Yes chess openings matters allways.
In the start you might have to learn moves that stops schoolars mate or early queen attacks. Now im currently trying to learn how to play vs various opening gambits. I have been deadlost many times because i made the wrong move vs some opening trick or tactic. So if i loose a game in the opening i try to go back and study that game to see what i did wrong and what I should have done.
Yes chess openings matters allways.
In the start you might have to learn moves that stops schoolars mate or early queen attacks. Now im currently trying to learn how to play vs various opening gambits. I have been deadlost many times because i made the wrong move vs some opening trick or tactic. So if i loose a game in the opening i try to go back and study that game to see what i did wrong and what I should have done.
That's a little bit different from "learning openings", but point well taken.
The following an exerpt from Dan Heisman's column at https://web.archive.org/web/20140627062646/https://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman81.pdf
(1) The advice: Review each of your games, identifying opening (and other) mistakes with
the goal of not repeatedly making the same mistake.
Why it is helpful: One of the most meaningful things someone can do to improve at
anything is to identify your mistakes and misconceptions and set up an “improvement
loop” to help avoid repeating those mistakes. It is especially critical not to continually fall
into opening traps – or even lines that result in difficult positions – by reviewing opening
moves in an opening encyclopedia or database. One should be able to answer the question:
“If my opponent played the same way next time, where would I deviate?” In the
middlegame and endgame, review the game with a strong player or, at worst, a computer
(which can at least indicate tactical mistakes). The goal is to confidently feel that you
would know what to do if the same pattern arose.
Yes chess openings matters allways.
In the start you might have to learn moves that stops schoolars mate or early queen attacks. Now im currently trying to learn how to play vs various opening gambits. I have been deadlost many times because i made the wrong move vs some opening trick or tactic. So if i loose a game in the opening i try to go back and study that game to see what i did wrong and what I should have done.
That's a little bit different from "learning openings", but point well taken.
The following an exerpt from Dan Heisman's column at https://web.archive.org/web/20140627062646/https://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman81.pdf
(1) The advice: Review each of your games, identifying opening (and other) mistakes with
the goal of not repeatedly making the same mistake.
Why it is helpful: One of the most meaningful things someone can do to improve at
anything is to identify your mistakes and misconceptions and set up an “improvement
loop” to help avoid repeating those mistakes. It is especially critical not to continually fall
into opening traps – or even lines that result in difficult positions – by reviewing opening
moves in an opening encyclopedia or database. One should be able to answer the question:
“If my opponent played the same way next time, where would I deviate?” In the
middlegame and endgame, review the game with a strong player or, at worst, a computer
(which can at least indicate tactical mistakes). The goal is to confidently feel that you
would know what to do if the same pattern arose.
Thanks for sharing the link. I ended up reading the pdf and it was very interesting, i learned that i should look at some annotated games from masters, not dive to deaph but rather fast read some game. I have never watched annotated games. But im also very new to chess.
Yes chess openings matters allways.
In the start you might have to learn moves that stops schoolars mate or early queen attacks. Now im currently trying to learn how to play vs various opening gambits. I have been deadlost many times because i made the wrong move vs some opening trick or tactic. So if i loose a game in the opening i try to go back and study that game to see what i did wrong and what I should have done.
That's a little bit different from "learning openings", but point well taken.
The following an exerpt from Dan Heisman's column at https://web.archive.org/web/20140627062646/https://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman81.pdf
(1) The advice: Review each of your games, identifying opening (and other) mistakes with
the goal of not repeatedly making the same mistake.
Why it is helpful: One of the most meaningful things someone can do to improve at
anything is to identify your mistakes and misconceptions and set up an “improvement
loop” to help avoid repeating those mistakes. It is especially critical not to continually fall
into opening traps – or even lines that result in difficult positions – by reviewing opening
moves in an opening encyclopedia or database. One should be able to answer the question:
“If my opponent played the same way next time, where would I deviate?” In the
middlegame and endgame, review the game with a strong player or, at worst, a computer
(which can at least indicate tactical mistakes). The goal is to confidently feel that you
would know what to do if the same pattern arose.
Thanks for sharing the link. I ended up reading the pdf and it was very interesting, i learned that i should look at some annotated games from masters, not dive to deaph but rather fast read some game. I have never watched annotated games. But im also very new to chess.
Yes -- it is a great article, isn't it!
DH has specific recommendations for reading annotated games, in ascending order of difficulty. The first three on the list are:
I've read the first (awesome first book) and (almost finished with) the third (which is similar to the first, but on a *very slightly* higher level, and the games are fresher and more exciting. imho).
