I know the alapin sicilian for 13 moves

main lines don't work for me.  the other player is not going to go alone with the whole thing.  2-3 move and it's onnnnn.

2-3 max, seeing as though I don't actually have any favourite opening lines.  Seriously, you can be a very reasonable player without knowing any opening theory whatsoever.

Sicilian Dragon Yuoslav Attack 15+ moves deeo, rest 5-15

vienna game to the mate :D

nice to see that

jsnwisdom wrote:

10-15! :)

10-15

Marshall Gambit, about 15ish moves deep.

For those players that are 1800 or above, how much of your chess training time goes into opening theory vs other potential chess lessons? I'm a 1550 player and my goal is to improve steadily to 1800 or better one day.

Nf6+

Deeply forum AllogenicMan - post

You said and I quote:” Interesting - and thanks for the ‘suggestion [?]' ...

But could it possibly be then, that next time you try to get your 'idea' across, you speak in layman's English? - thanks...

I live in Canada was born French Canadian in Québec; I learned the English language on the streets and have since 60 years been learning more every week.

I never attended English school, so I miss a lot of the common simpler terms to write words that are easier to understand. Generally I fare not too bad in English.

The one thing I could think of to use layman’s English in my post is to have used Number of Moves Known in the Opening(s) rather than Openings Lines Known.

I would really appreciate any additional comment(s) about what was not in layman's terms in your perspective and how different could I have worded it.

Thanks for your input, always willing to learn to this day. 

I know most of my openings5-15 moves

I know the queen's gambit accepted and declined 10-15 and 1...Nf6 lines, slav, tarrasch, and many others very deeply.

@ paul211:

Interesting - and thanks for the 'suggestion[?]' ...

But could it possibly be then, that next time you try to get your 'idea' across, you speak in layman's English? - thanks ...

How deeply do you know the main lines of your favorite opening(s)?

I suggest that this type of question goes somewhat deeper than a general opinion with a question

that has so much extension ( generality) that the answer is vague and non conclusive as too anything.

You want to play a fun game do it, you want relevant info as to stats do what I propose.

Let me propose the following:

How many openings are you familiar with, white and black pieces and here I will use the same amount

for both sides.

And I do realize that combinations are endless as someone might have 4 preferred openings with

white pieces and only

Say 2 with Black pieces.However the goal is to know more about opening knowlwedge and not about all

openings played.

How many openings are you familiar with and lines of play do you know for White and Black openings?

Lines of play known, my answer is below.

Openings lines known

2 to 3         4 to 6        7 to 8        9 to 10  11 to 15    16 or more

Number of openings familiar with.

1 to 2

2 to 3

4 to 6

7 to 8

8 to 10

10 to 15                                                                                                              X

16 to 21

What this tell us is how knowledgeable players are in the openings.

It tells us what chess players know at chess.com, in other words their caliber of play overall.

Just a suggestion to get more significant data.

:                                                                                                                                                                                                      .

@ pauix:

Well I could care less about your 'Traxler Attack' - I think it's rather unsound anyways ... What you don't seem to understand is that any opening variation will inevitably be susceptible to the possibility for some varying degree of attacking chance, both towards that of Black or White, in any phase of the game - either within or out of the variation so chosen. 

No one opening [variation] is [yet] 'perfected' enough to safely draw by either side within the realm of opening theory.  Safe as it sounds though, in a 'perfect' world, chess would be a meaningless exercise to all who dare to refute its [current] codified 'key' to otherwise play on for some kind of pyrrhic victory.  And only then - should the time ever come[?!] - will memory be of any use in the recording of those opening variations [along with its games] which produce the quickest draws for all to bear witness as mere entertainment, as the game lays within some museum, to be invited once more towards a revived resurrection.

But until that day comes (which only appears apparent to approaching, though if in fact ever will[?] ... ), we can only settle with yet continuing our course of confining ourselves to muddle on with our [still] limited approach of the game through the phase of opening 'theory', only hoping to stumble upon some conclusively defining reply/move for either Black or White, either of which [may] lead to a won or drawn game result.  But as it currently stands now, even with a duplication of an exact sequence of moves within a particular variation in question - played by either side - will only produce an inconclusive game result, leaving us to question whether the face value of opening 'theory' is not only just that[!], but something to be left alone to the memory bank for all our chess databases to merely entertain themselves with ...

So in this end then, what we can at least say of our efforts up to now behind opening exploration, or 'theory' (whether our attempts in theory are not only 'justified' in finding the best moves/replies for both White/Black, or more reserved towards discovering some obscure variation[s] which ultimately leads to always producing the chess theorist's highest dreams for any desired [won/drawn] game result - i.e. cracking the game's secret 'code'), is that it has only represented thus far something of a misnomer in relation within its field for applicable 'scientific' value.  Perhaps then, the term should be abandoned altogether for keepsake, replacing it with: 'The Definitive Memorandum of Modern Opening Anomalies [Handbook]' - as chess is, still largely - yet! - a game of chance for trial and error.

And that's the way I see it! ...

I voted 4-6. Mostly because I change my openings often so I also often forget the theory. In a game though I can play 20+ moves of theory but that is only because I have just prepared for it a few hours before.

2 or3 moves is simply enougn because the difficult of chess