Debate over openings

Ever since joining this site I've noticed a trend. This is not directed at any specific person or thread; I'm merely pointing out a recurring theme. Here's what happens:

Someone posts a topic like "Why don't more people play the Ware opening?" Someone else responds by saying that it violates practically every known principle of chess opening strategy. Then someone else joins the discussion to say that 1.a4! is a very good opening because white can follow up with 2.b3! and 3.Bb2! and play it like a super-elite hypermodern opening. Someone else then mentions that Spassky once played it in a blindfold simul against a six-year old in 1957 (they omit the details of course, and just say "Spassky played it!"), so that therefore proves it has the GM seal of approval. Oh, and of course it's mandatory to mention the "surprise value" the opening has.

My question is: what's going on here people?? 

Just to be clear, let's try to agree on the following points:

1. No first move for white guarantees that he will lose; no response from black (regardless of white's first move) guarantees he will lose either. 

2. "Playable" is not the same as "good". Something which is playable, yet other options are better, should be judged as inferior.

The point is this: under the best circumstances, if you play an opening very well and your opponent plays moderately well, the best you can hope for is something like a minor positional advantage by move 10-12: for example you may have a slightly better pawn structure, or the bishop pair. How many sub-1800 players are good enough to convert an advantage like that into a win? For that matter, how much does the choice of opening really matter at a sub-1800 level at all?

The average length of a chess game is something like 40 moves. What percentage of those games are actually won/lost in the opening? In games between 2 sub-1800 players, how many times does the position change from +/- to -/+ (or even +- to -+) and back again, throughout a 40 move game?

If we're all just going to launch a staunch defence of every opening, every time the subject arises - what's the point in discussing openings at all? The fact that it doesn't lose immediately, has "surprise value", and was played once by some famous guy 100 years ago doesn't make it a good opening. Why do people insist on saying these things over and over again, every time any unusual (and theoretically unsound) opening is discussed?

Hey there.

Yeah, I've never got into an opening arguement, simply don't know enough. I agree with you that too much emphasis is put on openings for low rated players. I learnt the basic opening principles - develop before attack, get castled, knights before bishops, don't make too many pawn moves, fight for the centre. (have I forgot any?) and that has done me fine.

I am only now starting to familirise myself with what openings look like, what they are meant to offer, and have gradualy worked it into my game.

But, like you say, most games go back and forth a lot. I've many times opened up a game and got that horrible pang of realisation that I've down something stupid, but I've also been left many freebies on the board.

I like it when people that really do know there openings, talk about them. Rather than the usually - d4 is boring cos I say angle, they tend to talk about the pros and cons, or post a game discussing the strategies attached to the opening. These are the best opening posts.

    lanceuppercut,

         Well said.

          Under pinning all of chess opening, middlegame and endgame theory is a fundamental principle.  It goes unstated and sometimes just understood that the reader or listener knows this most basic of principles.

          I have writen it in several posts on this site but no one has acknowledged yet.  It is stated and illustrated and demonstrated in detail in what is perhaps the best book on Chess theory ever written.  The principle so simply stated in that book,  yet you can miss the significance of it:

"the strategically and tactically correct advance of the pawn mass"

          The creator of this principle( to the best of my knowledge) and the author of the book in which it is detailed is Aaron Nimzowitsch.    The title of the book, "My System"         

re your comment..."For that matter, how much does the choice of opening really matter at a sub-1800 level at all?..."

I loved your post because it was, well, er, ah...logical unlike much online posts of all kinds which are more for the purpose of participation and rhetorical practice.   Perhaps, I like it because I am an old slave to linear, evidentiary thinking.  It establishes first priciples and argues that they are first for reasons which have not been overturned even if declared non binding by some adventurers.

For that reason, I was surprised at the comment above.  I have always been taught the opposite.  The "first principles" (and as you established, the "superior openings") are the best friends to the sub 1800 player.   The sub 1800 player is best served by following the path of the proven superior strategies.

 My guess is that you have already conceeded the point, but, if not, please explain.    I admit that I was probably taking a humorous point too literally, but it could mislead a beginning player IMO who wishes to improve.     THANKS                           

 To clarify: suppose two beginners play against each other. One of them could open with 1.a4 and still win. However, he isn't winning because his opening is good - he's winning because his opponent blundered more (or more seriously) than he did.

For most beginning and intermediate players, most games are won and lost because of serious tactical blunders. For beginners the main problem is dropping material; for intermediates, the main problem is overlooking simple one- two- and three-move tactics. At higher levels, these types of blunders are uncommon; at that point games are determined by things like long-term strategies, positional considerations, and slightly inaccurate play from the opponent. Of course, at that level opening theory plays a big role: the GM who emerges from the opening with a +/- may hold on to this advantage right through to a win!

At lower levels one could play an inferior opening and still win the game; however, the win will likely be a result of middlegame blunders from the opponent rather than any supposed "advantages" of the opening.

The sub 1800 player is best served by following the path of the proven superior strategies.

I completely agree.

Dear lanceuppercut_239 you have some good points...

 Just a few questions should i be studying opening theory? 

Or does opening important / affects my win/lose/draw results? 

