Opening knowledge is always advantageous, but this is knowledge, not lines, because as someone pointed out, a player that has studied deep into the Ruy can become completely lost when their opponent deviates from the main line. Capablanca’s book starts with end game and I think Silman’s does as well, but I could be wrong. And I’m sure I’ve spelled both of their names wrong. I understand the allure of openings: they’re just much more interesting, but endgame is just that, the end of the game, and if a player reaches the endgame with an advantage, they can quickly loss simply due to lack of foundation. Certainly a game can end in the opening, but someone with a solid foundation of principles can usually survive a tactic or trap, and emerge, and if they’re playing someone who employed such a trick, who only knows that trick, it’s likely that they’ll be lost after that. I’m a beginner myself, and I’ve looked at a bunch of openings, mainly because I love the game and they interest me, but I’m simply not good enough to understand complex openings at the moment, and why they work. I’ve tried using the benko gambit before (I was crushed) I’ve tried Alekhine’s Defense from four pawns (getting crushed as we speak) but when I follow standard opening principles I get a better game.
At what rating level should you start stuyding openings?
Anyone who has tried golf will know how frustrating it is to confidently sink a ten footer after you took 9 shots to reach the green....
can you please teach me to reach the green in nine ?
A 1400 player who knows a pet line of the Sicilian probably has a distinct advantage over a 1400 player who only knows the Ruy Lopez three moves deep and wings it from there, all else (tactical skills, etc.) being equal.
That makes no sense. A 1400 player has an advantage over another 1400 player, all other things being equal? You'd think that that player would have a higher rating then, no?
He means that the other guy will be more prepared!! Not that he's better!
A good friend of mine is +- 2150 FIDE and got there without book knowledge (he owns zero opening books and has no chess software). I've seen him as black play 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5 4.h4, then he thinks for half an hour, comes up with 4...Na6!? and goes on to draw his IM opponent. He knows where his pieces should go, is tactically good and his endgames are superb. I think he needs to start improving his openings now to go any further.
I also know 1750 players who know the Najdorf 20 moves deep but never go up in rating.
This is a great post. The game "solidified" (the rules stopped changing) 400+ years ago. Books where rare and very precious. Only a few written on Chess.
So how did players learn? Lots of time studying -- in a different way. If they could not play an opponent, they simply studied themselves. Then if something new worked, then the players in the area picked it up -- you would get moves named for the players from that area, French Defense, Austrian Atttack, etc. Some where named after players Grunfeld Defence, Ray Lopez, etc. Lastly they were named for the pieces. The 4 pawn attack, etc.
This language came about so people had a common way of talking about the game -- and later as books became more common, they were written about Chess using the common language.
But can you achieve FIFE 1800+ with no books? Sure. No computer is even better. How? You learn by observation. In the movie "Searching for Bobby Fischer" the kid learns to play Chess not because someone taught him, but because he was smart and observant. At one point he asks his Dad to move his "horse" -- he didn't even know the names of the pieces but could wallop his father. I do not remember learning the rules to several kids games (checkers, Monopoly, etc), I had seen the games played a lot and I figured them out.
For Chess, today we have DVDs, books, and online playing. What they can do, if PROPERLY used is allow you to learn FASTER. Same thing applies to a good instructor.
But then again, so is everyone else learning faster. I personally purchased a diamond membership so I could have full access to all the training tools. It remains to be seen if I can use them properly -- and how badly I get beat early on until it "sinks in" or comes back to me from 30 years ago.
Sure, it's possible to become 1800 without books just very difficult! In fact it's hard to get to that level with them! It's hard to understand chess without buying instructive books like how to reasses your chess and my system.
The general rule, as I see it, is to know something about the openings you play, and the higher your rating the more reasonable it is commit some lines to memory. Don't spend much time doing this below, say, 1400 or 1500 USCF, as games will almost invariably be won by the player who understands the position at hand and comes up with a decent plan and is calculating attentively, regardless of some minor deficit out of the opening. Of course it's more fun for most of us to play with the advantage, and we pat ourselves on the back for knowing the opening better than the opponent.
The above probably applies into the Expert range. Study what you are using and temper the time spent by the degree your games with your peers are tight and moves < -.50 are quite uncommon (I just pulled that number out but the point is clear; few material and positional blunders).
Very interesting question - usually people asking about openings are told not to study openings, but I like the way this one is phrased! :-)
Opening memorization is a waste of time until at least the 2000 level.
This idea is shared by most people, but the number 2000 might be debatable. Imho, I don't think it's possible to reach 2000 without a decent opening repertoire. (By 2000 I mean a true OTB 2000, not chess.com "2000," lol)
A good friend of mine is +- 2150 FIDE and got there without book knowledge (he owns zero opening books and has no chess software). I've seen him as black play 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5 4.h4, then he thinks for half an hour, comes up with 4...Na6!? and goes on to draw his IM opponent. He knows where his pieces should go, is tactically good and his endgames are superb. I think he needs to start improving his openings now to go any further.
