How about this, pawn moves in the opening are only good if they help you develop a minor piece.
Does chess openings really matter if you will win or not?
Sort:
Dec 9, 2021
0
#203
dfgh123 wrote:
How about this, pawn moves in the opening are only good if they help you develop a minor piece.
I think you also need to add: "or will help control the center." (Of course, most pawn moves in the opening do both)
Stil1 wrote:
dfgh123 wrote:
How is c3 logical
2.c3 wouldn't be my move of choice, there.
But if you said, "You must play 2.c3 there!", then I'd shrug and play it.
Because most anything is playable.
Because openings aren't as crucial as most players think. Engines and theory have deluded players into believing that they must play like grandmasters in the opening ... which isn't true at all.
Just make decent, reasonable moves, and reach a playable middle-game position. Done and done.
Then play chess, from there on out.
I am trying to practice the larry evans method https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/gm-larry-evans-method-of-static-analysis
force- material is equal, black has more pawns on queenside and a pawn on 4th vs 3rd
space- space is equal? but white has better coordination
time-white has lost a tempo and hasn't castled
so whites plan should be to watch out for tactics and try to exchange threatning pieces and get castled.
sholom90 wrote:
dfgh123 wrote:
How about this, pawn moves in the opening are only good if they help you develop a minor piece.
I think you also need to add: "or will help control the center." (Of course, most pawn moves in the opening do both)
good point.
Top level it matters but not really at low levels. Middlegame and Endgames are what carries there. But I do like my opening prep
Stil1 wrote:
sholom90 wrote:
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).
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.
Isn't this a sign of a player having a very decent command of tactical abilities in itself?
Frankly, there are many things that are more useful in terms of improvement than opening theory:
- seeing tactical patterns
- calculation skills
- opening ideas and early middle game structures
- basics of positional play
- theoretical endings
- endgame techniques
Dec 10, 2021
0
#209
If you don't learn a decent opening or some responses you will have an inherent disadvantage in the game. Seeing tactical patterns or knowing endgame techniques will be absolutely useless if you don't even MAKE it to the endgame. Here's what a bad opening can do for you:
Lose position, if you're can't bring out any of your pieces your screwed, especially if you can't stop an attack.
Lose material, this ones kind of obvious.
Lose control, if the opponent brings out a queen and you cannot bring anything out to stop it *cough cough Nelson* you won't make it to the endgame.
In short you can't make any patterns if you screw up your opening, or at least it'll be 10x more difficult.
Dec 10, 2021
0
#210
IMKeto wrote:
sholom90 wrote:
A-Primitive-Idiot wrote:
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
show the game please? I've seen people brag about beating someone after the tenth try, or sometimes it's just a fluke. I know nobody has ever beaten me after trying to take control of the edge of the board instead of the center.
Dec 10, 2021
0
#211
Stil1 wrote:
The reason I promote opening principles is because, quite often, your opponent is not going to be playing theory.
So learning theory, especially for beginning players, is generally not a productive use of one's time.
Sure, you can explore the main lines in the Advance French, if you find it interesting and instructive. (Or if you're at an intermediate/advanced level, where opening theory does begin to surface in your games.)
But if you try to play the French Defense, and your opponents are playing openings like this:
Then what now? They're not following the lines you read in a book.
Believe it or not, many players would panic here. "Oh no! I haven't studied my 1.a4 theory!"
Some of these players lose trust in their own abilities to play opening moves, and feel that they can only play well if they've studied the lines beforehand.
This is why I protest against theory - because it's very discouraging to see players who have been convinced (often by other players) that they have to know theory in order to play chess.
These same players get terrified of the idea of finding an opening move on their own. They get afraid of using their brain to think and find their own logical opening moves, and will instead rush to an opening book, or database, whenever they find themselves uncertain.
This is why learning opening principles can be extremely useful. If you learn (or are taught) how to make logical, principled moves (moves that encourage strong centralization of your pawns and pieces) you won't have to wonder what to do when your opponent does something strange - you'll always have a set of principles to guide you.
(Besides, most opening theory is principled. So if you play on principle, quite often you're playing the best moves in the position.)
I would argue if you're thrown off by someone not playing normally, that's more of a testament to lack of skill or confidence. Maybe playing unusually MIGHT help you against SOME people but openings are far more useful if you ask me. Although I would say there's a grain of truth in what you say. However, again if someone is thrown off that badly by someone not playing a usual opening, that just means said player needs to grow in skill and confidence.
