You should know one opening against every move you face regularly. Usually this means as black knowing a response to e4, and a response to d4. As white it depends on your choice of first move, but for example an e4 player should probably know a response to e5, c5, e6, c6.
In general knowing ideas/principles is better than knowing specific moves. If you are going to memorize opening moves I would say probably at most 5 moves of the opening and then a general plan.
At one time I played 5 different White openings and 4 Black defenses. Now I've reduced that to playing with 3 White openings and 2 Black defenses. I'm thinking "less is more;" that it's better/easier to really "know" a smaller amount of openings/defenses. Right now I play OTB with a small number of different players, so I worry that if I play only a few openings/defenses these players will be "ready" for me and will be able to anticipate my moves. I don't try a lot of variations in my openings. I like "set up" openings like the Botvinnik formation of the English opening, the Larsen opening, the Veresov opening, the Pirc defense and a Reverse Botvinnik system. What do you guys think?
I play the Botvinnik System (my sideline and why not when it only took 10 minutes to learn) as white and reversed as black only to achieve imbalance. I find the game is easier and enjoyable to play when you have counter play vs symmetry.
As an example, when I open up with c4, I’m hoping to get an enjoyable game thru a reversed Sicilian in the dragon or Taimanov but that doesn’t always happen because my opponent could play a fianchetto line (g6 or b6) or leave the centre untouched from their pawns so you may as well grab the centre yourself and control the counter play on whichever files you desire.
Botvinnik System works well against c4, c5 from both sides. It just looks stupid if both players are playing the system. I have never ran into that scenario yet.
If you like the Larsen Attack; c4, b3, Bb2 and e3 transposes well and then you can decide on what to do with your kingside bishop (does that fianchetto or complement your other bishop and x-ray the kingside?). If black decides to fianchetto his bishop on g7, than both opposing bishops are facing each other so to achieve imbalance, double fianchetto your bishop and switch to a light square dominance strategy. Or you run into a Dutch player because that’s what they routinely play against d4, then get your bishop pair pointing at his king side and things start to looking menacing.
Some ideas and not opening theory.
When I crossed 1200, I chose a limited repertoire (I can count with one hand) and focused more on tactics and middle game planning.
#1
"At one time I played 5 different White openings and 4 Black defenses." ++ Way too much
"I've reduced that to playing with 3 White openings and 2 Black defenses." ++ Still too much
"I'm thinking "less is more;"" ++ Right thinking
"it's better/easier to really "know" a smaller amount of openings/defenses." ++ Right thinking
"I play OTB with a small number of different players, so I worry that if I play only a few openings / defenses these players will be "ready" for me and will be able to anticipate my moves."
++ Do not worry about it. This is paranoia. Fischer and Kasparov played as black Najdorf and King's Indian Defence and as white Ruy Lopez. Opponents were free to prepare. The benefits of accumulated experience with few openings outweighs the disadvantage of a prepared opponent. Opponents could not out-prepare Fischer or Kasparov.
"I like "set up" openings like the Botvinnik formation of the English opening, the Larsen opening, the Veresov opening, the Pirc defense and a Reverse Botvinnik system."
++ In order of diminishing importance you need
1) a defence against 1 e4. Pirc is OK
2) a defence against 1 d4. What is yours? King's Indian Defence would be close to Pirc.
3) an opening for white. English opening is good. Scrap the Larsen and the Veresov.
At 1150. and higher, the most important thing is to have a good grasp of opening principles. Fight for the center, get your pieces out, and get your king to safety. If you follow these guidelines you should be alright. The best time to study specific lines is when the come up in your own games. When you get into trouble in the opening, then you should look up that line and see where you went wrong.
I've got to around 1250 rapid and I only play two openings: the queen's gambit for white and the modern for black.
Someone earlier mentioned Chessable opening courses, which I have found useful. But mainly I think it's good for beginners like us just to focus on one opening (for each side) and understand the main concepts behind it
It's fun to study openings, but below Candidate Master level, games are not won or lost because one player comes out of the opening (+0.45). Games are won or lost because one player commits a serious blunder AND his opponent sees it.
