🎉
At what point is it worth learning openings?
Sort:
Apr 15, 2022
0
#43
Learning principles of the opening, middle game, and endgame all add value to how good you become. It is like a bar graph of each opening you know, checkmating sequences and the list goes on. It’s good to work on whatever you mess up on. To be honest tactics and endgame study are more important than the opening but knowing principles of each will help your game much better.
Well, there were some chess playing machines back in the early nineties, which played at best something like 1500-1700 level, and Fritz 2, which also played poorly as the CPU's were very weak. These games are very unlikely to include computer analysis.
1500-1700? I think you are off with the timeline by more than a decade.
It was in 1978(!) that a computer first defeated an IM (Chess 4.7 beat David Levy, but lost the match 4.5-1.5).
In 1989 Deep Thought beat Levy 4-0. It is safe to say that the machine was already GM level, the USCF estimated it at 2550.
magipi wrote:
Well, there were some chess playing machines back in the early nineties, which played at best something like 1500-1700 level, and Fritz 2, which also played poorly as the CPU's were very weak. These games are very unlikely to include computer analysis.
1500-1700? I think you are off with the timeline by more than a decade.
It was in 1978(!) that a computer first defeated an IM (Chess 4.7 beat David Levy, but lost the match 4.5-1.5).
In 1989 Deep Thought beat Levy 4-0. It is safe to say that the machine was already GM level, the USCF estimated it at 2550.
The "machine" that played David Levy back in 1978, wasn't a computer, but rather a cluster of "supercomputers" of that era. Regular computers were playing like crap.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_(Northwestern_University).
Day One, Move One!
I'd say it depends what you mean by learning openings. It's never too soon to learn the basics, say half a dozen moves each of the Ruy Lopez, Italian Game. QGD Orthodox, Open Sicilian, French etc. And that will take you a long way, teaching you some typical positions as well as alerting you to a few traps like Damiano's Defence. Probably you don't need books till you're around 1800 classical, which is stronger than me, but I can't help it - I just love exploring openings.
Apr 16, 2022
0
#48
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.
A little bit of Googling led me to this:
"I think all openings are 100% sound - all normal openings, that is! It is just a question of your mood and your preparation." - Garry Kasparov
(For context, he was being asked about which defense he thought was more sound - the Grunfeld or the King's Indian ...)
I think it depends, if you enjoy it then study them whatever your level - chess is a game afterall. For actual benefit it obviously depends on the level of your play, the higher the standard of your opponents the greater depth of opening prep is worthwhile. For me I'm sort of intermediate standard, not beginner but by no means advanced. And most of my games are not lost in the opening they are lost by me miscalculating something, tactical error or oversight. However - openings do seem important, I recently changed my openings a lot as I wasn't happy with some of the ones I had been using since I recently restarted playing, didn't like the positions. But I haven't learned anything about my new openings, want to know them to maybe 5-7 moves and the main ideas that tend to follow. For me that seems enough, otherwise if I just know only the first 2-3 moves of (say) the french defence, if I play it against an experienced e4 player I bet they will know the opening better than I do - even if just from experience of having played hundreds of games against it. So for me opening theory is a sort of confidence thing, an attempt at accelerating the experience you get from playing an opening a lot. But I agree with those who say there's not much point at non-master level in learning openings to 15-20 moves of theory as the number of times you actually have games that get to that deep in book theory is probably vanishingly small. One of you will deviate far before then
i guess everyone below 1300 are just beginners. everyone between 1300 and 2200 are just people who are learning still.
AmazingAardvark123 wrote:
i guess everyone below 1300 are just beginners. everyone between 1300 and 2200 are just people who are learning still.
What does that have to do with anything? It's wildly offtopic here.
magipi wrote:
AmazingAardvark123 wrote:
i guess everyone below 1300 are just beginners. everyone between 1300 and 2200 are just people who are learning still.
What does that have to do with anything? It's wildly offtopic here.
someone said something about how its funny that everyone under 2200 is "amateurs"
AmazingAardvark123 wrote:
magipi wrote:
AmazingAardvark123 wrote:
i guess everyone below 1300 are just beginners. everyone between 1300 and 2200 are just people who are learning still.
What does that have to do with anything? It's wildly offtopic here.
someone said something about how its funny that everyone under 2200 is "amateurs"
according to a comment
Aug 27, 2024
0
#54
Learning basic principles and first 6-8 moves (depends on complexity of opening) of every opening is necessary and makes you 2000+ in classic well. But memorizing first 10 or more moves with all variants of every opening is not worth at all.
Aug 28, 2024
0
#55
I learn 95% openings and 5% tactics.
I also memorized some openings to checkmate. Why? IDK.
Mert1u wrote:
Learning basic principles and first 6-8 moves (depends on complexity of opening) of every opening is necessary and makes you 2000+ in classic well. But memorizing first 10 or more moves with all variants of every opening is not worth at all.
It makes you a hopeless patzer if you suck at tactics.
It all depends on what you mean by “learning the opening.”
Beginners need to learn the basic opening principles. But a good opening book can show the first four or five moves of an opening and explain why they follow these principles. So, if done correctly, a beginner can start to learn openings in their first few lessons.
however, too many players (as well as opening books and training videos) suggest that learning an opening means memorizing sequences of moves. That is terrible advice and is not how one should learn anything. If this is what the OP is asking about, this approach to studying an opening should be reserved for advanced players.
Aug 28, 2024
0
#58
Get a basic repertoire that follows good opening principles as a beginner. Learn to avoid common traps.
I started with some opening YouTube videos at 1600 just recently and it has helped me tremendously. I’m much more confident against pesky openings and winning games because of it. Start by learning the traps for both sides of an opening imo. As long as you get a solid position if the opponent knows the traps then it is a legit opening for you.
Once I get to 2000 I’ll probably start getting some opening courses and spending more time on it. My games are not lost because of the opening at this point.
I started with some opening YouTube videos at 1600 just recently and it has helped me tremendously. I’m much more confident against pesky openings and winning games because of it. Start by learning the traps for both sides of an opening imo. As long as you get a solid position if the opponent knows the traps then it is a legit opening for you.
Once I get to 2000 I’ll probably start getting some opening courses and spending more time on it. My games are not lost because of the opening at this point.
Aug 28, 2024
0
#59
The question isn't whether "learning some openings" is helpful. All knowledge is helpful.
The question is whether opening study is a productive use of your time at this level, or whether you would benefit more... perhaps much more... by putting that same amount of effort into some other aspect of the game, such as endgme play, or Pawn structure, or tactics, or model checkmating patterns.
Aug 29, 2024
0
#60
It is of course not productive but it is fun for me. I am memorizing over 1000 moves on my Chess Prep app now. It feels fun to design a repertoire by myself and then memorizing something so big. 
Getting to 2000 moves in a few months probably. The hardest to prepare for is playing against the KGA with the main line g4. There are way too many ways for white to attack you. It feels nice to specialize on something that others may not know much about, and I might make chess youtube videos about openings in the future.
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.
Well, there were some chess playing machines back in the early nineties, which played at best something like 1500-1700 level, and Fritz 2, which also played poorly as the CPU's were very weak. These games are very unlikely to include computer analysis.