A-Primitive-Idiot wrote:
IMKeto wrote:
sholom90 wrote:
A-Primitive-Idiot wrote:
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
show the game please? I've seen people brag about beating someone after the tenth try, or sometimes it's just a fluke. I know nobody has ever beaten me after trying to take control of the edge of the board instead of the center.
I think he is leaving out the fact the one of his moves probably attacked the centre somehow, maybe c5. Basically using his knowledge of the Sicilian defence.
Dec 10, 2021
0
#213
EKAFC wrote:
Top level it matters but not really at low levels. Middlegame and Endgames are what carries there. But I do like my opening prep
I guess that's true, but I think it'd be important for someone to learn openings early on so they aren't thrown off by higher studied players. I also think learning openings is a good introduction to basic tactics and the importance of position.
Dec 10, 2021
0
#214
dfgh123 wrote:
How is c3 logical
First of all it's a typical pattern... a pawn 3 squares away from a knight like that somewhat embarrasses the knight, taking away the 2 forwardmost squares.
But also let's consider black playing e5 or d5.
If d5 then the knight is arguably misplaced. Structures with the d pawn forward want the c pawn free to support it (by moving 1 square) or as a pawn break (by moving 2 squares, as typically white will play d4)
If e5 then c3 prepares the pawn break d4.
And in general structures on the dark squares (for white) or the light squares (for black) are very solid, so even though c3 doesn't have much synergy with 1.b3, white's position is otherwise pristine. In that regard black's 1...Nc6 was worse because in some positions the knight is not ideal there. There are no positions where, on a fundamental level, white will regret c3.
Dec 10, 2021
0
#215
CouldntFindAGoodUsername wrote:
Does chess openings really matter if you will win or not?
Yes, but not in the way most people think.
Which has probably been explained multiple times by various posts.
(It's useful to have experience playing, and knowledge of, the typical structures, strategies, and tactical themes that come from an opening... which is essentially middlegame knowledge. Theory by itself is pretty pointless in the vast majority of openings)
A-Primitive-Idiot wrote:
Here's what a bad opening can do for you:
Lose position, if you're can't bring out any of your pieces your screwed, especially if you can't stop an attack.
Lose material, this ones kind of obvious.
You don't need to memorize "theory" though to avoid losing material. Sure, there are a few traps here and there, but usually you will do well if you know the first few moves and then play logical moves from there...
llama47 wrote:
dfgh123 wrote:
How is c3 logical
First of all it's a typical pattern... a pawn 3 squares away from a knight like that somewhat embarrasses the knight, taking away the 2 forwardmost squares.
But also let's consider black playing e5 or d5.
If d5 then the knight is arguably misplaced. Structures with the d pawn forward want the c pawn free to support it (by moving 1 square) or as a pawn break (by moving 2 squares, as typically white will play d4)
If e5 then c3 prepares the pawn break d4.
And in general structures on the dark squares (for white) or the light squares (for black) are very solid, so even though c3 doesn't have much synergy with 1.b3, white's position is otherwise pristine. In that regard black's 1...Nc6 was worse because in some positions the knight is not ideal there. There are no positions where, on a fundamental level, white will regret c3.
Very Interesting, I am very simple minded so I was just thinking it breaks opening principles so it can't be good.
Dec 10, 2021
0
#218
I will tell my usual story. I had 2 students.
One actually listened to me and worked on tactics, opening principles, and endgames.
The other was all about openings. Spent al his time memorizing moves.
About a year later student #1 was rated about 400 points higher than "openings" student.
Yeah, I think it is no coincidence that most people here who stress the importance of studying openings are rated around 1000.
Dec 10, 2021
0
#220
Stop it @Jenium - your argument is just a caricature of what people have said. NOBODY here has argued that openings were more important than tactics. That's just an annoying and dumb straw man argument. The only thing anyone has said is that knowing theory is better than not knowing theory, that studying it isn't a waste of time, and that it sometimes can give you an advantage. Seriously, just stop belittling people.
How is c3 logical
2.c3 wouldn't be my move of choice, there.
But if you said, "You must play 2.c3 there!", then I'd shrug and play it.
Because most anything is playable.
Because openings aren't as crucial as most players think. Engines and theory have deluded players into believing that they must play like grandmasters in the opening ... which isn't true at all.
Just make decent, reasonable moves, and reach a playable middle-game position. Done and done.
Then play chess, from there on out.