Three. One for white, and two for black; one against e4 and one against d4. Anything else you should be able to improvise because you don’t play them that often.
It's fun to study openings, but below Candidate Master level, games are not won or lost because one player comes out of the opening (+0.45). Games are won or lost because one player commits a serious blunder AND his opponent sees it.
For me it’s about equalizing the opening and getting an enjoyable or playable middle game.
I did not enjoy playing into my opponents prep or burning the clock on the opening or playing symmetry from a strategic perspective. The game is more fun whenever I can steer it.
Lastly, it’s 2022 and the chess community is divided on openings and other aspects of the game (not sure if that’s an agism or generational thing?) Personally, I don’t ever plan on reaching 2000 so I don’t buy that until you are 2000 mantra that you can shift to opening theory. Takes 5-10 minutes to learn one opening or defence nowadays.
Regarding blunders and mistakes, it happens on all levels so it becomes a broken record and muted point. Fun part is we get to make mistakes and learn from them.
It's fun to study openings, but below Candidate Master level, games are not won or lost because one player comes out of the opening (+0.45). Games are won or lost because one player commits a serious blunder AND his opponent sees it.
For me it’s about equalizing the opening and getting an enjoyable or playable middle game.
I did not enjoy playing into my opponents prep or burning the clock on the opening or playing symmetry from a strategic perspective. The game is more fun whenever I can steer it.
Lastly, it’s 2022 and the chess community is divided on openings and other aspects of the game (not sure if that’s an agism or generational thing?) Personally, I don’t ever plan on reaching 2000 so I don’t buy that until you are 2000 mantra that you can shift to opening theory. Takes 5-10 minutes to learn one opening or defence nowadays.
Regarding blunders and mistakes, it happens on all levels so it becomes a broken record and muted point. Fun part is we get to make mistakes and learn from them.
Yeah, I don't buy this "games are decided by blunders not openings" logic. At very low level blunders come out of nowhere. At intermediate level blunders come from: a) bad positions under pressure, b) more complicated tactics that aren't immediately apparent to a simple safety scan. In both of these understanding the position is important to avoiding them. Positional understanding derives a lot from openings. Also getting good positions out of the opening will induce blunders in opponents. Getting bad positions out of the opening will setup your own blunders.
Now I agree that memorizing theoretical lines is largely useless for most players. However, I think it's paramount to know the ideas of the opening you play. As an example I would say it's more useful to tell a beginning French player in the advanced variation: "come after the d4 pawn," "expand on the queen side," "don't castle into the Greek gift," "trade-off your LSB if you get the chance" than to tell them 1.e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5, 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Qb6 6.Bd2 cxd4.
It's fun to study openings, but below Candidate Master level, games are not won or lost because one player comes out of the opening (+0.45). Games are won or lost because one player commits a serious blunder AND his opponent sees it.
For me it’s about equalizing the opening and getting an enjoyable or playable middle game.
I did not enjoy playing into my opponents prep or burning the clock on the opening or playing symmetry from a strategic perspective. The game is more fun whenever I can steer it.
Lastly, it’s 2022 and the chess community is divided on openings and other aspects of the game (not sure if that’s an agism or generational thing?) Personally, I don’t ever plan on reaching 2000 so I don’t buy that until you are 2000 mantra that you can shift to opening theory. Takes 5-10 minutes to learn one opening or defence nowadays.
Regarding blunders and mistakes, it happens on all levels so it becomes a broken record and muted point. Fun part is we get to make mistakes and learn from them.
Yeah, I don't buy this "games are decided by blunders not openings" logic. At very low level blunders come out of nowhere. At intermediate level blunders come from: a) bad positions under pressure, b) more complicated tactics that aren't immediately apparent to a simple safety scan. In both of these understanding the position is important to avoiding them. Positional understanding derives a lot from openings. Also getting good positions out of the opening will induce blunders in opponents. Getting bad positions out of the opening will setup your own blunders.