I also know 1750 players who know the Najdorf 20 moves deep but never go up in rating.
5.g4, I guess he plays Bxb1 -- no wait I guess he plays 5... Be4! 6.f3 Bxb1! as a subtelty! :-)
The IM should have played 5.Nbd2, clearly
The Squid isn't played by GMs anymore but maybe Nakamura can revive it.
Yeah that's a joke but seriously, we need an opening called The Squid.
5.g4, I guess he plays Bxb1 -- no wait I guess he plays 5... Be4! 6.f3 Bxb1! as a subtelty! :-)
The IM should have played 5.Nbd2, clearly
There's a pawn on c2 :-) Probably just 5.g4 Bd7.
I think they played 5.Ne2 Nb4 6.Na3, but I don't remember for sure. The game was in TWIC, but for some reason chess.com's Game Explorer doesn't have it.
after 53 years playing (quite successfully) i still dont know a kid from a squid and have never found the need to bother.
do you play the kid or squid? if you don't, then of course you don't need to bother with them. but I assume you do know about openings that you play.
I think it's important to understand the ideas behind the openings, don't ever memorize moves regardless of you rating. Your understanding of the middle has to be at a certain level before you can understand how a move in the opening effects the middle game.
I think it's important to understand the ideas behind the openings, don't ever memorize moves regardless of you rating. Your understanding of the middle has to be at a certain level before you can understand how a move in the opening effects the middle game.
Regardless of rating? I also used to think that knowing the ideas of an opening were all you needed but in openings like the king's indian and often the sicilian and even the french in some variations, unfortunately around 1600 anyway memorizing moves becomes absolutely necessary because the specific execution of the general ideas depending on what white plays are important in crazy openings otherwise you can be much worse; even from one out of book move. But if you pick a solid opening, memorization is not terribly important nor are there many critical variations.
Opening memorization is a waste of time until at least the 2000 level.
This idea is shared by most people, but the number 2000 might be debatable. Imho, I don't think it's possible to reach 2000 without a decent opening repertoire. (By 2000 I mean a true OTB 2000, not chess.com "2000," lol)
That's true, also, have some freedom, you can start learning openings anytime your brain is able to understand them. If you are curious and interested, it's even better. It helps if you have people around you that are likewise inclined in their desire...You know?
If you don' know at least one or two openings, you are going to get hammered.
Studying openings used to be overrated. Now it's starting to get a bit underrated, becuase "general principles" won't get you through complex openings at all while "general ideas" are very useful but the truth is sometimes memorization is quite necessary in some openings once you hit 1600. but of course middlegame and endgame stuff comes first, but you shouldn't just ignore your openings. Besisdes, sometimes studying openings especially via master games show you key middlegame positions anyway that you wouldn't be able to find by just looking for middlegame positions.
after 53 years playing (quite successfully) i still dont know a kid from a squid and have never found the need to bother.
do you play the kid or squid? if you don't, then of course you don't need to bother with them. but I assume you do know about openings that you play.
my point is i wouldnt know if i played them or not. and online you have access to opening dbases if some one throws a googly at you. But for the vast majority of players on this site they would be far better using their time on the analysis board than learning opening lines they may never meet. if you know the basics then you can respond to anything. if you only know fixed lines then when someone deviates you are lost.
de la maza in his book says that studying openings increases your knowledge of teh game but not your ability.
What chess title is de la maza ? GM ? IM ? What are his chess "credentials" ?
He once won a under 2000 tournament in Los Angeles.
An interesting post and I have not read all comments but one point I think is missing--but first
Reb- de la Maza has no credibility. He is a roughly 2000 player who quite his job devoted 6-8 months to chess only studying tactics and said chess "knowledge" is not worth anything to the average player.
What constitutes "studying an opening"? Is is the basic knowledge of the moves and main lines so one can reach a playable middlegame? Or is it the way Masters and stronger evaluate a position? For most people under 1800 (or even 2000) the sign +/= ( or =/+) is meaningless as they can not convert the advantage to a win based on the opening. Even just knowing the basic concepts of a specific opening is useful for getting players into a familiar type position.
I think a more important type of question is "What type of openings should U1800 (2000) learn? I think this is a critical difference. I thinks something complex like the Poison Pawn Najdorf, the Benoni is a waste as most of the concepts rely on memorization and do not fully develop a player's chess knowledge as he gets better.
I think opening knowledge of some sort is always an advantage.
Many Gms have said study endings, not openings.
It's analogous (that just looks wrong, sp please, anyone?) to a golfer telling you start with your putting. Anyone who has tried golf will know how frustrating it is to confidently sink a ten footer after you took 9 shots to reach the green....