General Openings Headache

OK, it does not take long as a beginner to realize that openings are important.  Fischer started most games with e4 which can transpose into a million (it seems like) variations.

For white especially, it seems that for all 16 pawn openings and two different knight openings, there are "named openings" and for many openings there are 5 -- maybe even 20 books written.

If not books, then sites like this have a forum like this one with vast discussions of openings.  Now this part scares me.  According to my rating with the USCF, I am an advanced beginner.  Probably a good evaluation of my meager skills.  

What scares me is that many masters can name almost every opening. That is the French, that is the King's Indian, that is the London, or Polish, and so forth.

Josh Waitzkin while being an IM, says his biggest asset was the ability to learn.  Chess, now Tai-Chi.  Wow, I have looked and the bazillion (that word is now in the dictionary, hmm...) openings and figure I could learn one or two good openings for white and maybe one or two for black.

From there, I have to play by "principles".  You know the basic ones, try not to move any piece twice before castling, move only two pawns, develop knights before bishops, and fight to control the center.

So I have a question.  How important is it to learn 5 -40 openings for each side?  

For a long time (say, below class A), you'll pick up what you need to know as you go along. Don't study openings, play through annotated master games. After seeing the French a few times, you'll know it's the French :-)

After a serious game you could lookup the opening in a database or some encyclopedia to see where your game diverted from the really popular stuff, and try to understand the difference, but it's not really essential for a long time to come.

If you work on improving your chess in general (those principles, but also tactics, making a plan, trying to prevent him from carrying out his probable plans, et cetera) then over time you'll find you can often work out something pretty close to the main line behind the board - they're the most popular moves for a reason.

When you play lower lvl your openings are not that important as principles. One reason is that your oponent who will be 1200-1300 will more likely play out of book very soon, often in first 4-5 moves. The books dont help you much then.

After you decide it's time to play more stronger players, you should know few moves of each opening so you would not be the one that goes out of book and one who will play weaker moves early.

If you decide to try one opening, good idea is to join thematic tournament. There you will play more than one variation of specific opening and get the general picture what is that opening like, and what kind of games you can get from it.

I like this advice, but it has a BIG drawback.  Thematic tourneys are often not stratified.  Hence, when I was rated in the 700s I played in one.  The LOWEST rated player in my group was 1400 and change.

I got KILLED and so did my rating.  I went 1-9 and how I won one, I will never know.

Until you get to be a C, B or A player, it is best to stay away from non-stratified tournaments.  See my blog.  I have something like 48 loses due to playing in tournaments where I did not belong!

Of active USCF players, the average rating is in the high 600s.  Mine is well above that.  I like the idea on annotated master games, and I have several books and of there is chessgames.com and other databases to help.  But it seems e4 and the Caro-Kann or the Ruy Lopez is all the rage.

My thought is, you cannot beat a better player at their own game.  You need your own game and it has to be a bit of a surprise.  When I play back on chess.com, I can tell the game will start 1. e4 e5

As diamond member he can create thematic tournament <1400, that is when he think he is ready for one.

 The average USCF player is now under 1000 ?!!  Thats hard to believe ... it used to be around 1500-1600, what happened ?!

If nothing else, just to see why book moves he has learned are better then out of book moves.

Of course this all does not have any value if you blunder piece or 2 in first 15 moves.

Large numbers of scholastic players I bet. Ratings when I started in 1971 went lower than 1100 but I don't recall anyone with <1000 then.

I'm not sure at all about this average "<700."

The average adult is maybe around 1550 like it used to be?

1550 was an arithmetical average from Evans' column in the 70s. I once had a list from about 1990 or so, and it listed the average rating for age groups. Peak was age 40 with a rating of 1700+ (approx). Not sure of the source of that list now as I can't find it, hardcopy or online.

See http://www.evanstonchess.org/Histogram2007.html for the distribution.  The USCF wanted the average CLUB player to be close to 1400.

A couple things have happened.  Chess, despite what some people think about the USCF has greatly increased in the number of players around the world.  FIDE right has money and is pushing chess into developing (formerly called "3rd World") countries.

There are more players.  But the internet is slowly killing off your local chess club.  You can play USCF rated games via the ICCF and online at the ICC.   With more players, two things happen mathematically ...

