Does chess openings really matter if you will win or not?

@sholom90 - I believe this represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how time works in the learning of chess. You are assuming that there is a 1 to 1 tradeoff in studying tactics and learning openings, and that equal time spent will lead to equal amounts of improvement. This is pure speculation.

I can do a chessable course for three hours on an opening and learn several lines and several refutations in openings I play every time. These lines go deep into the middle game and often all the way to the endgame, explain why certain positions are advantageous, and give insights into tactical opportunities that arise. Instead of this, I could do three hours of puzzles.

I've done hours and hours of puzzles, and I can honestly tell you that they haven't done a whole lot to help me improve. Have I learned certain patterns? Sure. Has it forced me to calculate? Sure. But puzzles are also false friends. Puzzles have solutions and you know that going into them. Real games often don't have solutions, so nothing about real life says "pause the video and find the winning move."

Is being good at tactics more important than learning openings? Sure. Does spending an hour on your tactics help you just as much as spending an hour on theory in games you play every day? You assume yes, but I find that there's no reason to believe that this is the one-to-one tradeoff that you assert it to be.

Imo studying theory is completely futile unless someone's calculation, visualization and board awareness is not at a strong level. Super GMs study theory since when a computer says "it's +0.6 " they know that they have the tactical sight and skills to overcome any novelty or trick which black might want to throw at them. They have their tactical base covered, that's why they just study openings.

In real games, even in slow chess, i find that people just get lazy. Tactics won't offer themselves on a plate in a real game so u always need to be calculating and visualizing, something which is draining to do. They end up making random opening moves and end up being worse in the middlegames.

My experience is not your experience. I've done an extensive course on the Alekhine that shows every counter you are likely to face, including bad ones, and how to take advantage of them. I now win more often with black than I do as white.

Again, you're missing the point of my argument, though. I fully agreed that tactics are more important, what I'm arguing is that there's no surefire way to improve tactics, and that time spent vs. amount learned is in no way equivalent.

People can scream until they are blue that "tactics are more important!" If it were easy or time-efficient to just learn tactics, everyone would do it. Puzzles are inefficient. Reading is inefficient. Looking at positions is ineffecient. You just don't snap your fingers and say "git gud" at tactics.

Since I am a random nobody, i would quote the second greatest chess player to ever have lived. When asked in an interview "what is the core requirement to be a good chess player? like how baseball hitters need good hand eye coordination", Fischer said that the core skill to chess is the ability to keep a future position on the board clearly or having a strong visualization... 

Tactic puzzles are there to teach visualization. Don't train tactics, train visualization. For every move try to calculate and lookahead what u would do and how the position would look like after X number of moves. I find that people are way too lazy to be trying to visualize right from the start and hence they often make mistakes early on since visualization is draining

Just training visualization would improve both tactics and strategy. Tactic puzzles are just there as a shortcut. They force one to visualize and calculate

Going over a few opening lines is a great warmup before quick games. If I train tactics then go straight to a game I do way worse than normal, you have to actually use your brain for tactic training.

Umm, just how many times do I have to agree with you that tactics are more important?

Let see... I've tried for years to be able to visualize a board, but I can't. Many people can't. Some children just do it naturally.

I'm sorry, you are still missing my point. You just can't keep saying "yeah, but it's MORE IMPORTANT!!!" without at least trying to address the point I'm making that becoming good at tactics is incredibly time consuming.

We all know that there are people who are 2500 rated in puzzles and 1000 rated in chess. Why? Because puzzles are only marginally useful.

Becoming good at tactics and visualization is the easiest thing in chess since it is directly related to practice. You don't need to have a natural talent for understanding chess, u can just keep on trying to look x moves ahead and eventually your visualization will be improved.

If you have tried for years to get better at your lookahead(able to see the board clearly after X moves) then you clearly are doing something wrong if you aren't improving. Maybe there are plenty of gaps in your training time? try to constantly do such visualization exercises daily, u will surely see improvement.

Puzzles just test one's ability to calculate and visualize different lines. In order to actually use such lines in an actual game one must be willing to ask himself "what if this move is played"... such visualization is very draining so most people "play by the hand" instead. This may very well be what u are doing since this is my problem too

Visualization is easy, he says... I've been playing since I was 7, played on my high school team and reached 1500 USCF. I've done zillions of puzzles. When I close my eyes, I don't see a board, I see a 404 error screen.

