I definitely consider myself an amateur. 
At what point is it worth learning openings?
Sort:
Apr 12, 2022
0
#23
YellowVenom wrote:
OK, so the message I'm getting here is that no two people can really agree. Also, I find it hilariously elitist that everyone below 2200 OTB are all amateurs.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Apr 12, 2022
0
#24
ARenko wrote:
Actually, the vast majority of players over 2200 OTB are also amateurs.
Personally, I don’t think there is anything wrong with studying openings at any level if that’s what interests you. But if you are looking to optimize your improvement, you should probably not spend so much time studying openings that you neglect other aspects of the game.
I think this is the best response you could get on this post
Apr 12, 2022
0
#25
YellowVenom wrote:
OK, so the message I'm getting here is that no two people can really agree. Also, I find it hilariously elitist that everyone below 2200 OTB are all amateurs.
Considering that 2200 otb is literally called "master", it seems logical to conclude that anyone below that level an "amateur".
Apr 12, 2022
0
#26
at any level except the very lowest. Pound for pound, chess opening is one of the easiest places for a person to improve their play.
that does not mean to study your openings at the expense of other areas of play.
Apr 12, 2022
0
#27
amateur doesnt mean a weak player. in chess, amateur usually means any player who doesnt make a living out of playing the game, a non chess professional. They are some 2600' GMs that are amateurs.
There are even players who got the unofficial Super Grandmaster title (a rating over 2700) who are not professional chessplayers- like Vladimir Malakhov, and Luke McShane.
dannyhume wrote:
At the amateur level (below 2200 OTB rating), the answer is NEVER.
Gotta to work on the more fundamental skills first (tactics, endgames, positional assessment based on strategic principles and calculation) before ever studying openings. And for most folks, since they are always lacking in one or more of those other categories, the answer will always be “never.”
Generally, I have found that most people give veiled or confusing answers to this question that can be roughly translated into either: “400 points above your current level” —or— “When you get to MY level.”
But even Kasparov says all openings are sound below the GM level. So then why do IM’s, FM’s, NM’s, CM’s, Experts, and high-level class players study openings so much?
Gotta to work on the more fundamental skills first (tactics, endgames, positional assessment based on strategic principles and calculation) before ever studying openings. And for most folks, since they are always lacking in one or more of those other categories, the answer will always be “never.”
Generally, I have found that most people give veiled or confusing answers to this question that can be roughly translated into either: “400 points above your current level” —or— “When you get to MY level.”
But even Kasparov says all openings are sound below the GM level. So then why do IM’s, FM’s, NM’s, CM’s, Experts, and high-level class players study openings so much?
how do you know all this? you're an 1100
I think I’ve heard of a similar storyline (Kasparov saying that openings are not important until the GM level). However, whatever the truth is, openings are certainly becoming more and more relevant at the non-GM level. With the rapid advancements of engines in the modern era, some openings that were playable, say, 40 years ago can now be proven to be disadvantageous within half an hour.
Then there are also the cases of good opening preparation in a popular, respectable opening, and I assure everyone that this can be found even at the “amateur” level, having seen an incredible piece of opening preparation at the recently concluded HS Nationals held in Memphis, TN.
Uhohspaghettio1 wrote:
neatgreatfire wrote:
dannyhume wrote:
At the amateur level (below 2200 OTB rating), the answer is NEVER.
Gotta to work on the more fundamental skills first (tactics, endgames, positional assessment based on strategic principles and calculation) before ever studying openings. And for most folks, since they are always lacking in one or more of those other categories, the answer will always be “never.”
Generally, I have found that most people give veiled or confusing answers to this question that can be roughly translated into either: “400 points above your current level” —or— “When you get to MY level.”
But even Kasparov says all openings are sound below the GM level. So then why do IM’s, FM’s, NM’s, CM’s, Experts, and high-level class players study openings so much?
Gotta to work on the more fundamental skills first (tactics, endgames, positional assessment based on strategic principles and calculation) before ever studying openings. And for most folks, since they are always lacking in one or more of those other categories, the answer will always be “never.”
Generally, I have found that most people give veiled or confusing answers to this question that can be roughly translated into either: “400 points above your current level” —or— “When you get to MY level.”
But even Kasparov says all openings are sound below the GM level. So then why do IM’s, FM’s, NM’s, CM’s, Experts, and high-level class players study openings so much?
how do you know all this? you're an 1100
I assure you Kasparov never said anything like that.
Can you imagine someone asking Kasparov that question, and Kasparov saying "oh well all openings are sound under GM level", it's laughable. 1. f3 sound under GM level. Unfortunately this site doesn't have the most reliable posters to say the least. Kasparov has also seriously opening analysis of a low-rated player.
Bachar Kouatly: "You once said that the Grunfeld Defense is 100% sound"
Garry Kasparov: (gives an emphatic nod).
Bachar Kouatly: "So why, then, did you also play the King's Indian Defense in this match?"
Garry Kasparov: "I think all openings are 100% sound - all normal openings, that is! It is just a question of your mood and preparation."
(from a 30-year old interview).
Today, with the aid of computers, even more openings are regarded as 100% sound.
1.f3 might not be one of them, but Carlsen has used it in a few blitz and bullet games.
Apr 12, 2022
0
#32
blank0923 wrote:
I think I’ve heard of a similar storyline (Kasparov saying that openings are not important until the GM level). However, whatever the truth is, openings are certainly becoming more and more relevant at the non-GM level. With the rapid advancements of engines in the modern era, some openings that were playable, say, 40 years ago can now be proven to be disadvantageous within half an hour.
