Are exchange variations and drawish openings surprisingly good for amateur/intermediate chess player

Hello, when I started to play chess I started to make the mistake of being too much focused on openings, so there were many games where I won because of that but there were also lots of other games where I lost despite being better on the opening. And I didn't felt I was progressing consistently. So recently I was like "Yo, I wish I would focus more on endgame and middlegame, but I can't unlearn the openings that I learned", so I just decided to start playing openings like Petrov, cxd5 on the Slav and QGD, and also the Ruy Lopez 4.Bxc6, which are more drawish, and now I'm actually having very consistent results because of that (I also promised to myself that I wouldn't keep studying these openings too much). It feels like I'm eating chess rice and beans now since each game is going straight to the endgame , so I actually wonder if other amateur and intermediate players follow this procedure, because it feels great.

I think a lot of people would consider drawish openings dull and thus something that is bad for amateur/intermediate chess players. Professional players may be happy from draws from time to time because they livelihood can depend on them.

Any opening can teach you something. But beware: "drawish" openings often do not end in a draw.

Yeah, it's a good strategy to adopt drawish openings vs stronger players.

I know, I called them drawish because I guess that's what you call them. But beginner/intermediate chess games doesn't end up in draws so much as professional level.

Smnrkssn wrote:

As someone who excels in simple positions and endgames I'm happy when lower rated players goes for exchange variations and early queen trades.

If this is a good idea or not heavily depends on the opponent you're facing and your own strenghts. Against me it's definitely correct to try and create messy positions.

You know the quote, right? "When playing younger chess players, go straight into the endgame"

Well, yes it's good specially if you don't know theory to play exchange french, exchange slav , russian etc. Those "drawish" positions are often won or lost under 1800 FIDE level.

But in sharper lines you actually learn chess and your fear of playing sharp against strong players is gone. So if you plan one day to improve and reach 2000 or near you should start playing theory and sharp openings.

Exchange variations and drawish openings can still be very tactical, with targets and weaknesses to focus on. It's just that play in such games are either more likely to balance out to a draw, or a player is more likely to find a forcing sequence force a draw should they want to.

They are quite OK. Feel free to play them, although not just because you want to play them.

 

For instance, the Exchange French violates principles by activating your opponent's bishop for free - white doesn't activate anything in return. It's not a draw though, not even close.

Not if you're playing them for a draw.

 

If you're playing to win, go for it. Two of my friends who are both around 1700/1800 skill always play the exchange against the French, and I never understand it, and then they win against experts. It's bizarre

Well, the French opponents probably know theory, yet the exchange variation is rather worthless in terms of theoretical knowledge - not playing the exact correct moves will not yield you a worse position. 

I play 3.Nc3, and unfortunately you do need some theory in those lines, otherwise you're just in trouble.

 

Excellent strategy if you want to improve the odds the stronger player will win.

 

I've probably been on the Black side of the Exchange French 1000 times in the past five years. I've developed some theory.

 

I think 3.Nc3 is White's best move, and it is the only move that masters have played against me.

Well, there's theory in many openings. It's just some openings you don't need to know it to get good positions. 

Many players below expert level lack positional vision, so going into exchange variations can succeed at the amateur level. If they are forced into a line of play outside of what they have "booked up" for and there are no direct tactics, they have problems coming up with a logical plan, so their play gets worse as the game goes on.

 I would say that many players at and above the expert level lack positional vision. 

Former world champion Jose Capblanca made some gross positional blunders in his loss to Botvinnik in 1938. Maybe he lacked positional vision?

How many times have you played OTB rated games as black against opponents over 2200 in the French?

 

Because if Nc3 happened in every single game, and Nd2 never happened even once, I'm imagining it wasn't actually that many