Sorry, some of us just don't have brains that work that way.

A lot of good comments in this thread!  Awesome!

@kartikeya_tiwari -- if you are rated above 1700, then nothing that I'm saying applies to you.  I'm talking mostly to folks who are U1400 or so.  My coach says he reached 1700 on pretty much solely tactics.  To get past there,  you need a lot more

@NikkiLikeChikki writes: "I've done hours and hours of puzzles, and I can honestly tell you that they haven't done a whole lot to help me improve."

Ahh -- now we're getting somewhere!  Tactics do not necessarily equal Puzzles!

(But before I go into that, let me digress and ask a personal question:  If you go over your last 10 losses, what would you say is the most common reason you lost?  And, question two: did you miss at least one tactic that would have netted you a pawn (or miss one from your opponent that netted him a pawn) in the vast majority of those losses?)

Dan Heisman has an interesting approach to tactics (see https://web.archive.org/web/20140714190611/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman04.pdf)
Basically, he says there are two types of tactics training: one is to learn how to figure stuff out and calculate. But another, much under-appreciated, way is to learn to recognize -- i.e., to memorize. (Just like, say, when we see a queen and a bishop pointing at that f7 pawn, we often see it right away)

He gives a great analogy: we all know how to figure out 7 times 6, right? You add 7+7+7+7+7+7. Simple as that, right? And yet, that takes time and brainpower that we don't need to you. Simply memorizing that 7x6=42 (which pretty much all of us have done) is much easier and efficient, right?

And so he suggests getting a simple book (e.g., Bain, Chess Tactics for Students) and doing them again and again, until you can get 85% of them in 15 seconds or less..

This is not to exclude the other way tactics are useful -- the seemingly infinite number of puzzles here, chesstempo, etc. It's just that the method I'm describing here is extremely helpful -- essential, he would say -- to improving.

(See the Novice Nooks A Different Approach to Studying Tactics and The Most Common and Important Use of Tactics.)

And the reason this makes sense is simple: you don't want to have to calculate everything from scratch on every move. You want to able to see the back-row mate possibilities immediately, or the Qxf7 mate immediately, or Nxc7 fork of a rook and king. Most of us already do. But there are 2000 other patterns. Another one that's just a tad above easy: when a king is in a corner surrounded by his 7th rank pawns in front and a piece next to him -- you should immediately think: where's my knight, is there a smother mate here? And so on. During a game you just don't have the brainpower or stamina or time to calculate all the possibilities -- you want to see the ones that might work because you've seen them before.

Have you ever seen a 2000+ player rip through a puzzle rush?  (There's a video of Hikaru and "Tani" battling it out, it's amazing).  How in the world can they do them so fast?  So they have superhuman computing powers?  No.  It's that they recognize the patterns.

Puzzles are not the be-all and end-all of studying tactics.  One needs to practice calculation and the important concept of "counting" (which one rarely sees written about).

@kartikeya_tiwari writes: "In real games, even in slow chess, i find that people just get lazy. Tactics won't offer themselves on a plate in a real game so u always need to be calculating and visualizing, something which is draining to do."

Yes!  I totally agree.  Nobody's holding up a sign that says "tactics here!"  That's why we need to  learn to recognize patterns!  As I just wrote a paragraph or two above:  "During a game you just don't have the brainpower or stamina or time to calculate all the possibilities -- you want to see the ones that might work because you've seen them before."

I had a session with my coach today.  We came to the following position in a game of mine:

I'm black.  As you can see, I'm winning.  He's got an extra pawn, but I have an extra knight.  I had just moved my queen from c3 to c4.  He asked me why I did that.  I said that I wanted to move Qg4, which could protect any attack and perhaps force a trade of queens.

He said, but you can't play Qg4, that's a terrible move, do you know why?

It took me about five minutes to figure it out.  *He*, on the other hand, took one second to see it.  I asked him how he could see it so fast.  He said that he recognized this kind of pattern.

He also said that when I get to the point that I can either recognize this pattern, or figure these things out quickly, I will add 100's of points to my rating.  (And if I can't, I'm not going to improve very much).

(Tangent: did it matter what opening I played?  And, btw, I was playing in an opening I had never played before as black and was sort of making it up as I was going along -- and my coach was not happy with my opening play.  He fully understood that I didn't know the opening, and I didn't really make any bad moves during the opening, but he criticized me for not following opening principles).

