Why not to "waste" time studying openings, when GM's do it?

We beginners hear it over and over again: Focus on tactics, don't waste your time studying openings. I'm not saying this isn't good advice, but after reading GM Serper's article "How to beat a Grandmaster", a sentence stuck out: "remember, you are playing a top professional who probably devotes most of his studies to openings!" 

Reading this a question arised: when does openings become the prime focus for a chess player? At 1700? At 2000? At 2500? And why is it that openings (seemingly utterly unimportant for lower rated players) "suddenly" becomes the thing to spend most of ones time on?

You can do with some basic development and some general knowledge until 1800 or so. When you are around that, I highly suggest knowing at least some lines. Near 2000 it is beginning to count. Certainly you can fall to some preparations. 2200 and above are well booked up I think.

This is a good question :

• First, you have to define what 'opening study' means. If it means to become familiar with an opening's main ideas and understand some lines, then it won't harm anybody. If it means learning all the wrinkles so that you know by heart how to get a +=/= position against anything your opponent throws at you, it's better to leave it to the pros...
• The reason is my 2nd point : opening study is difficult : you need time and/or expertise to understand the subtelties of the various openings and lines you find in the reference works and databases. Actually, the less experience you have, the more difficult it is to make any sense out of it, because you have no prior knowledge to build on, and you have no comparison points.
• To finish with, opening study is way more useful if you can convert the advantage you get out of your opening play, which requires good middlegame and endgame skills.

This is the reason why opening study enters gradually into the new student's balanced chess diet : first you learn the principles and experiment, then you learn a basic repertoire, and the stronger you become the deeper you study this part of the game.

GMs spend all their time studying openings because they feel it's their best bet at winning against other pros. This is certainly not true at amateur level.

Reading this a question arised: when does openings become the prime focus for a chess player? At 1700? At 2000? At 2500? And why is it that openings (seemingly utterly unimportant for lower rated players) "suddenly" becomes the thing to spend most of ones time on?

A chessplayer is like an athlete.  He must practice to become the best.  For a chess player the practice usually centers around three things:

1. Tactics practice

2. Endgame practice

3. Opening and Middle game practice

Everyday you practice with each of these in order to become a stronger player.

Because you must crawl before you can walk and run, you will spend alot of time on tactics (pattern recognition).  Just trust that eventually you will see that openings are about strategy, and that tactics grow on strategies.  Actually tactics are a special category of strategy.  A good place to begin with openings is with a book about the ideas behind the openings.     

Endgame practice is done in order to develop the endgame technique that will enable you to win or save a draw in the endgame that resulted from your strategy that began in the opening and continued thru the middle game.  A good place to begin your endgame practice is to learn the basic checkmates (K+Q v K, K+R v K, K + 2B v K, K+B+N v K) until you can do them in your sleep.

 For now you must practice, practice, practice.

There is a principle that will help you wrap your brain about what this game is all about.  The principle is:

Winning chess is the strategically and tactically correct advance of the pawn mass

  Before responding to the discussion thread here's some necessary background.  Although I've never been very serious about chess, I've always really loved the game. I once long ago was a pretty strong player and almost reached candidate-master (2000-2199 FIFA) level after starting out as a class E and D (1000-1199; 1200-1399) player.  How did I do it?  I jumped 500-600 points within two and a half years after studying tactics (70% roughly) and endgames and chess puzzles almost exclusively. This was roughly 30 years ago.  Later, 20 years ago, as a coach of several Colorado state championship scholastic chess teams and of my own children . . . I mostly taught them tactics and endgames and chess puzzles but did give my players a very aggressive gambit opening and the French Defense (in the form of about 40 COMPLETE games of less than 20 moves for each opening) for them to study.  That seemed to do the trick very well, put them on the right path and let the kids control their own destiny.  OK, now to respond to the discussion thread . . . .

       The reason that grandmasters can and do invest so much time studying openings and why it would be a very bad idea for 99.6% of the rest of us "ordinary" players to study openings very deeply is simply because they are professionals.  They have up to 6-7 hours or more every day they can allot to chess study which for the rest of us would be a total disruption of our lives.  If you enjoyed the game of tennis and were a pro or highly dedicated to becoming a pro you might devote five hours a week in the gym or footpaths working on flexibility; strength and endurance in addition to, say, 40-50 hours working on all the actual aspects of tennis itself . . . if, however, you merely enjoyed the game like 99% of all tennis playeers do -- you would never dream of such a preposterous waste of your valuable time and life.  Now, having said that and implied that too much studying of openings is a serious waste of time for ordinary players:  how should one study openings for best results when playing?

