Can someone play without openings?

Sort:
Avatar of Eluarelon

I can say that I agree with your quotes by Giddins and Nunn. That's kinda how I try to approach the topic, though I think that I have a lot of basics to cover before I should dive in into openings much further than I have so far.

 

As far as Yusupov is concerned, I won't disagree with him in general. This said, I own the first book of the Yusupov series and had to put it on the shelf again, because I don't think that my level of play is where it would need to be to get most out of the book. As far as I have learned in the meantime, general consensus is that those books actually are a bit too difficult compared to what they announce on the (german) title. And from what I gathered from other sources, it seems that German DWZ 1500 equals ELO 1700 in average.

But, relating to this topic, from the 24 chapters of the first book, only two handle opening related topics (basic principles in chapter 4, gambits in chapter 24, the rest is mostly tactics and a bit of strategy). So it doesn't seem as if Yusupov's idea of how to train players much stronger than me would be to teach them the study of openings first and foremost.

Avatar of SIowMove
kindaspongey wrote:

If the "tactics" are not something that a player can be realistically expected to work out over the board, then, is it necessarily a mistake to try an opening book?

Now you're trying to coerce me into saying that reading an opening book is a mistake?

To avoid this meandering back-and-forth argument that you seem intent on dragging on, I'll make my position clear: if you want to improve your opening play, work on your tactics.

This is my opinion on the matter, and no amount of rhetoric or leading questions will get me to change it.

You're welcome to disagree all you like, and I'd expect you to do as much. There's no universal law that says all chess players must agree.

I would say, though, that there's certainly one approach that won't help a player improve their opening play: by spending too much time arguing on a forum about opening study. Use that time, instead, to work on your game.

This applies to me, as well—so with that, I bid you adieu.

Avatar of SoluopSolim

All main lines are refuted now. Just play 1.h4 folloed by a4.

Avatar of kindaspongey
SIowMove wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:

If the "tactics" are not something that a player can be realistically expected to work out over the board, then, is it necessarily a mistake to try an opening book?

Now you're trying to coerce me into saying that reading an opening book is a mistake? ...

If you don't want to type "no", that is not my responsibility.

Avatar of kindaspongey
Eluarelon wrote:

... As far as Yusupov is concerned, I won't disagree with him in general. This said, I own the first book of the Yusupov series and had to put it on the shelf again, because I don't think that my level of play is where it would need to be to get most out of the book. As far as I have learned in the meantime, general consensus is that those books actually are a bit too difficult compared to what they announce on the (german) title. And from what I gathered from other sources, it seems that German DWZ 1500 equals ELO 1700 in average.

But, relating to this topic, from the 24 chapters of the first book, only two handle opening related topics (basic principles in chapter 4, gambits in chapter 24, the rest is mostly tactics and a bit of strategy). So it doesn't seem as if Yusupov's idea of how to train players much stronger than me would be to teach them the study of openings first and foremost.

"It is important for club players to build up a suitable opening repertoire." - GM Artur Yusupov (2010)

"... If you want to play competitively, then you must develop an opening repertoire. ..." - GM Patrick Wolff (1997) in a book that also explains how the rook moves.

As far as I know, neither GM thinks the study of openings should be first and foremost.

Avatar of Brazilian21

Estudar aberturas antes de ser MF acho que é besteira. Estude bons livros que ABARQUE a fase inicial do jogo, mas que não seja um livro DE aberturas. Você pode tentar bons livros de análises de partidas, livros de estratégia e/ou livros de tática; esses tipos de livros sempre destrincham diversas partidas desde o começo, e você aprenderá aberturas "naturalmente"; e claro, nunca se esqueça de praticar SEMPRE exercícios táticos.

 

Quando você chegar mais longe, tipo uns 2200 daí acho interessante estudar livros de aberturas que aborde o tema como um todo, não perca tempo (eu não perderei) estudando livros como "Variante CHINESA, da linha DRAGÃO, da defesa SICILIANA", e livros do tipo, foque (quando você tiver mais de 2200) em livros como "Mastering the chess openings", "Fundamental chess openings" etc., livros que fale de TODAS as aberturas principais e mais famosas.

Avatar of kindaspongey

https://web.archive.org/web/20140627115737/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen99.pdf
http://www.gambitbooks.com/pdfs/Mastering_the_Chess_Openings_volume_1.pdf
http://www.gambitbooks.com/pdfs/Mastering_the_Chess_Openings_volume_2.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20140626220240/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen117.pdf
http://www.gambitbooks.com/pdfs/Mastering_the_Chess_Openings_volume_3.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627070808/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen137.pdf
http://www.gambitbooks.com/pdfs/Mastering_the_Chess_Openings_volume_4.pdf

https://web.archive.org/web/20140626173432/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen128.pdf
http://www.gambitbooks.com/pdfs/FCO_Fundamental_Chess_Openings.pdf

Avatar of escksn
kindaspongey yazdı:
escksn wrote: "my chess teacher states that shakriyar mamedyarov reached to 2700 with almost no special opening knowledge, ..."
kindaspongey quoted openings from a chessgames list of games played by shakriyar mamedyarov as White in 1999, 2000, and 2001: "Queen's Gambit Declined ... King's Indian ... King's Indian ... Queen's Pawn Game ... Queen's Pawn Game ... King's Indian, Fianchetto, Panno Variation ... Queen's Gambit Declined, Tarrasch ... Queen's Gambit Declined, Tartakower (Makagonov-Bondarevsky) System ... King's Indian, Fianchetto, Yugoslav Panno ... Queen's Pawn Game (with ...d6) ... French ... Queen's Gambit Declined, Semi-Slav ... Queen's Pawn Game ... Queen's Pawn Game ... Dutch ... Queen's Gambit Accepted ... Queen's Indian ... Queen's Pawn Game ... Dutch, Leningrad, Main Variation ... Grunfeld, 5.Bg5 ... King's Indian, Fianchetto ... Queen's Indian ... Old Benoni ... Queen's Gambit Declined ... Queen's Gambit Declined, Semi-Slav, Meran ... Neo-Grunfeld, 6.cd Nxd5 7.O-O Nb6 ... Neo-Grunfeld, 6.O-O, Main Line"
Eluarelon wrote:
... this in no way equals "special opening knowledge" ...

I guess you understood the difference pretty well, however i will try to be more specific anyway. And thank you mr. Eluarelon  you've expressed the situation pretty well.

Of course this doesn't mean he didnt know know or had an deep understanding of openings, being exposed to chess so much, it would be silly. he just put enormous effort on tactics generally.

8-10 hours a day, for years. even while waiting his turn in tournament matches. and became so sharp.

It surprised me he still solved a lot of mate-in-one puzzles a lot even he surpassed 2700. sitting in front of a pc screen, solving hundreds or thousands of them, not even spending more than 2-3 seconds for each.

i  just wanted to tell that to be an opinon, proved by a super gm.

by the way, no lie. you can check it. the chess teacher who i talked about, played together with him in the same team for years , and grew up almost together. (Beşiktaş Spor Kulübü)

http://satrancligi2012.tsf.org.tr/tr/component/content/article/1-news/182-shakhriyar-mamedyarov




Avatar of kindaspongey

Again, I thought my list added some detail  to the original description.

Avatar of Optimissed
[COMMENT DELETED]
Avatar of SoluopSolim

You're completely wrong. I prefer the nimzo-indian because it retutes the sicilian.