The above diagram involves the skill of counting.  It's a terribly important skill.  Very very few books focus on this concept.

(BTW, in my game above: white played something else which made it impossible for me to play Qg4 anyway, and I ending up playing a worse move, he won a piece, and I lost.  In other words, I lost because I missed a tactic by my opponent.  That's how pretty much all my losses go.  Not in the openings -- but a missed tactic towards the end of the middle game).

I'll end with one other thought: 

Playing chess well involves knowledge and skills.  (I've heard it said that knowledge is 1/3 of the game, and skills are 2/3).  Almost 95% of the books out there are about increasing knowledge (openings, pawn structures, endgames, what have you).  Some of that is good!  But for a developing player, say, sometimes trying to get to 1400 or so, practicing skills is what is needed most.

For those who want to explore more, you might want to check out Dan Heisman's Back to Basics: Tactics.  It is not a puzzle book (although there are a nice number of puzzle/exercises at the end of each chapter).  A review of the book is at https://web.archive.org/web/20140708233537/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review585.pdf 

A great overall post.

Though I will say, in that position you posted:

You said that you wanted to play Qg4, to trade queens ... but didn't notice the RxN tactic (which is what I assume you're talking about).

I'd like to point out that one doesn't need to "know" the RxN tactic ... if one simply does a "opponent's candidate moves" check.

I do this with every move (unless it's an obvious move):

Step 1) I identify my candidate moves. Usually a move (or two) stands out. Sometimes 3.

Step 2 (and here is the point): Identify my opponent's best moves, in response to each candidate move.

This is where, in Step 2, you would've hopefully found RxN ... because you'd think, "Okay, if I place my queen on g4 ... what are some moves my opponent might play in response?"

*Your first thing to check should always be captures and sacrifices ...*

This is where you would've found RxN, as it's one of the few possible captures in the position.

So my overall point is that such tactics can be found, even if one is unfamiliar with them ... by simply taking the time to look ahead, at your opponent's possible responses ... and by always looking for captures/sacrifices first.

More to the point: I'm relatively weak at tactics. I would not have spotted the RxN tactic, on first glance. But I would've immediately spotted it, once I began considering my opponent's possible responses.

So one can, ironically, can be a decent tactical player, without actually being good at tactics.

@sholom90 - I admit to being a special case: I have ADHD and it severely inhibits my calculation skills. The main reason I lose is because of board blindness and being outplayed tactically. I am very very very bad at fast chess, and the faster, the worse I am. In slow chess, I force myself to slow down and look at all of the possibilities, and have a mental checklist that I go through that I can't in fast chess.

But the original question was "does learning openings matter" and clearly the answer is yes. I may not be able to calculate, but I can memorize. I crutch hard on theory and in most of my games I'm better out of the opening. Is this enough to win me every game? No. Does it win me a lot of games? Most definitely yes. That's why I think it's so dumb when people say "theory doesn't matter until X level." Knowing theory is *always* better than not knowing theory.

I have a WGM friend who is like 2400-2500 in bullet and blitz, and I literally know more theory than she does. This is not even a joke. She's super lazy about learning theory and hates studying it because it bores her. She once faced a Nimzo-Larsen on stream, had to be reminded what the opening was called, played a bunch of objectively inferior moves in the opening, then checkmated her opponent in 23 moves. I am the first to admit that tactics are more important. Would she be better if she worked on her Nimzo-Indian theory, which she loses too far too often against good players? Absolutely.

Why does she win, though? Because she's a wizard at calculating even in positions that she doesn't know. But I will *never* have her tactical mind no matter how many tactics drills I do. She was better at tactics when she was 8 years old than I am now, and it's not because she did a zillion puzzles or read a bunch of books.

But you can't conclude from that that theory doesn't matter.

"My point is, opening principles don't matter at all. The only thing which matters is good moves which can be found by practicing looking ahead and visualization."

Sorry, but I don't understand that.  Castling is usually good in the first 5-6 moves.  How does "looking ahead" tell me I want to castle?  The same could be asked on getting a good center and developing pieces.  I've seen many games, even by masters, where by move 10, 11, 12 the player is developing pieces.  If you're still developing pieces at move 11, how does "looking ahead" when you're on move 3 help?