       Study openings exactly as I had my scholastic championship chess teams study openings:  study whole games.  How, exactly? 

A.  First study very short games within your opening system:  say, 5-20 moves long.  Once you've seen all these early debacles (traps to avoid and traps to spring), you've got a pretty good idea of what to be on the look-out for early on.  This stage of your "opening prep" might take you two hours a week for 3-4 months.  The prolific short-game author Bill Wall is likely to have a book or even two of them each containing 500 miniature games in your opening or in an opening you're likely to be excited by. 

B.  Always remember how Emanuel Lasker advised players to open a chess game:  In the first 7-12 moves (while fighting for the center and for central control) look to move both center Pawns and each of the four minor pieces (both Knights and both Bishops) once only -- this is not always possible, but seek to move them at least one time and castle (unless Queens have already been traded) . . . then you'll have to evaluate the situation more closely to see if the King is better placed to fight for the endgame in the center or needs to be protected in the corner by castling.

C.  Remembering first that tactics and endgames are the real fun (and the real key to success) in chess and that setting up traps at the cost of strong positional play is pretty stupid; but that setting up traps as part of strong positional play is what the pros do . . . now expand your study of your short games in your openings to roughly 21-30 moves long and at the cost of, say, two to four hours a week of study for about half a year you'll have a tremendous idea of what kind of tactical resources are available for both Black and White in your opening. 

D.  Finally, while still looking at short games and medium-length games in your opening system from time to time . . . play out your opening in games of 60 moves or longer.  What you'll look for is the kind of pawn structure and the kinds of endings that typically pop up and for the kinds of ideas that win and draw; as well as the kind of ideas that don't work in those endgames.  This is when you'll really come to know your opening!

        One last thing to think about:  STUDYING chess openings can really make you grow stale.  It's a good idea about one week out of six in your non-serious games just to allow yourself the fun of playing any and all openings including the wildest gambits and the most positionally stolid grandmaster-type opening lines  . . .  just to keep the game fresh and stimulate the brain.

Good luck!

The professionals who spend all their time looking for novelties have already mastered everything else.  That makes a big difference.  Otherwise it's kinda like lipstick on a pig.

Personally, I'm changing the way I study to include a lot more focus on the opening. I simply think the prevailing advice is wrong. Well, perhaps not wrong but woefully incomplete.

If you come out of the opening and don't have an idea where your pieces belong, it doesn't matter how good you are at tactics, you'll always lack the initiative, and at best you'll be able to get in some tactical shots if your opponent over-reaches.

But you'll have no clue what to do when your opponent defends their position well, puts their pieces on good squares, and doesn't leave themselves open to obvious tactical shots.

I have come to believe that the best way to study is to study holistically -- to study whole games, including the opening, to comprehend the strategic and tactical ideas that flow from particular opening positions, and to understand the general types of plans that one looks for based on the structure that comes out of the opening.

The big push for this comes from a game I just lost in Chicago this last weekend. I saw all the tactics and threats used against me. The problem was, I had no idea 5 moves prior to those tactics where my pieces needed to go because I was unfamiliar with the opening.

Anyone who is telling club level players to not study the opening simply fails to realize that not every position is tactical, but if you move the wrong piece to the wrong square, you'll lose to forced tactics down the road.

The flip side is also a real danger -- if you study the first 12 moves you're still doing yourself no favors. Because if that is all you know, then you'll lose on moves 13 on.

Chess as a game consists of three phases, and a competitive chess player needs to understand all three at a level appropriate for their current rating, and if they want to improve, they need to holistically increase their understanding of all three phases.

Well said, daw....

Looking at it the other way round - immediately a novice knows all the rules (ie, how pieces move; checkmate; ep; castling; promotion) would one teach them openings? I imagine not. So, perhaps openings just grow in importance the stronger you get.

daw, in my experience, even if I'm in a good position, eventually, I'm still going to give my opponent an opportunity when I play a tactically poor move. It's not necessarily hanging a piece, but it can be much more subtle -- maybe a hanging piece of yours allows your opponent to achieve a pawn break that you have clamped down on positionally, but because of some tactical reason all of your hard work is for nothing. Moreover, all positional advantages need to be converted tactically, with calculation the vast majority of the time.

