Find famous games in that opening, then play through them repeatedly until their wisdom is part of your own.
How do you learn Openings?
Sort:
"... For inexperienced players, I think the model that bases opening discussions on more or less complete games that are fully annotated, though with a main focus on the opening and early middlegame, is the ideal. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2010)
"... If the book contains illustrative games, it is worth playing these over first ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)
The options A. Through E. given in the OP are all legitimate ways to learn an opening or openings. Everyone will have their own preferences as to which way or combination of ways works best for them. There is a lot to be said for studying complete games in order to become a well-rounded player and see the connections between the opening, middlegame, and ending. However, regardless of which methods are chosen by anyone for their personal study preferences, I recommend to first read The Ideas Behind the Chess Openings by Reuben Fine. Yes, it's quite dated, having been originally published over 75 years ago in 1943. A second edition was published in 1949, and it was last revised by Fine in a third edition in 1989 and also converted to Algebraic notation. As Fine points out in the preface, many new variations have appeared, but the ideas themselves remain remarkably constant. It limits itself to an understanding of the opening ideas and doesn't bog readers down too much by analyzing complete games or going any deeper into the openings than is necessary to understand the basic ideas. This is its strength. If someone wants to develop as a chess player, this is the first opening book they should study. It is a classic. Once that basic understanding is attained, sure, then go on and study complete games and whatever methods you prefer to further develop. It is not a book to learn the latest theoretical novelties or to memorize your preferred openings 20 or 30 moves deep, but if that is your goal, IMO reading this book first will greatly facilitate your progress. The book is only 182 pages long (including index) and can be read and studied with much less effort than most of the more recent encyclopedic tomes. Compare that to trying to read through the massive four-volume general openings books. They are quite excellent, I'm sure, but how many will actually read and study the thousands of pages to get a general understanding of the openings? And remember all that by the time they're done? Even Fundamental Chess Openings (FCO), a single volume book, is 479 pages long. If you're serious about chess, sure, read those books, but I still recommend reading the Fine book first, since it is a much quicker read and you will then get much more understanding out of those other books. You will need more than the Fine book to become a very strong player, but it is still the best place to start for the beginning/intermediate player. It doesn't go deeply into any specific opening, but if you want to specialize in a certain opening, the Move by Move series is very good as an introduction, but I would still recommend reading any related general coverage of the opening first in the Fine book. It would only take a few minutes and IMO will greatly help your understanding of the ideas and general principles. If there is duplication of some ideas, it will just reinforce your memory.
I haven't seen or read Discovering the Chess Openings by Emms, which is more recent, so I can't compare. That may be an excellent book also, but you can't go wrong by reading a classic.
I haven't seen or read Discovering the Chess Openings by Emms, which is more recent, so I can't compare. That may be an excellent book also, but you can't go wrong by reading a classic.
And FCO is a MASSIVE, double columned 479 pages. It may be excellent, but will probably take 10 times as long to read and study such books if your goal is simply to obtain a general understanding of the many different major openings.
"... Ideas Behind the Chess Openings ... cannot be recommended to the modern student seeking to improve his or her understanding of opening theory." https://web.archive.org/web/20140708112658/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review315.pdf
And I do not believe that one will find much in the way of illustrative games.
Zugerzwang wrote:
... most of the more recent encyclopedic tomes. Compare that to trying to read through the massive four-volume general openings books. They are quite excellent, I'm sure, but how many will actually read and study the thousands of pages to get a general understanding of the openings? And remember all that by the time they're done? Even Fundamental Chess Openings (FCO), a single volume book, is 479 pages long. … FCO .. may be excellent, but will probably take 10 times as long to read and study such books if your goal is simply to obtain a general understanding of the many different major openings.
It has to be asked if that is a sensible goal. Indeed, it seems to me that the chess world has largely moved away from that sort of thing. How many new books of that sort have been published since 2010? On the other hand, there seem to have been a lot of recent introductory books with explanations of complete games.
Zugerzwang wrote:
… I haven't seen or read Discovering the Chess Openings by Emms, which is more recent, so I can't compare. ...
