Confusion about learning openings

It is one of the great Chess Myths that you can learn an opening, You absolutely cannot.

You have to understand an opening and that is a whole different thing.

Look at it like a car, if you are a learner you do not go out in a Ferrari to start with, something small manageable easy to handle. Less crashes fewer tears.

So it is with chess, learn a simple opening say the Four Knights develop that understand the objecives, or the Bishops Opening, keep it simple, after a few thousand blitz games, move it along a bit, say go to The Vienna Opening, as your understanding develops so should your repertoire.

there are no shortcuts here, miss out the early developmental stages and you will never get there.

I highly recommend Reuben Fine's "Ideas Behind the Chess Openings."

So do I. I love that book.

Does Fine's book go through opening ideas in a logical progressive order or is it more of a reference? 

Are there any opening books that do this?  (Larry Evans has an interactive opening book in quiz format, like his endgame book, but likely not in as much depth as Fine's opening book).

Is it better to get a more modern instructional opening book/software?  

Are there more modern instructional opening books or software accessible to lower-level players that go through openings in a logically progressive manner (the way Silman's endgame book tries)?  

I actually have FCO by van der Sterran (Silman recommended it in a recent article) but have not really looked into using it since I have been delaying my opening study.  

If you actually have to memorize an opening I would say you are doing something wrong. You learn to understand the opening and as a result of this you also automaticaly learn to remember the most important lines. It's always easier to remember material you have assimilated than just memorize things.

Also, I think some opening training may well be a good idea even for a relative beginner as long as it's done right and significantly more time is spent both to tactics and endgame training.

How do you do this, Firebrandx and also Shakaali?  (I like Shivsky's and ravi's practical advice so far, but I'd like to hear more since this is getting interesting.)

Should I survey and drill multiple openings with a general-but-not-too-deep instructional opening book (like FIne's or FCO) and get broad opening exposure?

Or should I play 1-2 openings exclusively (as a low-level player, that is) for many years as well as read about them, looking them up in databases, etc.?

MAny have recommended studying and playing open games first, but what if my opponent does not play 1.e4 as white or 1....e5 as black? (in which case it seems I'd be forced prematurely to learn more "advanced" ideas of the semi-open and closed games).

I'd like to hear more of your perspective and any practical advice.  

I take your point FX, I am reading learning in the narrow sense here, by way of an example.

1 e4 e5

2Nf3 Nc6

3Bb5

Not hard to learn is it, but there you have just learned the Ruy Lopez, the most complex Opening in Chess, but have you understood it ?

OK so what is the point of

1 e4

a) Well it takes space

b)  Facilitates development of the kingside pieces 

c)  Controls important central squares d5 and f5.

Further than that it is implicit in the move that you are commencing an attack on the Black Kingside.

This is a straightforward infanile sort of example, but it is what to me understanding an opening is about rather than learning it.

I wouldn't go too deep into openings until you have a foundation of tactical and positional knowledge. But once you get there, you could get a book on your opening, but if you don't have one (or want to go beyond) there are a few techniques I do:

1. Try to understand all of the main variations of your opening and try to annotate an instructive master game based on each.

2. Analyze yourself what you think each side should do from a certain starting point and do it for many moves. Put it on the computer and type in annotations and when you're done perhaps check with a computer or the opening book. This can be useful for getting better at tactics if the line is sharp, or strategy if the position is quiet, and you get  such a better feel for the opening.

3. Practice using the opening! I personally think correspondence chess is a useful way to try to fully understand what's going on in the opening.

I rarely just memorize opening moves, but I still have many moves in the openings I play memorized (but understood), and this is because I'm familiar with the opening, not because I'm cramming, and when you learn something this way it's hard to forget, unlike the latter.

Thanks for the approach (for when/if I get to that level), Elubas.  

Sounds like tactics and positional thinking (maybe some basic endgames) deserve near-exclusive attention and my insistence on asking whether to survey a bunch of openings superficially versus focusing on 1-2 is largely irrelevant.

Sounds like I should just read about openings for amusement/curiosity now, intensely training tactics/endgames, read instructional positional thinking/strategy books, and go over (heavily annotated) master games.  

I think learning opening ideas is important. For example, you play 1.e4 and are familiar with 1...e5 ideas. But your opponent plays 1...c5. I'm not saying you should already know the latest novelty for the 14th move in the Najdorf, but you should know that black intends to play on the queenside, use the c file for an attack, and such general ideas of the opening. I have found Fine's book great in this regard, it has clear explanations of what the opening intends to achieve.

Some have told me the book is old, but since it doesn't deal in cutting edge theory, I think the general plans and ideas on it are valid and it has helped me with my game, not only by knowing how to continue the opening in a coherent way to the idea behind it, but also by helping me noticing what my opponent is neglecting by deviating from said ideas.

I think a lot of the people who are so dismissive of anything older than the last decade or two will probably never play at a level where knowing the latest and greatest opening theory is going to make any difference to them.  I love the old stuff.  Right now I'm going through some collections of old King's Gambit games played by Blackburne, Steinitz, Anderssen, Lasker, Chigorin, Morphy, etc.  It wouldn't bother me a bit if I "only" managed to end up as good as the chaps were 100 to 200 years ago.  

--Cystem

Bingo! Someone who reads, understands and distils the advice they're given - very unusual :)

"Sounds like tactics and positional thinking (maybe some basic endgames)"

I would just substitute *definitely* basic endgames.

Regarding advice, I was given some a bit ago and I am working on it. He told me that I should understand the position an opening line reaches, as in a static position, like it was a puzzle someone puts in front of me. The way you got to that position no longer matters.

