I definitely study openings. IF you play this and this and this and this this and this and this and this and you dont know a thing about any of them, you are almost certainly doomed, unless ou have extremely natural ability and can make up the same lines made hundreds of years ago, study openings. It helps
Does anyone NOT study openings?
Sort:
ktmnz0 wrote:
Atos wrote:
Well said atos, and tricklev above also. I was thinking that very thing, that even if you know an opening doesn't mean your opponent is going to allow that opening to continue as planned.
Yes, that is well noted. I was going to say that an opening provides a plan for the middlegame, then fell a little short of that. A good opponent will usually try and thwart your plan, and you will need to modify it if not change it completely.Well that's what makes the game still challenging.
Tricklev wrote:
Well, let's use that way of thinking in all the aspects of the game then.
If you study the Lucena position, that's cheating, if you read a book on tactical problems, you are cheating, if you read a book on positional understanding, you are cheating, if you play through a master game, you are cheating.
Basicly, all aspects of learning that you do with outside help, be it book, friend, looking through games etc, is cheating, you aren't learning on your own, you are just stealing already developed ideas.
Exactly, because as we all know it's quite retarded to re-invent the wheel over and over again.
Dec 10, 2009
0
#105
You point out exactly the differences between the two activities people think of when "studying" an opening. Clearly you learned enough to know the themes of the various set-ups and take active steps to counter them. This is really very useful for all amateurs, and people who refuse to study opening even this deeply are doing themselves a disservice. Memorizing longlines by rote is a waste of time for most people. It might be good to get down the first six moves of openings you encounter, along with the reason why these are good moves, but that's as far as rote needs to go.
I find it funny sometimes that attacking players like to play the KID because of the "kingside attack", yet they don't realize that that d5 move (to close the center and allow a safe pawn storm) is not compelled at all if white chooses the right variation. If you force him to play quietly and play the fianchetto variation or something, I bet he would have no idea what to do and if he still tries ...f5 it's probably just weakening the kingside and the center. I mean the KID starts out hypermodern, so you can't assume that the center is going to be clarified BY FORCE in a few more moves and you're gonna generate an attack in it. And if white plays the four pawns, oh crap, now black is getting attacked. I play the KID quite a bit myself and I'm ready for a positional battle or a kingside attack, it all depends on how white uses his center, or if he even chooses to make a big center at all.
i get the better out of the opening most of times against my friend but i guess its a reason that he is IM and beats me everytime while im a clubplayer
he even beat me with queenodds sometimes and he have never touched a openingbook but seems to have unlimited knowledge on pawnstructures, middlegames and endgames and all that
scmooney wrote:
I am not a rated player, but I have been playing chess for 45 years. I first experienced dramatic improvement upon studying middlegame tactics. However, there was further improvement after studying the opening. In my experience, a player who approaches the opening intentionally has an advantage over a player who sees the opening as just some stuff you have to do in order to get into the middle game.
magnus carlsen hated to study openings and just went for a playable middlegame. it worked quite well for him
tigergutt wrote:
i get the better out of the opening most of times against my friend but i guess its a reason that he is IM and beats me everytime while im a clubplayer he even beat me with queenodds sometimes and he have never touched a openingbook but seems to have unlimited knowledge on pawnstructures, middlegames and endgames and all that
I don't believe it. What's his name?
Dec 10, 2009
0
#110
tigergutt wrote:
scmooney wrote:
I am not a rated player, but I have been playing chess for 45 years. I first experienced dramatic improvement upon studying middlegame tactics. However, there was further improvement after studying the opening. In my experience, a player who approaches the opening intentionally has an advantage over a player who sees the opening as just some stuff you have to do in order to get into the middle game.
magnus carlsen hated to study openings and just went for a playable middlegame. it worked quite well for him
But look what happened when he started studying openings with Kasparov! As soon as he started using a few of Kasparov's opening systems he starts winning major tournaments.
Also, it isn't true to say he didn't study openings. He was well known for being an expert in the sicilian dragon.
Anyway, all this talk of GMs not studying openings is relative. For them "not studying openings" is on the same level as the top few non-titled players on chess.com who spend every non-working and non-waking moment studying. A GM who really studies his openings has a team of other GMs analysing the lines for him, knowledge of the most up-to-date theoretical novelties, several powerful computers chugging away night and day trying to find new TNs and a wealth of experience and accumulated game-time.