"The big push for this comes from a game I just lost in Chicago this last weekend. I saw all the tactics and threats used against me. The problem was, I had no idea 5 moves prior to those tactics where my pieces needed to go because I was unfamiliar with the opening."

If you are an amateur like myself, this simply couldn't have been the case. You might not have hung any pieces, or allowed any pieces or pawns to be directly won, but I'm sure there were subtle opportunities involving tactics out there or worth looking for -- the computer sees them constantly when analyzing games -- analyze yours with a computer to make sure you didn't miss anything.

"Anyone who is telling club level players to not study the opening simply fails to realize that not every position is tactical, but if you move the wrong piece to the wrong square, you'll lose to forced tactics down the road."

If your opponent has really good technique, yes. But try beating a computer that has its pieces on the wrong squares (I'm serious -- this would be a good experiment); it will find an unbelievable amount of resources despite its strategically poor position, and its defense will probably only break down after finding some really precise moves. In fact, what I have noticed from the strong players is that although they often end up with good positions, in bad positions, they force you to find accurate move after accurate move to maintain your advantage, then continue to keep finding them to finally convert your advantage. The exhaustion from this may result in time pressure, and from there who knows what swindles could happen (which of course are only possible with tactical tricks).

I do agree, however, that some opening knowledge helps you be really familiar with your typical positions -- experience is a definite advantage to have. But it's not as fundamental since the whole point of getting an advantage is to use it to win the game; but if you don't even know how to win the game, then what good will a strong position do you? In combat, we want to out position the enemy, outflank them to ambush them; but if we don't know how to shoot a gun, how are we going to kill them? . The enemy will eventually notice our ambush and once they suddenly start shooting, the advantage that we got from outflanking them is meaningless: we're going to lose.

Interesting thought. This would indeed be a good experiment. I like it.

My goal right now is simple: Memorize every line in the Italian. I don't want to waste my time making stupid moves in the opening. ;)

It reminds me of a funny story I read in Jesper's Hall book. He explains how being already a good IM-strength player, he decided to switch from playing 1.e4 to 1.d4 as white.

However, he didn't do the switch upright, but decided to first play 1.d4 against 1...Nf6 proponents, and enter the Trompovsky attack he was studying at this time.

One day, he had prepared against a Russian IM, and started 1.d4, as planned. However, much to his surprise, his opponent replied 1...d5(!) immediately. Jesper then sank into deep thought, commenting : "everybody was looking at my board, and wondering if I had gone nuts, unable that I was to play the 2nd move of a QG at my level... Actually, I was trying to find a path to escape theory as soon as possible, while keeping some balance in the game"

That's the difference : the guy knows how to play chess, not only theory...

In the 3 games I lost, once the tactics where on the board and it wasn't about figuring out what to do when there's nothing to do, I was playing top-3 moves according to the computer nearly every move. When I wasn't in the top-3 the difference was 100ths of a pawn. Which can certainly lead to a loss over several moves, but the real problem was that before the stuff hit the fan, I didn't know where to put my pieces. Once I was a pawn or more down positionally, I played very well. For all the good that does.

What I didn't do was play well when there weren't tactical shots present.

And while I'm sure that I can improve my tactical skills, that is not what is costing me games. What is costing me games right now is that I have no idea what to do when there's nothing tactically to worry about. Nor do I have any idea how to create tactical opportunities for myself.

Give me an opponent who over-reaches attacking me from a poor position and I'll find the tactical refutation. Give me a position where there's nothing to calculate, and I'll turn it into a loss before the first tactic appears. 

I spent a few minutes going over French exchange variations in chess assistant, which was one of the games I lost. My "plan" had no relationship to what 2500+ players do. I didn't lose because I didn't see that my position was falling apart. I lost because 5 moves prior I didn't know where my pieces needed to go because I didn't know typical plans for that opening.

LIke I said, chess is a game of three phases. You need to be able to play all three phases at a level appropriate for one's rating. Just like Silman's Endgame Course breaks up end-game knowlege into classes, saying "here's what you need at this level," so too does a player need appropriate levels of knowlege of the opening and then of the typical middle game positions that arise from the opening they choose.

