What does it mean to mean to "man up" ? Can u translate it into some human language ?
Does anyone NOT study openings?
Sort:
Reb wrote:[...] I believe all 3 phases of chess are equally important if you want to go above 2000 otb rating. I think it would be bad/wrong to over-emphasize opening study to the neglect of the middlegame and/or endgame ofcourse so the key is to find a balance in your work/study of chess. Another thing to consider is the level a players is at and the strength of their opponents. I wouldnt give the same advice to a 1000 player that I would to a 1600 , or a 2000 player.
[...] If you are losing games in the opening then you certainly need to do some opening work. [...] Look at your last ten lost games, where are you losing the majority of your games ? Find the weakest part of your game and work on it first .
I am rated ~1900 and have recently lost several OTB games against stronger opponents. In each of them, I was out of "book" pretty quickly; in most of them, I was at least somewhat worse after move 10 (and eventually lost in the endgame).
Now according to what you wrote, that means I should study more openings.
When I think of studying openings, I think of studying specific positions / lines, expanding my opening knowledge. The sort of knowledge that quickly becomes useless if an unexpected variation arises.
People around my level tend to play stuff all over the place, e.g. in my games in the last few weeks and on the boards around me I've seen 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nc3 Bf5; 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 Nc6 3.Nc3 e5 4.e3; 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.e4; 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd8; et cetera. It's exceedingly rare that something that either players knows to move 10 appears on the board, and I am an opening nerd according to my team mates.
Around move 7 or 8 in an unknown position, what matters is picking the right plan, seeing the tactics coming up (my last game was 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 c5, ok I should have known this, but here I played 7.Be3? Ng4 8.Bg5 cxd4 and only now did I notice how irritating 9.Nxd4 Qb6 is. That's mostly a calculation / tactics / concentration issue in my opinion, but ok this could have been avoided with more knowledge), knowing where to put the pieces.
What's needed in an unknown position around move 7/8 is already middlegame skills, in my opinion. Opening study helps when you end up in an opening position you know, and more study makes that more likely, of course -- but people play such a huge variety of openings that that's never going to be 100% around the 1900-2100 level.
So in short even though I get worse positions before move 10, I still think that it's often my middlegame skills that are causing it.
Unless you have a different view of what opening study is, in which case I want to hear about it :-)
AnthonyCG wrote:
A lot of people fall into the trap of learning loads of theory. Their chess never improves and then they go switching openings until they get better (which they won't).
They may get an advantage in the opening but it only takes one move to throw it away so if you can't play the middlegame then you're just screwed.
Which is why we shouldn't start at the opening, but the endgame and move up to the opening. If we study the opening first, the above will happen. Study the endgame, then move on to middlegame, then finally to the opening. Noobs shoudn't do the opening first, though. I have an ELO 1564 and yes, im trying to make my first steps in chess.com..
Openings make chess fun, too. you get to use terminology etc. Plus, we should study openings. Most noobs would say, I am studying the middle game heyy do you know what a pin is..?", and they simply fall in an opening trap; and blame the middlegame..
Scarblac wrote:
Reb wrote:[...] I believe all 3 phases of chess are equally important if you want to go above 2000 otb rating. I think it would be bad/wrong to over-emphasize opening study to the neglect of the middlegame and/or endgame ofcourse so the key is to find a balance in your work/study of chess. Another thing to consider is the level a players is at and the strength of their opponents. I wouldnt give the same advice to a 1000 player that I would to a 1600 , or a 2000 player.
[...] If you are losing games in the opening then you certainly need to do some opening work. [...] Look at your last ten lost games, where are you losing the majority of your games ? Find the weakest part of your game and work on it first .
I am rated ~1900 and have recently lost several OTB games against stronger opponents. In each of them, I was out of "book" pretty quickly; in most of them, I was at least somewhat worse after move 10 (and eventually lost in the endgame).
Now according to what you wrote, that means I should study more openings.
When I think of studying openings, I think of studying specific positions / lines, expanding my opening knowledge. The sort of knowledge that quickly becomes useless if an unexpected variation arises.
People around my level tend to play stuff all over the place, e.g. in my games in the last few weeks and on the boards around me I've seen 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nc3 Bf5; 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 Nc6 3.Nc3 e5 4.e3; 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.e4; 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd8; et cetera. It's exceedingly rare that something that either players knows to move 10 appears on the board, and I am an opening nerd according to my team mates.
Around move 7 or 8 in an unknown position, what matters is picking the right plan, seeing the tactics coming up (my last game was 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 0-0 6.Be2 c5, ok I should have known this, but here I played 7.Be3? Ng4 8.Bg5 cxd4 and only now did I notice how irritating 9.Nxd4 Qb6 is. That's mostly a calculation / tactics / concentration issue in my opinion, but ok this could have been avoided with more knowledge), knowing where to put the pieces.
What's needed in an unknown position around move 7/8 is already middlegame skills, in my opinion. Opening study helps when you end up in an opening position you know, and more study makes that more likely, of course -- but people play such a huge variety of openings that that's never going to be 100% around the 1900-2100 level.
So in short even though I get worse positions before move 10, I still think that it's often my middlegame skills that are causing it.
Unless you have a different view of what opening study is, in which case I want to hear about it :-)
Are the majority of your losses ( last 10 lost games ) coming from poor opening play ? If they are I would say you need to work on your openings for sure.
You say you are often getting worse positions before move 10 , if this is true also with the white pieces then I would say you dont know the openings you play well/deep enough. As you go up the rating ladder this weakness will hurt you more and more as you will face stronger players. The stronger your opponents become the more you will be punished for poor opening play. After 6...c5 white has several good moves with 7. 0-0 and 7. d5 both being excellent options. The move you chose 7. Be3 is also ok after 7... Ng4 8 Bg5 (Bc1 !?) cxd4 9. Nxd4 Qb6 10. Bxg4 Bxg4 11 Qxg4 Qxb2 12. 0-0 and white is ok I think.
In your last 10 losses were you worse after the opening in most of them ?
I'll check tonight. I agree that that KID line was one that I should have known, it's not particularly rare, but it's not a good example.
Another bad example is the 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 Nc6 3.Nc3 e5 4.e3 line I gave. There I was Black, and 4.e3 isn't very good, and not theoretical (I expected 4.d5). So there it was my opponent who didn't know the opening theory. But it's a bad example because if I recall correctly I was still doing fine by move 10, I went astray later.
I'll look up my last 10 losses tonight.
Dec 15, 2009
0
#147
I study chess openings because it gives me an insight into what might be about to come and the point of openings and what they are trying to achieve .... but it is the middle game where i struggle after the opening moves .....
Gave it up years ago.
I study games in the lines I play.
I am more interested in the ideas than some abstract theoretical +/- caper.
Computers allow this sort of study, with access to large databases.
Studying openings and not ideas is a waste of time and effort. At some point you arrive at a position where you have no idea what to do next.
I coach Juniors and they are obsessed by Opening Theory so I know that what I am saying here will go totally unheeded.
paul211 wrote:
I would say for having played the game for almost 1/2 a century the opening is critical in terms of understanding what the purpose of the opening is so that one can plan accordingly her/his moves in the game, naturally the plan will change to react to the opponent's move, but the intrinsic understanding of the purpose of the opening will guide you a lot into making the next right move.
Well said, those who can understand will understand.
And don't start with any veiled threats on me....