It did help me the other day, I was playing a Dragon as black, and my opponent made odd moves, refused to make trades. Then suddenly I thought: "Wait a minute... This looks familiar... It's a King's Indian!". Realizing that, I adjusted my plan to play the position, rather than my previous approach of trying to go back to my originally intended opening. Granted, I've been studying the King's Indian a bit, if the game had transposed into a Grünfeld or some other opening I know nothing about, I would have been lost.

You will be fine if you get your pieces out as quickly as you can while putting their energy in the middle of a board in a way that feeeels right for you. Always trust your intuition to guide your moves. If you're violating the "principles" of the opening you're probably heading down the wrong path. The masters had it right when they said control the center, develop your pieces and keep your king safe (usually by castling early).

I am not saying end games should not be studied, but I am  wondering what good studying end games will do if one reaches there in a worst position. If one always reaches the end game in a good position without knowing much about openings, and the middle game, that would mean his opponent's knowledge is even less than his. That would require always playing with opponents weaker than oneself. Again this makes me wonder how one is going to reach his full potential in chess, if he focuses on defeating weaker players, instead of figuring out how to win against stronger ones. 

Perhaps it's better first to determine what the goal is. Is it getting better than players that are already weaker than ourselves, or is it reaching to the level of players stronger than us?

Let me first say what I consider suitable opening training for absolute beginner (with few games experience perhaps) At this stage one should get by just by understanding the basic idea of opening stage. Basically this means two of the most important opening principles: to develop all your pieces  as quickly as possible (this is the most essential thing) and also fight for the control of the centre. Then you should also probably understand the concept of tempo and be aware of the importance of king safety.

As it's obvious you are not satisfied with this anymore I would suggest that you try to create yourself kind of opening repertoire not by reading it from books but just by playing same openings over and over again. Of course there can be some variation but I would strongly discourage against playing too many different openings. When analysing your games and going through opening stage try to evaluate the result of the opening: are you satisfied with the result you got and if not what caused your problems. Of course, it will often happen that something goes wrong. I would then recommend that you try to first think for improvements using your own brains because this way you are going to learn much more than by directly consulting an opening book. If you don't succeed finding something that satisfies you then consult the books or databases or write to chess.com forums or something else that works. This way you are better prepared next time around and increase your knowledge bit by bit. You often learn more from opening variation by studying typical mistakes than by studying the book recomendations of best moves. Also, if you like some move that's not mentioned by theory and don't see anything wrong with it then play it until someone demostrates you why it shouldn't be played.

Of course your repertoire should also include black defence against d4 but with white you play e4 and if possible try to obtain open positions with lively piece play. Even against d4 you should avoid hypermodern openings like different Indian systems. Instead play 1... d5 - a simple developping move that directly contests centre. If your opponent goes for Queens Qambit with c4 then choose some defence giving you active piece play even if this means you have to make some minor positional concessions like QGA or Tarrasch defence.

By the way I quickly chekked some of your recent online games and even if in some games you experienced difficulties in the opening I don't think it was because your opponent knew the theory better but rather because of tactical mistakes. At the end of the day any chess training is bound to be good for you and if you enjoy studying opening then feel free to do so. It's just that many people tend to concentrate too much on the opening (I've also been quilty for this and probably still are occasionaly) when they would probably improve much more by studying typical endgames.

Great advice given...and I am listening intently...given that I am also a beginner.

My contribution is that any chess game played has a beginning, a middle, and an end-game. In order to improve in the game as a whole, one needs to learn/know something about all three areas. One's focus depends on one's weaknesses, and any learning methodology must consider development in all three aspects of the game. The current thinking for beginners  is "do this...don't do this...etc", but how do you define a beginner? Is it his rating? His time-line playing chess? The thing is, ratings can be misleading, and your experience level based on time has many pitfalls re quality. So, when really should a "beginner" start to look at the more intricate ideas, strategies, positions, openings etc. of chess? To me that question can only be answered by ourselves...after playing for a while we all know our weaknesses and strengths, and thus can best evaluate "when" we are ready for the next level of learning. Here's the thing, the learning curve is different for everyone, based on intellect, incentive, work-ethic, and funding capacity. So given all of the above, self evaluate yourself, identify areas you lack/weak-in, put a plan in place to address these weaknesses....but understand that your decision process does not have to be mutually exclusive...you can still learn other areas...not one or the other.

The more the merrier.

Thanks.

 Appreciate your resounding stamp of approval, Marvellosity, as your comments/advice are generally good in another forum in which I have a different username and where "definitely" endgames and tactics are aplenty.

I am stubborn but want to be convinced of a better way to learn chess.  Efficiency/efficacy is everything since I started as an adult, will statistically likely never be a master, and have a full-time job.  

I just needed to be convinced that the total benefits and "side-effects" of studying tactics/endgames/strategy would carry over into openings far more efficiently than having openings take time away from those areas  since "good" opening moves are "positionally" and "tactically" analysed as superior by strong players throughout chess history. 

I'll likely revisit this issue when I am stronger in those other areas and my opponents consistently play strong moves where opening advantages may play a more decisive role (which may be never), but my perspective seems better for now thanks to the various responses to my specific concerns.

Lots of great advice/commentary everyone (Shakaali, Firebrandx, ravl, Elubas, others).   Thanks! 

Maybe tactics wise, but I think the french is a tough opening to understand, besides the basics of undermining the pawn chain (but there's alot more to that). Then again, I played the french only because I was doing so bad on the black side of the ruy lopez, and when I learned the french it was tough at first but became a much stronger player positionally, but I'm just saying I wouldn't call it super easy to play at first.

I forgot to put this on my last post, if you're curious on how I've used Fine's book, my last blog post has a short description on me learning to play the Giuoco Piano with its help.