Then there are also the cases of good opening preparation in a popular, respectable opening, and I assure everyone that this can be found even at the “amateur” level, having seen an incredible piece of opening preparation at the recently concluded HS Nationals held in Memphis, TN.
what was that? I was at that tournament lol
Personally I found White's preparation quite impressive. Players stronger than me might disagree, but as a Sicilian player I have never seen this before.
18.b4! was especially nice (yes, I understand it's kind of forced because otherwise ...Qc5 comes, but to be able to blitz this out is pretty impressive, and shows White must have known this idea)
Apr 12, 2022
0
#35
dannyhume wrote:
At the amateur level (below 2200 OTB rating), the answer is NEVER.
Gotta to work on the more fundamental skills first (tactics, endgames, positional assessment based on strategic principles and calculation) before ever studying openings. And for most folks, since they are always lacking in one or more of those other categories, the answer will always be “never.”
Generally, I have found that most people give veiled or confusing answers to this question that can be roughly translated into either: “400 points above your current level” —or— “When you get to MY level.”
But even Kasparov says all openings are sound below the GM level. So then why do IM’s, FM’s, NM’s, CM’s, Experts, and high-level class players study openings so much?
Gotta to work on the more fundamental skills first (tactics, endgames, positional assessment based on strategic principles and calculation) before ever studying openings. And for most folks, since they are always lacking in one or more of those other categories, the answer will always be “never.”
Generally, I have found that most people give veiled or confusing answers to this question that can be roughly translated into either: “400 points above your current level” —or— “When you get to MY level.”
But even Kasparov says all openings are sound below the GM level. So then why do IM’s, FM’s, NM’s, CM’s, Experts, and high-level class players study openings so much?
Bruh what this is
blank0923 wrote:
Personally I found White's preparation quite impressive. Players stronger than me might disagree, but as a Sicilian player I have never seen this before.
18.b4! was especially nice (yes, I understand it's kind of forced because otherwise ...Qc5 comes, but to be able to blitz this out is pretty impressive, and shows White must have known this idea)
18.b4 is not a new idea which came out of a silicon brain. I vaguely remember seeing it in an old book, but can't recall which one.
Apr 12, 2022
0
#37
Below 1000 I would say opening study should be done purely for personal enjoyment. If you like to learn new openings, go for it, but understand the benefit will be little to none.
1000-1500 rapid is where I would start considering some mild opening study. Learn a few lines and basic ideas (youtube videos by thechessnetwork, St.Louis chess club, gothamchess, etc. are great for this.)
1500-1700 is where you should start learning which opening lines to look into, an which to ignore. For examples, I would reccomend people in this range to play a sideline against the sicilian. The reason for this is that people in this range will study theory needlessly indepth, AND they can normally convert a major advantage. Take the game below as an example where I got out-theorized in some obscure sideline, and my 1500 rated opponent converted:
I got from 1700-2000 by having a firm and limited opening repotoire. I have anti-system systems, a narrow opening repotoire with white, and a slightly wider opening repotoire with black. In this range, I would reccomend choosing inferior sidelines and studying them well. Take for example this line against the Winawer:
Apr 12, 2022
0
#38
Personally, I think it’s worth learning openings at any level. Especially at a lower one!That’s because if your new to chess you are most likely not able to play as good moves as if you were a better player. Then, if you play an opening (which your opponent most likely don’t know how to play against because you’re on a lower level) you’ll get an advantage in the middlegame and a higher chance of winning the game. You could argue with that it’s better to study other things first, but because many people think that it’s fun to study openings, I think it’s a good thing to do if you’re a beginner and want to be a good chess player and have fun at the same time.
Bramblyspam wrote:
It's rarely worth your while to study opening variations 20 moves deep. You'll almost never follow theory that far. But it makes plenty of sense to study 5 moves deep, and then have a general idea of what plans to follow after that.
If you consistently get a decent position in the opening, then the opening phase isn't a problem for you. If you're getting crushed early, then look up where you're going wrong, and don't make the same mistake next time. In the process, you'll pick up a few moves of theory that actually are useful to you.
The second paragraph here is the single best answer. If you're getting crushed in the opening study it some. If you're getting good positions out of the opening then focus on other aspects of the game.
There seems to be a tension between the general tendency of chess players to love studying openings and all the improvement gurus saying (correctly) that memorizing lines is pretty close to worthless. The reality is that the opening sets up the rest of the game and does no more or less than that. Every single time I've beaten a significantly higher rated opponent it's because I got an advantage in the opening and sustained it for the rest of the game. I've also blown many many good positions in chess games against opponents of a variety of strength. Opening strength is worthless unless you have the chess skill to convert the advantage.
The advice for beginners is to learn principles rather than openings. This is good solid advice, but eventually you'll get beat by some tricky concrete lines and need to learn those. Just no need to learn them until you need them.
pfren wrote:
blank0923 wrote:
Personally I found White's preparation quite impressive. Players stronger than me might disagree, but as a Sicilian player I have never seen this before.
18.b4! was especially nice (yes, I understand it's kind of forced because otherwise ...Qc5 comes, but to be able to blitz this out is pretty impressive, and shows White must have known this idea)
18.b4 is not a new idea which came out of a silicon brain. I vaguely remember seeing it in an old book, but can't recall which one.
That's interesting; personally this looked quite incredible to me, but if someone had worked this out before engines, then I'm speechless.
Actually, the vast majority of players over 2200 OTB are also amateurs.
Personally, I don’t think there is anything wrong with studying openings at any level if that’s what interests you. But if you are looking to optimize your improvement, you should probably not spend so much time studying openings that you neglect other aspects of the game.