It does not seek to give the reader "a general understanding of the many different openings." It has the more limited goal of explaining opening principles to beginners.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627114655/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen91.pdf
Zugerzwang wrote:
... if you want to specialize in a certain opening, the Move by Move series is very good as an introduction, but I would still recommend reading any related general coverage of the opening first in the Fine book. ...
One could also try to use 21st century books, such as FCO in that way, but, again, the chess world seems to be getting away from that sort of thing. Instead, we see an increasing availability of game collections (such as Move by Move and First Steps books) intended to give a modern introduction to this or that specific opening.
From exeterchessclub.org.uk:
Reader's guide: Fine's Ideas Behind the Chess Openings
Fine's "The Ideas Behind the Chess Openings" is a great book, but dated.
In understanding the motivations behind the major opening systems, and explaining the reasons behind the various move orders, it's great, but since 1943 judgements about chess openings have moved on a bit. Fine's probably OK on the advantages and disadvantages of a given move, but sometimes moves that he gives a thumbs-down to have been shown to be at least OK. However, I don't know anything more recent that is as good (as deep, as concise).
So, what we need is Fine with footnotes. Where Fine says on p.?? that moving the Bishop to c4 in the Sicilian is useless, we need a footnote (1) saying that "(1) This idea was revived in the 1970s with success, particularly by Fischer."
I don't know if any publisher has plans to do this, but we can do that right here. [Like Larry Evans' BCE corrections].
Page references depend on editions: it would be helpful to quote chapter and verse instead or as well.
Chapter 1:
Comment: Players rated less than 1600 (class C) can often achieve remarkable advantages out of the opening by simply playing "outdated" openings. Part of the reason is that their opponents are playing "lines", while they are playing *concepts*. Many double-K-pawn openings fall in this category. They have faded from master play because, with proper play, White simply doesn't get as much of an advantage as a master aspires to. But, the concepts are relatively clearcut, and in a game between two C players it hardly matters that theory has discovered equalizing resources for Black in all lines.
...Get "Fine". Read it. Follow his suggestions in actual play until:
a) you lose games because of his "out of date" suggestions
AND
b) you understand why "modern" lines are better
...
Reader's guide: Fine's Ideas Behind the Chess Openings
Fine's "The Ideas Behind the Chess Openings" is a great book, but dated.
In understanding the motivations behind the major opening systems, and explaining the reasons behind the various move orders, it's great, but since 1943 judgements about chess openings have moved on a bit. Fine's probably OK on the advantages and disadvantages of a given move, but sometimes moves that he gives a thumbs-down to have been shown to be at least OK. However, I don't know anything more recent that is as good (as deep, as concise).
So, what we need is Fine with footnotes. Where Fine says on p.?? that moving the Bishop to c4 in the Sicilian is useless, we need a footnote (1) saying that "(1) This idea was revived in the 1970s with success, particularly by Fischer."
I don't know if any publisher has plans to do this, but we can do that right here. [Like Larry Evans' BCE corrections].
Page references depend on editions: it would be helpful to quote chapter and verse instead or as well.
Chapter 1:
Comment: Players rated less than 1600 (class C) can often achieve remarkable advantages out of the opening by simply playing "outdated" openings. Part of the reason is that their opponents are playing "lines", while they are playing *concepts*. Many double-K-pawn openings fall in this category. They have faded from master play because, with proper play, White simply doesn't get as much of an advantage as a master aspires to. But, the concepts are relatively clearcut, and in a game between two C players it hardly matters that theory has discovered equalizing resources for Black in all lines.
...Get "Fine". Read it. Follow his suggestions in actual play until:
a) you lose games because of his "out of date" suggestions
AND
b) you understand why "modern" lines are better
...
Zugerzwang wrote:
From exeterchessclub.org.uk:
… Chapter 1:
Comment: Players rated less than 1600 (class C) can often achieve remarkable advantages out of the opening by simply playing "outdated" openings. Part of the reason is that their opponents are playing "lines", while they are playing *concepts*. ...
Comment: Players rated less than 1600 (class C) can often achieve remarkable advantages out of the opening by simply playing "outdated" openings. Part of the reason is that their opponents are playing "lines", while they are playing *concepts*. ...