One:  You will have more "casual" players.   Two:  you will have more master level players.  Master level players are in the top 1% (actually less than 1%) but with more players, that makes more people at the top.

So more chess players, it pulls the bottom down and leaves more room at the top.  Remember, one of the "explosions" in chess is scholastic.  Elementary and Middle Schools (Junior High) now have official clubs where that used to only happen at the High School level.

Now back on topic ...

Streptomicin mentioned since I am a diamond member I can run tournaments.  I did.  Only one so far.  I had not thought about a thematic tournament.   That is a !! idea.   The tournament I ran (well, it is in its final round) was a small tournament (6) for players under 1000.   One round of 10 games and then 3 moved to the second round for 6 more games.

I made the finals.  The leader's rating has jumped since the tourney started from 970 to 1220.  That is quite a jump.  But still, I like your idea.

Scarblac's advice seems good. I would say that you are right in your goal to learn one or two openings as white and one or two as black.  It would probably be good to learn one main opening as white and have some familiarity with one alternative.  As black, it would be a good idea to have one response to e4, one response to d4, and perhaps an idea of what you want to do against c4.  Of course, when you're just starting out, there's no need to go very deep with openings. Just read enough about these four openings (White #1, White #2, Black against e4, Black against d4) to know the general ideas, general piece placements, and maybe the first four moves.  This should be very manageable and probably all you need. 

Anyway, just some food for thought. Hope it's helpful.

Very helpful.  Thanks.

Well, I started and 1201 and under thematic tournament using the Modern Benoni.  6 players (I like small tournaments) 4 signed up right away.  If interested I have room for two more

 I did not know this was being done, are you sure it is ? The ICCF is a correspondence chess organization and ICC is an online club and neither should EVER allow their games to be rated as OTB games imo, its simply ridiculous, and for very obvious reasons.

Well, both are recognized by the USCF.  The ICCF has been recognized around the world because it is well known that many people cannot get to tournaments without great expense.  The ICC was developed on the same concept.  If you cannot get to a tourney, well, this gives you a chance to play.

Now I am not certain of this.  So I posted the question on the USCF board.  I will let you know.  But as I recall, you can only reach a certain level without OTB play.

I let you know the real answer ASAP.

Jim... "What scares me is that many masters can name almost every opening. That is the French, that is the King's Indian, that is the London, or Polish, and so forth."  They can name all sorts of endgame positions too, and name middle game themes, and recognize positions from famous games, and name the mate they just sprung on you... moral of the story: master's are intimidating and there's an intimidating amount to learn about chess! You shouldn't worry about what master's do and don't know right now IMHO. You should worry about how to learn more chess and have fun doing it.

I've decided to really work on my openings and I've come up with an interesting method. I thought I'd share it with you. I haven't started, perhaps it's a stupid idea, but I'm excited about it.

Here's my idea (without a lot of supporting detail):

1. Study the open game by studying Morphy and his openings.

2. Study the closed center by studying Steinitz, his positional theories, and his openings.

3. Continue studying postional chess and 1.d4 by close study of Rubinstein's openings and games.

4. Study Nimzowitzch's apporach through his books My System and Praxis.

The idea for this project came from a recent reading of Richard Reti's Modern Ideas in Chess which discusses the evolution of chess ideas, particularly ideas about the opening. It's a fantastic book, I recommend it to everyone, and reading it is eye-opening. For example, most of what you would hear called Opening Principles on the chess.com forums are, according to Reti, the principles Morphy brought to chess in the mid-nineteench century for open games (games beginning 1.e4 e5). So, it's good stuff, but there's more to know than that!

I figure my project will take btw one and two years -- and if I stick with it, I think I'll have a truly good grounding in the opening, one that I can build on with confidence.

*EDIT* Oh one important point I left out -- an exciting but possibly idiotic approach I intend to take in this training is that when i say "study" so and so's opening --- I want to really try to _play_ like so and so in the opening... not so much study in the ordinary sense as really emulate. Play the exact lines and with the same spirit as my model player. Yes, trying to emulate Morphy without having Morphy's talent will no doubt lose me quite a few games, but I think I'll learn, all the same.

Thanks!

Jim