On the other hand, if one follows the opening principle of "move every piece twice before you move any piece once, unless there is a tactic" -- well, that's pretty valuable to follow for someone under 1400 or 1200, regardless of whether he can see ahead well or not.

@Stil1 -- (Without reposting the diagram) -- you wrote:

"You said that you wanted to play Qg4, to trade queens ... but didn't notice the RxN tactic (which is what I assume you're talking about)."

Right.  I took a quick look and made the correct assessment that: "the knight is being attacked twice and defended twice".  I erred by stopping there and concluding "therefore it's safe".  I didn't play it out in my head and didn't see that RxN is also a "removal of the guard" that forces me to play QxQ first.  Then when RxQ my bishop can't take back.  I "counted" correctly on one square, but I needed to count on two squares.

To me -- that's the real bread of butter of why I'm not winning games.  Not seeing stuff like that.

Nikki wrote:

I admit to being a special case: I have ADHD and it severely inhibits my calculation skills. The main reason I lose is because of board blindness and being outplayed tactically. I am very very very bad at fast chess, and the faster, the worse I am. In slow chess, I force myself to slow down and look at all of the possibilities, and have a mental checklist that I go through that I can't in fast chess.

I do that, too.  Not because I have ADHD, but because my brain is slower and I'm not experienced.  And so: my daily chess is 500 points higher for me than my rapid which is another 300-400 points higher than my blitz.

But the original question was "does learning openings matter" and clearly the answer is yes. I may not be able to calculate, but I can memorize.

Two responses:

1.  I would humbly suggest that if you're good at memorizing patterns, then follow the protocol I mentioned above (culminating in getting 85% of Bain puzzles correct in 15 seconds or less).  (I'd urge you to check out those Novice Nook columns I linked to, especially given the ADHD and that you are good at memorization.  You might not agree with the columns -- but you should see what he has to say about it). 

2.  I'm not being stubborn -- but how does memorizing opening lines help if you're going to lose on a tactic later?  Two tournaments ago I faced a guy 700 points higher than me (!!) in my opening round.  I played the opening perfectly!  (So did he).  But on move 9 I dropped a piece to a tactic.  In my most recent tournament I played a French game perfectly book for 8-10 moves, and then made a big mistake.  My opponent not only didn't see my mistake, but made a bigger one in his response.  That was the entire difference of the game.  My opening didn't matter.  (He was 400 points higher than me, and did the old Bxh6 sacrifice -- except he didn't have enough to back it up, and basically it just gave me a bishop for a pawn).  The opening was irrelevant to this blunder.

Knowing why/how an opening is supposed to work, and the ideas behind it, are good for the openings you play a lot.  But memorizing lines is a different thing.  At our level -- at my level -- almost everyone is out of book by move 5 anyway, so then what?

I often like to let the position (and the pawn structures) guide me.

For example, in this position, what would be a good, logical move for white, assuming you know no theory in it?

Hopefully you thought of "bishop to b2". Because that's clearly what the pawn structure is calling for. It's a logical continuation of the previous move..

This is how I approach moves and positions ... by looking at logical moves that would make sense in the position.

These other moves would've all been fine, too: g3, f4, nf3, e4, e3, d3, d4, c3, c4 ... all would've been fine. No theory needed to play any of those, because they're all logical and reasonable moves.

(And so on, and so forth.)

Yes, this kind of playing takes practice, and it may run into occasional trappy lines ... but such lines can be learned from along the way ...

@Stil1 wrote:  "These other moves would've all been fine, too: g3, f4, nf3, e4, e3, d3, d4, c3, c4 ... all would've been fine. No theory needed to play any of those, because they're all logical and reasonable moves."

And why is that?  Because they adhere to opening principles!  And one of the main principles is: control or occupy the center.  And all those moves do that.  Period.  Done.

"Yes, this kind of playing takes practice, and it may run into occasional trappy lines ... but such lines can be learned from along the way ..."

Exactly.  Play lots of games.  Review each one, always asking: what's the first move that I could have improved on?  What's the first move that -- if I were to face it again, I'd play a different move.  Then add that to your memory bank.  Rinse and repeat.

How is c3 logical

I guarantee that Openings are crucial.

Of course they are.  Starting a game with a4 then h4 will get you in trouble.

I think the question is whether learning opening principles (as opposed to specific opening theory on some openings) is enough for a beginner and/or post-beginner.

I beat a 1900 with black playing 1...a6 2...h6