I think 1.e4 ends up having more theory because of the Sicilian defense.
As an aside, if you go to http://database.chessbase.com, you'll find that 34% of the responses to 1. e4 is 1...c5, and 30% of the responses to 1. e4 is 1...e5 so you can make a guess as what to study first based on opening frequency.
Even main line Sicilian does not have much theory. You could choose to, for example, play the Maroczy Bind pawn structure when possible, play the English Attack against other Sicilans, and just learn the theory in the Sveshnikov.
Don't know if it will match your taste but I've been getting interesting games with the relatively unexplored 2.b3 lines against most of the openings mentioned above. Less people know such obscure lines so in the end, the player who makes the better moves wins
I like to play the alapin variation with white against the sicilian (1.e4 e5 2. c3),
because low level player aren't prepared well for it, the positions I get tend to have a lot of opportunities and it is way less theoretical than the main lines which gives me more time to study my other prefered openings (Kingsgambit, Scotchgambit, etc.)
I play the c3 Sicilian. Much less theory than trying open Sicilians. In terms of e4 e5. I play the Scotch, which involves less theory than the Ruy Lopez. Against the French, I play the Tarrasch. This is more interesting than the Exchange variation. It is not too difficult too learn upto moves 10-12 in the 3c5 and 3Nf3 variations, or the Rubenstein variation. Also, most French defence players I play are not used to facing it.
Yeah, cs Sicilian is in my opinion the best choice for white if they don't want to spend too much time on theory. Also, black must know theory on it in order to get an edge. My games against the Sicilian are usually very tactical.
For years I have been reading that 1.e4 is too demanding on lower level players due to theory. So one should stick with .1d4 or others to lower the workload. But now some masters told me lately I should definetly try 1.e4, as it is hard to develop tactic skills and learn the power of the pieces without having that fase of open games.
Afte reading your post, and looking over some of your games. I would suggest you forget putting in the time and effort knowing oipening theory. Some of your games i looked at, you hung a queen, you missed simple tactics. Its not going to do your game any good to memorize an opeing 20 moves deep if you are still hanging pieces, and missing simple tactics.
Just follow the Opening Principles
Control the center
Develop towards the center
Castle
Connect your rooks
I know...its not flashy like saying you know an opening 20 moves deep, but it will definitely help you more. For now, find a couple openings for white, and black, and learn the basic ideas, and pawn structure behimd those openings.
You will be better off devoting your time studying tactics.
Good Luck!
Afte reading your post, and looking over some of your games. I would suggest you forget putting in the time and effort knowing oipening theory. Some of your games i looked at, you hung a queen, you missed simple tactics. Its not going to do your game any good to memorize an opeing 20 moves deep if you are still hanging pieces, and missing simple tactics.
Just follow the Opening Principles
Control the center
Develop towards the center
Castle
Connect your rooks
I know...its not flashy like saying you know an opening 20 moves deep, but it will definitely help you more. For now, find a couple openings for white, and black, and learn the basic ideas, and pawn structure behimd those openings.
You will be better off devoting your time studying tactics.
Good Luck!
Nice catch I_AM_SECOND
I didn't even check his games what a shame I was giving him advice on my lol openings. Yeah if you hang pieces for no reason than opening theory is not good idea for sure. I have to agree with I_Am_Second here
Its all good X :-)
Its just after seeing post after post after post about people wanting to develop an opening repertoire, and they are still hanging pieces, and missing simple tactics. I know it sounds all cool to be bale to say "I know the <insert opening here> 10...20...30...moves deep. But again, if youre missing simple tactics, its not going to help your game inveting th time in opening theory, when it will benefit them more studying tactics.
There's nothing wrong with wanting to build an opening repertoire, whatever your current strength. If you take the time to try and understand theory, it can only foster progress.
Of course, board vision is more important, but you don't have to be unidimensional in your chess explorations I think.
There's nothing wrong with wanting to build an opening repertoire, whatever your current strength. If you take the time to try and understand theory, it can only foster progress.
Of course, board vision is more important, but you don't have to be unidimensional in your chess explorations I think.
While i understand what you are saying, and to a certain extent i agree with you. My only contention is with chess players, that as i said before...hang pieces, miss simple tactics, and have a general disregard for the basic openinig principles, all for the sake of being able to say "I know an opening 20 moves deep"
Now if openings are your thing, and thats what you want to study then rock on. But if oyu really want to develop, then put your study time to bettter use.