Now I agree that memorizing theoretical lines is largely useless for most players. However, I think it's paramount to know the ideas of the opening you play. As an example I would say it's more useful to tell a beginning French player in the advanced variation: "come after the d4 pawn," "expand on the queen side," "don't castle into the Greek gift," "trade-off your LSB if you get the chance" than to tell them 1.e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5, 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Qb6 6.Bd2 cxd4.
My outlook is use the position that you have gain to create counter play and set-up tactics; something I am working on.
I actually did a 2500 rated puzzle today and missed a queen capture with a pawn lol. It’s because I was an idiot!
We get to be human too and move on to the next puzzle or game.
"Yeah, I don't buy this "games are decided by blunders not openings" logic. "
Not logic, fact.
"Yeah, I don't buy this "games are decided by blunders not openings" logic. "
Not logic, fact.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m agree with you, but instead of stubbornly just saying that something is fact, how’s about you explain how he’s wrong. Claiming something is fact without any proof and not even providing points to counteract his helps nobody.
Ok my wording could have been more precise. Blunders are obviously more important than openings in determining the outcome of the game. But that's not a reason to neglect learning openings. Good opening play will get you better positions where it's easier for your opponent to blunder and harder for you to blunder. Understanding the ideas of your opening will make you more aware to thematic blunders. For example in the Italian the bishop on c4 staring at the f pawn means that on black misplays you often have Bxf7 tactics.
Again the key is understanding openings not memorizing reams of theory.
Ok my wording could have been more precise. Blunders are obviously more important than openings in determining the outcome of the game. But that's not a reason to neglect learning openings. Good opening play will get you better positions where it's easier for your opponent to blunder and harder for you to blunder. Understanding the ideas of your opening will make you more aware to thematic blunders. For example in the Italian the bishop on c4 staring at the f pawn means that on black misplays you often have Bxf7 tactics.
Again the key is understanding openings not memorizing reams of theory.
I learned the game 20 years ago from a strong English club player and he taught me the English, Sicilian and Semi-Slav. Chess had an opening, middle game, tactics and end game.
Fast forward 20 years to 2022 it laughable that there is a division on chess openings and other aspects of the games among the community. That’s on you guys!
I hung out with my niece yesterday, she and her friends think I am cool because I can play chess with her lol but truth is, I am a retired athlete with a torn MCL but we get to relate.
Sure they play the bong cloud! They kids can play anything and razzle me!
"Again the key is understanding openings not memorizing reams of theory. "
True
"Again the key is understanding openings not memorizing reams of theory. "
True
Ok, she’s 7 years old. You tell her wait until you are “2000” to learn opening theory.
They know how the pieces move and attack fearlessly. What more do you ask for?
Its when I understood there is a division in the chess chess community and that’s on you guys.
At one time I played 5 different White openings and 4 Black defenses. Now I've reduced that to playing with 3 White openings and 2 Black defenses. I'm thinking "less is more;" that it's better/easier to really "know" a smaller amount of openings/defenses. Right now I play OTB with a small number of different players, so I worry that if I play only a few openings/defenses these players will be "ready" for me and will be able to anticipate my moves. I don't try a lot of variations in my openings. I like "set up" openings like the Botvinnik formation of the English opening, the Larsen opening, the Veresov opening, the Pirc defense and a Reverse Botvinnik system. What do you guys think?
I think you are solid. Maybe 3 is a bit much, but certainly nothing game-changing. I would keep everything as is.
At one time I played 5 different White openings and 4 Black defenses. Now I've reduced that to playing with 3 White openings and 2 Black defenses. I'm thinking "less is more;" that it's better/easier to really "know" a smaller amount of openings/defenses. Right now I play OTB with a small number of different players, so I worry that if I play only a few openings/defenses these players will be "ready" for me and will be able to anticipate my moves. I don't try a lot of variations in my openings. I like "set up" openings like the Botvinnik formation of the English opening, the Larsen opening, the Veresov opening, the Pirc defense and a Reverse Botvinnik system. What do you guys think?