12510 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!
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.
ignor my rating because i was 7 when i started to play on chess.com i have fide 1800 but on chess.com is hard to get to 1800 since i have to lay against some one how will give me 8 points and plays stupid stuff its too boring so istarted to play on chess cube and i have 1900.NOW THE MAIN POINT.memorazing openings is bad but studyin openings is better then traning tactics why you ask here is a example on a live tournament i played the lenningrad dutch a solid opening with litlle theory and we got to a positin i didn't know what to play i mayed a plan after 30 min and it wasn't enough 3 years later i started to play the KID and i discover i could play a plan from that opening in that game the point of studing opening is to learn how to play for the center or on the wings or to sacrifice for faster development
It´s strange that the OP had a FIFA (yes yes I noticed) of more that 2000, but his blitz rating is 1333 and his standard rating is 1500+.
Is a really big gap.
What if you could memorize the openings with only 30 minutes to 1 hour of work a day, would that make it not stupid? Any serious player should surely arm themselves with as many weapons they can?
Same thing applies to opening theory. When you know the principles and the effects of certain opening moves you know how to respond instead of trying to remember the correct memorised move.I just started playing chess a few months ago and now I'm working through the Chess players handbook by Howard Staunton with a friend of mine. Currently studying all the King knight openings (1.e4 ... 2. Nf3) and what dirty tricks can happen in these openings. I have a long term goal to study the Catalan and Pirc opening because the ideas and board positions appeal a lot to me.
post your funniest illegal games here!!!!!!!!
by pujara123 a few minutes ago
Is Aagard's Grandmaster Preparation: Calculation good?
by TheGreatOogieBoogie a few minutes ago
Stuff Non-Chess Players Say
by akafett a few minutes ago
What makes c4 and c5 good??
by Rumo75 3 minutes ago
what the #$%^was he playing and how did he win?
by badger_song 4 minutes ago
12/6/2013 - Mate in 8
by Bryan681972 5 minutes ago
The bad thing about chess is its fixed starting position.
by Yaroslavl 6 minutes ago
Which book on tactics (Chernev vs Nunn vs Weteschnik)
by Daimonion 7 minutes ago
live chess connections
by fun2mate 10 minutes ago
cant unusual openings be used to fox stronger opponents more often than not?
by waffllemaster 10 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!