You can construct a relatively simple 1.e4 repertoire that is still based on the main lines, i.e. spanish against 1...e5 and playing into open sicilians...something like Karpov's repertoire from 1975-1985 (when he switched to 1.d4 full time) or Michael Adams or Carlsen. 1700 is a good place to start doing this IMO.
You are missing the point.A player doesn't get stuck because of a "false" opening but because of a false study and the false belief that opening study offers improvement.
Their is no false belief. Opening study does offer improvement when their is something to build off of.
You study opening theory so that you don't place your pieces in bad positions/placement's which reduces blunders you may have from hanging pieces. Which helps you improve in ranking as well as in chess. The problem is not the false study the problem is he has no idea what he will study becuase he hasn't tryed anything or played anything.
I_Am_Second suggestion is to just place pieces in the center and study the middle game in other words what he is saying is. Since you don't know what Opening you want to play just (skip the opening and) put your pieces developed to the center than study middle game so you can see what to do from their. That will only go so far though eventually he will get high enough in ranking that he will start getting slaugthered in the opening before he reaches the middle game.
Which is why they say you should focus on opening theory when your like in the 1700+ or so.
I on the other hand I disagree I believe learning opening theory can be effective I feel their just should be a method to it.
If your 1300 than Don't do opening theorys that are 30 moves deep its not worth it and you won't see it until high level chess. If your below 1300+ try a simple opening that has short theory just so you can get out of the opening equal or with an advantage. Than go to middle game and endgame. When I mean short I mean something like 3-5 moves and not only know the moves but understand why they are played and the purpose behind them. Each move as a reason why its played you have to know the reason behind it.
I will post this again, because i think it points out the relative value of studying openings as opposed to middle, and end game study. I know a guy that is 2000, and he does not study openings, he follows the opening principles. I am a USCF A Player, and opening study is at the bottom of my study schedule, for the simple fact that i know im anywhere good enough to invest time in indepth opening study.
I played a 1900 a couple of weeks ago in a tournament, and he played a line of th English i hadnt seen before. MY flag fell in a rook and pawn ending. WE went over the game later, and he asked me about the line i played in the opening, because he had never seen it before. I told him i had no idea what to do since i hadnt seen his reply before, so i simply followed the opening principles.
I know it sounds like i have a pet peeve against opening study, but i dont. I just think its a waste for a class player to invest so much time on openings so they can go around sounding smart, and not having a clue what to do in the middle or end game.
I will post this again, because i think it points out the relative value of studying openings as opposed to middle, and end game study. I know a guy that is 2000, and he does not study openings, he follows the opening principles. I am a USCF A Player, and opening study is at the bottom of my study schedule, for the simple fact that i know im anywhere good enough to invest time in indepth opening study.
I played a 1900 a couple of weeks ago in a tournament, and he played a line of th English i hadnt seen before. MY flag fell in a rook and pawn ending. WE went over the game later, and he asked me about the line i played in the opening, because he had never seen it before. I told him i had no idea what to do since i hadnt seen his reply before, so i simply followed the opening principles.
I know it sounds like i have a pet peeve against opening study, but i dont. I just think its a waste for a class player to invest so much time on openings so they can go around sounding smart, and not having a clue what to do in the middle or end game.
See I could agrue that if your opponent had been prepared/studyed opening theory it could of lead him to an advantage. Because he might know most of the moves you played and Had seem them before but once you start to deviate that is when he can take his time and stop and focus on the critical position you have to factor in your time investment.
If I study opening moves 20 moves deep and you play all 18 of the first 20 than I have saved time all those 18 moves and you not having done alot of opening theory might of spent time than when you deviate at move 19 I can spend all my time on that single position. It would give me a greater advantage not only in time over all but in time management to critical positions.
I don't know the reasons why your flag fell but if it was because you had to re-evaluate every move becuase you didn't know alot of opening theory than it could be said that his opening study helped him get a time advantage over you which ended up in you losing.
My only issue is with 1200's that try to know moves 30 moves deep when they play against other 1200 opponent's who deviate at move 1 that don't have no clue what they are doing which leads the 1200 who studyed those 30 moves completely pointless.
Which is why I say they should focus on small opening theory's so that way when their opponent leaves theory early they won't be to scared and will have a undestanding of what to do.
Thats just it...I didnt lose the game because i sepnt a lot of time in the opening. Again, i just used the opening principles. What cost me the game, was that he simply knew the ending much better than i did.
