokkr 28 minutes ago
Should Players Below 1500 Play Hypermodern Openings?
by Ragnarokkr 40 minutes ago
Chess experiment: How much does three pints of beer impact your chess ability?
by Haiku575 53 minutes ago
Strategy in Chess Games
by Remellion 61 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com