I notice your rating is turn-based, which means studying specific opening lines and variations is not mandatory esp if you have opening books and/or DBs at your disposal (and there is an opening DB right here for starters). Concentrate on tactics and endgames for now and worry about studying openings when you hit 1800-2000. If you're also playing blitz, bullet or other forms of live chess analyze as many games as you can afterwards and try improving your opening play by just a few moves deeper each game. And always try to study openings by playing thru entire games and not just by trying to memorize columns and footnotes out of BCO, ECO, MCO and/or NCO. Save the memorization for specific lines or variations you esp like (or despise playing against), and keep it to a bare minimum whenever possible. GOOD LUCK!

;) = wink = . I was just joking! 

99% of my time is spent practicing tactics, checkmates and basic endgame techniques. I have done the opposite for well over a year, studing opening theory to the exclusion of almost everything else, finding out the hard way that improvement in chess is impossible when done this way. 100% impossible.

I do happen to know several lines in this and that opening from my own past stupid approach to learning chess, but it doesn't help me any because my opponents go out of book in the first few moves, simply because they don't know opening theory. So, the study of opening theory for the beginner, like me, although it might be fun, does nothing to improve one's rating. Absolutely nothing.

From Dan Heisman's article "Learning Opening Lines & Ideas":

There is a big difference between trying to memorize lots of lines and
variations from an opening book and learning how to play opening moves
wisely. I have two theories that apply:

1. The weaker the player, the more he should learn about the general
ideas in chess; the stronger the player, the more he needs to know how
to play specific positions, for example those that occur in his openings.

2. The weaker the player, the more important it is for him to follow
general opening principles; only stronger players who understand these
principles well should think about exceptions.

Suppose you learn that in the Closed Ruy Lopez, after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6
3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 d6 8.c3 O-O, playing 9.h3
(the tabiya) to prevent 9…Bg4 is more accurate than 9.d4, which allows
9…Bg4 with pressure on d4. This particular idea is well known among
stronger players; however, the difference between the two moves is so small
that Fritz’s evaluation function rates 9.d4 as slightly superior (!) to 9.h3 on a
14-ply search (+0.14 to 0), so if 9.h3 is superior the difference is not great!

How useful is it to know that, in the Ruy Lopez sequence, 9.h3 is preferred?
That greatly depends on your rating level, assuming you usually play
opponents around your rating:

600: You probably don’t have the board vision to remember the nine-move
sequence! But that is OK because, even if you did, your opponents would
never stumble across this sequence anyway.

900: Even if you do remember the sequence, almost none of your opponents
will play it. And on that rare occasion when they do, it will not make any
difference since the player who plays the best tactically will win in either case
– usually someone at this rating level drops a piece or more in the
middlegame.

1200: You may run across this sequence occasionally but, again, the player
who plays better tactically will prevail. Your winning percentage would
hardly be affected by playing 9.d4 or 9.h3.

1500: At this level of play knowing the sequence idea starts to make a small
difference. You might get a slightly more comfortable game with 9.h3 but, on
the other hand, your opponents who do know the book will probably have
only studied 9.h3, and may not even know why 9.d4 is supposed to be
inferior. So by playing 9.d4, you may wind up benefiting by taking them out
of their “main line book”, especially if you know something about the 9.d4
lines or even just follow Fritz 9.d4 analysis (which is NOT the main line!).

1800: At this rating most of the players are aware of the difference and why it
is supposed to be a difference. It may not greatly affect the probability of
victory if you chose one line or the other, but at least the Black players will
have some idea as to what to do, theoretically, if you play the rarer 9.d4.

2100: At this level almost all the Black players will know what to do and
probably have some experience in slow and speed games playing against 9.d4.
Any surprise value is mostly lost, and if there is a weakness to 9.d4 (or
whatever sideline you choose) it may well affect the outcome of the game.

From this perspective, we can quickly conclude that studying lots of opening
sequences that go as deep as the one including 9.h3 is likely to get
diminishing returns on your study time until you are at least an intermediate
player.

Thanks, NimzoRoy - assuming you comment was addressed to me. 

I think opening study can be extremely beneficial...as long as the emphasis is on wide and not deep. I spend most of my time on openings, little on engames and next to nothing on tactical training.