I know some fairly strong (club level) players who have never touched an opening book, but they have picked up some openings from playing or from watching others play. So they know the openings at least the first 5-6 moves even if they don't know what they are called. The IMs and FMs whom I know have certainly studied openings, know the names of the major openings and probably variations etc. But they might not like using those names in conversation eg. I once heard a GM talking to another GM say "I take on c6" meaning that he plays the Ruy Lopez Exchange. I'd bet that he knew what it is called though.
jonnyjupiter wrote:
When I was a kid playing in tournaments I got to 1850 FIDE without knowing a thing about openings or strategy. I got into bad positions from the opening and learned a lot from fighting my way out of them. I kicked some butt with crazy kingside attacks and good tactical calculation.
I then grew up, got a job, had kids, forgot about chess.
On coming back to the game I thought, "wouldn't it be good if I could use my skills to fight back from an even position or a better position?" I learned a few openings and read a few books on strategy and, although some of my calculating ability has disintegrated along with my beer-soaked braincells, I am a much better player.
You could not be more wrong: beer-soaked braincells increase your calculating ability. Maybe you're drinking beer the wrong way? I find my chess scraps to be much more interesting when there is alcohol on the line.
Scarblac wrote:
People study openings because
1) It's easy -- just memorize, no understanding required
2) It gives them the chance to play at world level for a few moves at least
3) By following the fashions of the top GMs, they can feel part of their world and can make a little bit of sense of the opening battles between top players (why would player X play that opening against Y?)
4) Every now and then, if they play really weak opponents, they'll win by an opening trap
5) They think their other results will improve for some bizarre reason
So study them if you like to because of 1-3, perhaps 4, but not because of reason 5.
Because your results depend on how well you play after the opening.
1. It's not just memorization. Are you serious? This is one of the most idiotic myths perpetuated in the wide world of chess platitudes. What happens when someone deviates? Do you really think that people have enormous branches of memorized theory in their brains that they just chose to sit down one day and shove into their brain? There are plenty of lines you can half-memorize because you know a couple key moves and half-remember because there are characteristic structures within those lines.
2. And what? You prefer to play at suck-level from the very beginning? Openings gurus do not ape GM's just so they feel cool and sophisticated for a moment.
3. Yes, it's like an academic discussion when high-level players play openings against one another. What does it matter that the first "original" move comes fifteen or more moves into the game? The moves themselves are just as interesting as when they were first played and if you didn't know they had been played before you'd be none the wiser.
4. I find that the more people study openings the less they rely on cheap traps. These GM fellows don't play the Halloween Attack too often, do they? The Moller is old news for anyone 2500+ and many other crap openings are put aside once people start to learn real lines. Why? Because at some point it gets old playing the "wait and see if they fall for it" game. Plus, if you're studying your tactics or have a pragmatic brain in your head you'll be able to open a can of whoopass on newbs that play inferior trap openings against you, right?
5. You are ignorant. I'm sure nobody has ever benefited from studying openings, especially not the avalanche of other players who claim it has helped their game. I'm sure that GM's just study openings for shits and giggles too, understanding that only under completely bizarre circumstances would they have to know how to open a game of chess.
And, surprise of all surprises, the game of chess is not rigidly segmented into "opening, midgame, and endgame" either. It is fluid, and if those terms didn't exist the game would be quite the same. You win or lose a game of chess, period. It doesn't matter if it occurs in the early mid-endgame phase.
dRr0x0rZZ wrote:
1. It's not just memorization. Are you serious? This is one of the most idiotic myths perpetuated in the wide world of chess platitudes. What happens when someone deviates? Do you really think that people have enormous branches of memorized theory in their brains that they just chose to sit down one day and shove into their brain? There are plenty of lines you can half-memorize because you know a couple key moves and half-remember because there are characteristic structures within those lines.
2. And what? You prefer to play at suck-level from the very beginning? Openings gurus do not ape GM's just so they feel cool and sophisticated for a moment.
3. Yes, it's like an academic discussion when high-level players play openings against one another. What does it matter that the first "original" move comes fifteen or more moves into the game? The moves themselves are just as interesting as when they were first played and if you didn't know they had been played before you'd be none the wiser.