The second one on the list is a very interesting concept -- as it shows mistakes that those a level of 1500 or so would make, and what moves would be better. (And many of those mistakes are exactly the same ones that I would make!). It occurred to me that just like one can learn a lot from one's own mistakes, one can also learn from other's mistakes (especially if the concepts behind the mistake are not too advanced). That's a book where one can't go through the games quickly because sometimes the author has a full page or two of discussion on a single move. Those discussions are very educational.
(Too see more of that list, and other useful book lists, see https://www.danheisman.com/recommended-book-lists.html)
The only way to achieve precision is through a concrete analysis of the situation on the board, meaning abstraction, deduction, and calculation.
It's not exactly about winging it - it's about learning that the opening is, primarily, about developing your pieces.
Using principles, a player can learn how to properly develop their pieces and reach a playable middle-game - and in the process, realize that they don't need to know theory to do so.
You mentioned that white might not be able to go past move 4 in the Two Knights. I bet I can reach move 15 on principles alone.
I'll play white. I'll let Stockfish play black:
We made it to move 17 against Stockfish (well into the middle-game), using just simple, logical developing principles.
Can theory be helpful? Absolutely. But too many players, these days, feel that learning theory is required - and they feel as if they aren't capable of playing a single opening move unless they have studied it beforehand.
The moment the game strays into new territory, these players feel a spurt of panic. "Oh no! I haven't studied this line! Now I don't know what to do!"
They begin to feel as if they're already lost.
That feeling of worry wouldn't exist, if the player was comfortable enough with opening principles, and trusted enough in themselves to find logical developing moves ...
You can play 1.nf3 and then just "wing it" from there, depending on what black does next. But it's not so much "winging it" - it's just "playing chess."
My main point is not to argue against theory - but to argue that, for the majority of players, theory isn't necessary. I make this point because so many players feel crippled by the mere thought of playing openings, as they've come to believe that one must learn theory, and that to play a single non-theory move is "wrong".
But that's not chess; that's just memorization, and being afraid of finding your own moves.
That prove nothing because you are using the basic principles after you already played THOUSANDS of games and your context is completely different than someone who never played ONE game in his life!
I knew the basic principles at 12 after reading a book of 73 pages on them and i was completely lost after getting my knights out...
I bought a book with dozen of opening explained and for the first time it did open my eyes about what chess was about....
And i learned in a few min the Lopez and the Italian both that i played almost exclusively for months after that after trying many other.
indeed. I was going to let this topic rest but you know, it BUGS me after all the "humanistic" approach to openings as expoused by some posters, using quotes from a prolific chess writer like Dan Heisman, THEN using a chess ENGINE to prove their point tricks me off alittle, leaving me to scratch my head~we are talking about humans playing humans, right? That BOTH sides can get along in a game (which is what some posters are trying to argue) just by BOPs alone? I'm assuming in this forum we are talking about Human opponents. Both with differing experiences, knowledge, skillsets, talents etc etc.
It used be a sense of being proudly indoctrinated into the World of Chess if one could recognize the diff between a Ruy Lopez, Italian Game, King's Gambit, Queen's Gambit, knowing what the Elephant, the Rat was. Or the Russian, Scandinavian, Scheveningen. Even all the books quoted, names the Opening being played, ECO classification in some. Doesn't that in itself says something?
indeed. It takes Two to Tango (another opening ref heh) in a chess game. Maybe you could get along for awhile just doing "freestyle" but eventually you're gonna want to learn what "dance" is all about. And that's another thing with me too. Yeah, I was one to "deep dive" into openings because that's the kind of person I am: but used to be the time, one kinda got a kick about just learning openings, maybe casually at first; (just ta try out vs your friends or your rival at the next get together) nothing in depth ~maybe just to follow somewhat the daily chess goings-on and stuff like that. I dunno. I guess if you're the type who can't chew gum n walk at the same time just why can't you study openings along side your tactics trainer, while endgame composing? Heh. Anyways. Even for busy people. If you like playing chess, you can n will find the time! ✌🏽
indeed. I was going to let this topic rest but you know, it BUGS me after all the "humanistic" approach to openings as expoused by some posters, using quotes from a prolific chess writer like Dan Heisman, THEN using a chess ENGINE to prove their point tricks me off alittle, leaving me to scratch my head~we are talking about humans playing humans, right? That BOTH sides can get along in a game (which is what some posters are trying to argue) just by BOPs alone? I'm assuming in this forum we are talking about Human opponents. Both with differing experiences, knowledge, skillsets, talents etc etc.
I've been bringing in quotes by Heisman, but the above is not the gist of what I am saying.