Is there a reason to doubt that there are 21st century books that explain concepts (illustrating them with complete games)?
Zugerzwang wrote:
From exeterchessclub.org.uk:
Reader's guide: Fine's Ideas Behind the Chess Openings
Fine's "The Ideas Behind the Chess Openings" is a great book, but dated.
In understanding the motivations behind the major opening systems, and explaining the reasons behind the various move orders, it's great, but since 1943 judgements about chess openings have moved on a bit. Fine's probably OK on the advantages and disadvantages of a given move, but sometimes moves that he gives a thumbs-down to have been shown to be at least OK. However, I don't know anything more recent that is as good (as deep, as concise).
So, what we need is Fine with footnotes. Where Fine says on p.?? that moving the Bishop to c4 in the Sicilian is useless, we need a footnote (1) saying that "(1) This idea was revived in the 1970s with success, particularly by Fischer." ...
Reader's guide: Fine's Ideas Behind the Chess Openings
Fine's "The Ideas Behind the Chess Openings" is a great book, but dated.
In understanding the motivations behind the major opening systems, and explaining the reasons behind the various move orders, it's great, but since 1943 judgements about chess openings have moved on a bit. Fine's probably OK on the advantages and disadvantages of a given move, but sometimes moves that he gives a thumbs-down to have been shown to be at least OK. However, I don't know anything more recent that is as good (as deep, as concise).
So, what we need is Fine with footnotes. Where Fine says on p.?? that moving the Bishop to c4 in the Sicilian is useless, we need a footnote (1) saying that "(1) This idea was revived in the 1970s with success, particularly by Fischer." ...
"... Fundamental Chess Openings ... A modern day version of Reuben Fine’s Ideas Behind The Chess Openings primarily uses words to describe the ideas and motivations behind different opening systems. The emphasis is on understanding rather than memorization ..."- IM John Donaldson (~2009)
http://www.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/FCO-Fundamental-Chess-Openings-76p3561.htm
"... The back cover [of Understanding the Chess Openings] states: 'This major new work surveys all chess openings, providing a guide to every critical main line and featuring descriptions of the typical strategies for both sides. These commentaries will be welcomed by all club and tournament players, as they will help them to better handle the middlegame positions arising from each opening, ...' This is one of those rare occasions where the book backs up the cover blurb 100%. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2005)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627031504/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen76.pdf
I don't know if either of those books existed at the time that the Exeter Chess Club did their thing,
https://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/readers-guide-fines-ideas-behind-chess-openings
but it has to be wondered if the Exeter comments really do an adequate job of updating Fine for the modern reader (or if they represent an Exeter Chess Club project that never really got off the ground). I do not see even a mention of the Caro-Kann issues described at:
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708112658/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review315.pdf
Also, how much of the Exeter Chess Club commentary is correction and how much is simply noting problems?
"... No talk of Yugoslav attack at all … Pirc/Modern Comment: Fine dismisses this setup in a paragraph under 'Irregular Openings'. This, if nothing else (other than KID & Sicilian) needs to be mentioned in detail. … Benoni/Benko Gambit. Comment: These were fledging openings when Fine wrote the book, and he only gives a paragraph or two to each. I would *love* to see an 'Ideas' write-up on the Benoni, … Catalan System. Comment: The book considers the closed variation the 'main line', whereas the open variation is played much more today. Also, the discussion of the open variation is limited to the 5.Qa4+ lines, with no mention of the (more popular?) 5.Nf3 lines. …"
But, perhaps the most important point is that the chess world seems to be getting away from that sort of thing. Since 2010, how many new books have we seen, seeking to give the reader "a general understanding of the many different openings"? Instead, what I see is an increasing availability of game collections (such as Move by Move and First Steps books) intended to give a modern introduction to this or that specific opening.
Jul 6, 2019
0
#71
PuffNStuff13 wrote:
when you've learnt come and teach me :)
I could really use someone to teach me..
Just want to say the (somewhat rude, but we're online, so that's okay, right?) attack from 9497010838 on kindaspongey is somewhat unjustified. kindaspongey is one of the most helpful regulars here on the forums.