I switched over to 1.d4 when I was 1200 and never looked back. I'm 2200 uscf now. You don't have to change your openings at all to develop tactical skills, just do 10-20 problems every day on chesstempo. You will end up becoming much stronger tactically, and there are tons of tactics in every opening whether open or closed. Even more important than tactics, you will learn to understand pawns and how to use them to accomplish plans/goals by playing 1. d4. Also 1. d4 is a better opening to play for a win, those open games often end up leading to a bunch of early trades and without center pawns on the board it can quickly boil down to a drawn endgame. Without the pawn trades you get to keep your pieces for much longer and have a chance to demonstrate more skill than your opponent before you open up the position with a pawn thrust and attack.
However if you're certain you want to play 1. e4 get Negi's newest GM repertoire 1. e4 . It's pretty thorough and provides good explanations on how to handle the various positions.
I see this thread quickly turned into something completely off-topic. Some people are very fixed upon that message, beginners - only opening principles - no theory. Everything is locked into a 1-dimensional scenario.
I see that although I stated my rating range, I have dropped 400 rating points to fit into this picture. I am supposed to hang my queen and pieces all the time. At chess.com I have only blitz games...so yes, I have hung many pieces with seconds running down. So has my opponents. And in blitz I will most certainly continue to hang pieces in time trouble for years to come. I am not here to defend my skills as a chess players, so lets forget about this.
But all of this is just off-topic. We are not looking at any in depth opening study, nobody said so. We are looking at basic ideas, plans, strategies from the opening. Not 30 moves of theory, but in terms of Starting out-series where a full repertoire is covered in a few hundred pages. Meaning just a minimum to stay away from pitfalls so that you can have a good and healthy game without the risk of having a ruined game before it started. So within THIS frame...
Some thinks that closed games (both .1Nf3, English and even 1.d4) leads to positions more difficult to handle for lower level players. The plans arent easy to grasp, its hard to understand whats going on and so this doesnt help the developing player in their progress. As opposed to open games where the plans can be more direct, you develop a feel for the action of the pieces and so on. Some thinks this is true for players up until 1800-2000, some thinks this is mostly true only for beginners below tournament level.
Then again some thinks that the way to go around the theory issue is to choose type of play (the word opening is of course strictly forbidden as it leads to a long thread of what we all heard before) where the theory is narrowed down. Nigel Davies on his DVD say 1. d4 players should stick with 2. Nf3 as 2. c4 involves so much more theory and nasty opportunities from black. So this approach of narrowing down blacks freedom of choice leads to less book knowledge around and less sharp black gamibt stuff, but also to more static play.
That leads to a group of advicers saying its up to your style. Even for amateurs, what style do you prefer? Static or dynamic. Some say that mostly holds truth for master level, as the amateur is a developing player that most often doesnt even have a taste or idea about their style.
"That leads to a group of advicers saying its up to your style. Even for amateurs, what style do you prefer? Static or dynamic. Some say that mostly holds truth for master level, as the amateur is a developing player that most often doesnt even have a taste or idea about their style."
Until you are a Master, you dont have a style.
For years I have been reading that 1.e4 is too demanding on lower level players due to theory. So one should stick with .1d4 or others to lower the workload. But now some masters told me lately I should definetly try 1.e4, as it is hard to develop tactic skills and learn the power of the pieces without having that fase of open games.
This is what you said at the beginning of the thread. I merely advised you on the simple, tried and true method to develop tactical skill, by solving tactics. I never once said you were a beginner, you were the one saying you needed to develop tactical skills. Playing 1. d4 is perfectly fine for your chess, you don't need to change your openings at all. In fact you'll want to change it back to 1.d4 if you ever get to a higher level due to all the draws 1. e4 leads to. (You'll have plenty of chances to get wins with 1. e4, but 1. d4 does get more wins overall at top level play. So if we are talking in conceptual 1.e4 vs 1.d4 generalizations like the GM you were referring to did, 1. d4 leads to more wins).
try 1a3
1.a3!? can actually lead to a completely black variation of the Leningrad Dutch for white:
1.a3 is also good for setting up reversed Paulsens. However, the mood is radically different from a Paulsen played from the black side as the useful a3 move is played without loss of tempo. The b3 square of course is rather weak and usually a target of black's operations. Still, it's a good system overall:
For years I have been reading that 1.e4 is too demanding on lower level players due to theory. So one should stick with .1d4 or others to lower the workload. But now some masters told me lately I should definetly try 1.e4, as it is hard to develop tactic skills and learn the power of the pieces without having that fase of open games.