A semi-beginner should know opening principles and should also know a little strategy and the tabiyas of the openings that he most often plays. This is important chess knowledge. But much more effort needs to be put into developing chess skills: seeing tactics, board vision, being able to calculate possible sequences, figuring out if your move is safe, doing the "counting" correctly.
I said it earlier and I'll say it again. Take any game between players that are U1400 and you'll see that well over 90% of the time a player had a tactic that either won him the game, or that he lost because he missed a tactic he could have played, or lost because he allowed his opponent a tactic. You need both knowledge and skills, and most everybody focuses on knowledge, when the focus (for U1400) players should be on developing skills.
With my limited knowledge of openings, but my understanding of opening principles, I can go toe-to-toe against players rated many hundreds of points higher than me. In OTB tourneys I am almost always ahead or, at worst, even, after 8 to 10 moves. Yet I lose about 80% of my games. It's because my *skills* are not well developed and/or are inconsistent. Somewhere around move 20 or 25 I miss something, and, boom, game over. My coach (and many others say similar things) says that he reached around 1700 FIDE mostly on tactics, without knowing much about openings. I lose a lot of games -- but almost never do I lose the game in the opening.
But, hey, if we disagree, so be it. For those on the sidelines reading this, I propose a simple experiment: go back over your last 5-to-10 games and figure out why you lost. If you're U1400 (maybe even U1600) I'd bet that most of the losses were due to tactics (or, if you are U1000, perhaps deviating from opening principles).
indeed. "Go toe-to-toe" with players rated 100 points OVER you! Cool.
Chess Knowledge, to me (anyways) encompasses ALL phases of the Game. Freestyling as I mentioned in ANY phase of the Game and winning is more attributed to intangibles not really discussed here (for obvious reasons) because this forum, as I mentioned, is just another regurgitation of a tired theme: blah blah "is Openings worth studying" and the like. Heh, whatever bro. Us disagreeing is an understatement. Dan Heisman this, Dan Heisman that...cool. For me, back in the day was: Chernev this, Pandolfini that, Neishtadt wha-at?! Silman OH! Seirawan whoah!
Mind you, I would rather read their books over n over again than...yeah, Dan Heisman stuff. Maybe because I'm from a different generation and those guys were my staples. I could say I like the Old School stuff because there was always a "buzz". Not like these days it's more about engine evals. Pretty dry if ya ask me, methinks.
Coming up, I like stuff that got me interested, motivated not soo much technical, almost therapeutic analysis of players that runs rampant these days. Players with a sense of Superiority, almost condescending demeanor, and divides each other into "levels". Again, this game is played between Humans: whether on chess.com, chess24, lichess~no one is really above each other. We're all joined together by this "game". Heh. I can say son, I'm not smarter than you or talented as you, but man... I know some things. We can learn from each other. If you get to playing for 30 years as I have, please give back, share your knowledge (not Dan Heisman's) your experience (which is what I do now, even on tired themes like this). As it is, i wish everyone the best.
indeed. "Go toe-to-toe" with players rated 100 points OVER you! Cool.
I actually said "many hundreds". In my last tourney, 4 of my 5 opponents were 300-400 points higher than me. (I play in higher sections than my rating for the experience) I did just fine in the openings against all of them by having decent knowledge of opening principles, despite having small knowledge of specific openings
Dan Heisman this, Dan Heisman that...cool. For me, back in the day was: Chernev this, Pandolfini that, Neishtadt wha-at?! Silman OH! Seirawan whoah!...Mind you, I would rather read their books over n over again than...yeah, Dan Heisman stuff. Maybe because I'm from a different generation and those guys were my staples.
Heisman's been in the chess instruction business for a long time (his Novice Nooks date back to the late 1990's I believe), and he has 14 books. Padolfini thinks Heisman is great. I think the only reason Heisman is relatively unknown is because he hasn't had a student of his become famous (and because DH has no need: he already has all the students he needs). After surveying the field, I think DH makes the most sense, and understands the best, what it takes to get from 1000 to 1400, and then from 1400 to beyond. I have books by Pandofini, Seirawan,, Weeramantry, etc. -- Heisman covers stuff that none of them do.
A special shoutout to Marie & Nikki~I really dig their sensibilities 👍🏼. Nzt~keep on going on, my friend! 👏🏽
indeed. I am corrected. Many Hundreds. cool.👉🏼
Again....Depends. If the players are both beginner, or low rated. The odds are that one of them has just memorized moves with no understanding as to the "why" behind the moves. So if player 2 goes out of book and doesn't even know it, then player 1 will just play a move they memorized with no understanding of the position.