4. I find that the more people study openings the less they rely on cheap traps. These GM fellows don't play the Halloween Attack too often, do they? The Moller is old news for anyone 2500+ and many other crap openings are put aside once people start to learn real lines. Why? Because at some point it gets old playing the "wait and see if they fall for it" game. Plus, if you're studying your tactics or have a pragmatic brain in your head you'll be able to open a can of whoopass on newbs that play inferior trap openings against you, right?
5. You are ignorant. I'm sure nobody has ever benefited from studying openings, especially not the avalanche of other players who claim it has helped their game. I'm sure that GM's just study openings for shits and giggles too, understanding that only under completely bizarre circumstances would they have to know how to open a game of chess.
And, surprise of all surprises, the game of chess is not rigidly segmented into "opening, midgame, and endgame" either. It is fluid, and if those terms didn't exist the game would be quite the same. You win or lose a game of chess, period. It doesn't matter if it occurs in the early mid-endgame phase.
Oh dear God. Where to start with that...
Dec 13, 2009
0
#115
dRr0x0rZZ wrote:
jonnyjupiter wrote:
When I was a kid playing in tournaments I got to 1850 FIDE without knowing a thing about openings or strategy. I got into bad positions from the opening and learned a lot from fighting my way out of them. I kicked some butt with crazy kingside attacks and good tactical calculation.
I then grew up, got a job, had kids, forgot about chess.
On coming back to the game I thought, "wouldn't it be good if I could use my skills to fight back from an even position or a better position?" I learned a few openings and read a few books on strategy and, although some of my calculating ability has disintegrated along with my beer-soaked braincells, I am a much better player.
You could not be more wrong: beer-soaked braincells increase your calculating ability. Maybe you're drinking beer the wrong way? I find my chess scraps to be much more interesting when there is alcohol on the line.
It is possible that I am drinking it the wrong way. It certainly always seems to be the case in the morning.
I agree that I always find my chess encounters more interesting when they occur in a similar timeframe to my encounters with beer, but this does not always tally with high quality moves. Beer-goggles and 20-20 hindsight seem to be mutually exclusive.
I study a few, but still, the opening is amongst the least important parts of the game
Dec 13, 2009
0
#117
DragonDavid3 wrote:
I study a few, but still, the opening is amongst the least important parts of the game
How you start something often determines how you will continue it. It therefore seems unwise to suggest that the opening is unimportant.
ACG: But that's not always the case on these internet forums. There's always a case of the "chess genius" popping up who somehow knows better than the titled players who obviously know what their talking about because - oh yeah, they're titled players!
*Like yourself perhaps ?
Your whole post consisted of the ad hominem argument that those who disagree with you are not titled players. So it seems only appropriate to point out that you are not a titled player yourself. The phrase "like yourself" refered to yours "a case of the "chess genius" popping up who somehow knows better." You seem to fit that description quite well yourself. How would you know that: "No one ever became a GM because of their mastery of the opening." Even a GM could only speak for themselves, not for all GMs who ever lived. Sure, no one became a GM only because of their mastery of the opening, but that was never claimed. In fact, and this is the key point that you refuse to understand, it is not even possible to achieve a mastery of the opening only by memorizing lines and without understanding of the resulting middlegames and endgames.
Yeah atos, when I reread my comment I thought the word cheating might have been a little harsh. I meant cheating in the sense that by using someone else's opening, they have done all the thinking, planning, calculating etc. You have just done a little memorizing. Not cheating perhaps, but it doesn't take much effort to get a correct answer. Games should be a test of your own abilities, not someone else's. But like I said in my first post, I just want to play for a little fun, not make a living with it. If you are making a living with, that's a different story.
No, I am not making a living from chess, I also just play for fun. I usually use theoretical openings because they tend to be more fun. They have interesting strategic and tactical ideas that I wouldn't have come up with on my own. However, once you have learned an opening well, you will understand the ideas that are behind it. You will still need to do a lot of thinking, planning, calculating etc. but that will be later on in the game, and you will not be down on material or in an inferior position by then.
Well said atos, and tricklev above also. I was thinking that very thing, that even if you know an opening doesn't mean your opponent is going to allow that opening to continue as planned. In every game, you want to do this, but your opponent does that, now you can't do this anymore. So let's all learn our openings, study our tactics, and then learn how to see the opportunities that our opponents present us in the games we play.