Thanks for your post - I mostly agree.  However, I believe sub-1500 players need to focus 95% of their efforts on tactics, but I also believe they should learn one or two basic openings for white and a few basic defenses to the most common openings for white - e4, d4, etc - but only through the the 3rd or 4th move.  I would argue that at least this will put them in a nice enough starting position to use the tactics they are learning.  I'm sub-1800 and have learned some opening theory that has helped me greatly and would encourage anyone who is getting above 1500 to begin going a few moves deeper into any of the basic openings they know and even add a few variations.  When I first began, I didn't necessarily understand why certain moves were made in book openings, but through following them I began to appreciate how my pieces were better positioned to work together and gained a pseudo gut feel for proper development... which helps when someone throws a strange move at me such as 1. a4.  

I can't help but feel that many of the lower rated players would do themselves a great service by learning some basic openings so they aren't blown out of the water so early in a game that they lose heart.

Anyway - this is from the "what's its worth" category... 

 Thank you all for your posts! I'd like to respond to a few of the comments here.

armchairQB wrote:

 I also believe they should learn one or two basic openings for white and a few basic defenses to the most common openings for white - e4, d4, etc - but only through the the 3rd or 4th move.  I would argue that at least this will put them in a nice enough starting position to use the tactics they are learning.  I'm sub-1800 and have learned some opening theory that has helped me greatly and would encourage anyone who is getting above 1500 to begin going a few moves deeper into any of the basic openings they know and even add a few variations.

I can't help but feel that many of the lower rated players would do themselves a great service by learning some basic openings so they aren't blown out of the water so early in a game that they lose heart.

I do agree with this. For a beginner, it's important to learn (and apply!) the basic opening principles: control the center, develop pieces, etc. After playing a fair # of games, one starts to realize that certain sequences of moves arise rather frequently at the start of games. It is certainly worthwile to read about these and figure out what the experts do in these situations. If you look up your opening every time you finish a game, you will start to learn this information "by osmosis".

It will certainly help to know the first few moves (I'd say even first 5-7 moves) of a few of the very common openings. If there's a trap in an opening you play often, it's worth to learn that trap (so you know how to avoid it!).  However, I also feel that many people over-emphasize openings. Sub-1800 players should keep in mind that you will not lose games just because you don't know the XYZ variation of the ABC opening.

>>Many times all that technicallity puts me off, all those names of openings & defenses make me sick

I know what you mean. The funny thing is, the terminology is supposed to make the subject easier. Often though, I think it ends up confusing a lot of people. 

>>However, I have to admit that, in order to make any progress in your game & try & break the 1800 mark, it takes studying -a lot of it!

Definitely. I'm not saying that studying openings is a complete waste of time. I'm saying that sub-1800 players should stick to tried-and-true strategies instead of trying to out-do Kramnik in inventing Theoretical Novelties. 

>>I hate to admit it myself but if you really want to grow in the game, take it a step further, those opening tactics DO make a difference & the good or bad positioning you have midgame

True. But people should remember that it's not a life-or-death situation. If you know the first 6 moves of the Ruy Lopez, you probably know as much (or more) about it than the average intermediate player. If you only know the first 4 moves, well, against most sub-1800 players just continuing with principled moves and common sense should result in a playable middlegame position. Your opponent's play won't be 100% accurate in the opening either.

Anyway, the main point I was trying to make in my first post was how I constantly see people on these forums trying to argue against the opening principles espoused by 100s of books and 1000s of coaches all over the world. Don't be a slave to principles, ok fine, but try to use logic!

 In mathematics everybody wants to be a genius and redefine the theory.  People want to do calculus when they can't even solve simple algebra problems.  For example most people reading this cannot logic out the proof of the quadratic formula   

 In other words, how do you solve for the unknown x in the formula  where a ≠ 0,  to get   most people have no idea. 

And, what is even worse, most people don't know what you would use it for.   I know how to solve for x, and I love the exacting rigor of that proof and the proofs that are the foundation of it such as the theorem first proven by Gauss "the fundamental theorem of algebra" that guarantees that the second-order polynomial    has two solutions.

 In chess,from beginner to GM, matters are pretty much the same.  Most people think they are doctors of philosophy (PhD) in chess theory. They are experts in the (SWAG) Scientific Wild Ass Guess.

At the foundation of chess is a principle known as: the strategically and tactically correct advance of the pawn mass

 Now, what the hell does that mean.  To find out the answer you have to study books about pawns.     

 The best book I have ever read about pawns is:

                Pawn Power In Chess, Hans Kmoch

   I am very thankful for chess and for everything that I have been allowed to learn about it. 

    mandelshtam,

         I play on a website known as ICC. Would you like to play a game of chess?

 Did you actually read anything I wrote? Providing analysis of a particular opening was not the purpose of this thread.

Look at my first post. Do you agree with my points #1 and #2 ? It seems to me that some people on these forums ignore these points when discussing openings. If you feel that these points are incorrect, please share your reasons. I suspect that these points are correct and people ignore them simply because they don't understand. 

 I do agree with them, I don't see on the other hand the need to follow your instructions.... Your points made are obvious to me. I read many books on strategy and tactics. But I would like to obtain new knowledge.

This requires a discussion where variants are shown, improved and perhaps refuted.