Middleman Chess Openings?

I have noticed that there are two kinds of chess players (generally).

A. Has a basic knowledge about various openings like the Slav and Sicilian, enough to get them a good game, but not enough to deal with master preparation.

B. Is an opening theory junkie - for example, knows the Ruy Lopez, King's Indian, Grunfeld, and various lines of the Sicilian about 15-20 moves in. Also keeps up on what is "in" in GM-played lines.

From what I see, most of the chess players on this site would classify as type A. There is a gap in average chess knowledge between the latest novelty in the Nimzoindian on move 20 and why taking the pawn on c4 was a good idea on move 8.

Would anyone be interested in some introductory forum posts on basic opening theory? Which openings?

I'd be happy to hear your feedback if/when I finish them.

(Normally) true. One could compare it to using a driver when playing golf. However, until I started preparing my openings, I would set unnecessary problems for myself that would make the rest of the game much more difficult. Then I became wise enough to go over my opening repertoire, and the results have been much more satisfactory since then.

I'd say that openings are not so essential for club players and those below 1800. However, at the expert level, or in tournament play (1 hr+), they become much more significant.

Since I am attempting to reach the expert level, and I want to perform better in tournaments, openings are important to me, and I'm willing to take the time on them.

I'd agree that the transition from Class A to Expert (from 1800 to 2000) is where opening ability starts to become important -- not because of the moves themselves, but because they guide the middlegame and endgame ideas so it's important to know relevant tabia and themes.

I say opening ability because one doesn't necessarily need opening knowledge to play openings and middlegames well (but it helps).

I'm sticking with what I said earlier (grin), but here's a few more reasons why opening knowledge is helpful:

A. It avoids early material loss or positional disadvantages due to traps.

B. It can give major positional advantages against the unknowing. The trick then is converting opening advantages - a great topic I am working on right now and may post about soon.

C. It saves a lot of time, particularly in games of 30 or 45 minute games. Time can be spent on the critical moments instead of thinking through positions that opening preparation could have made obvious. (And usually, if they don't have preparation, I can choose difficult lines that get them into time trouble in the later critical positions! This means more wins.)

D. Departures from main line theory usually means weak play which can be exploited. Knowing that a move is not theory leads to the question, "why isn't that master play?" and possible subsequent exploitation.

E. It gives a familiarity with how to fight for the center properly.

F. As Dan said, it helps a person understand why an opening set-up is valuable, and gives them an idea of how to play it, even with openings like 1.g3, which usually transpose into something more familiar, like an English or Meran.

So, yes, there is much more to playing chess than openings. One has to know the middlegame and endgame first. But it makes for an excellent supplement, especially in tournament play.

As a class A player, I strongly disagree with this point.  Departure from book moves doesn't indicate a lack of ideas - it indicates ideas which differ from how a masters have in the past handled that position.  I have won more games from non-theoretical positions than from theoretical positions, precisely because my opponent falls into the psychological "trap" that just because I didn't play the book move, they can punish me for playing "wrong" moves.

That said, I agree with just about everything FM Dennis Monokroussos says about why opening ability is important.  The reason I'm a class A player and not an expert is that I don't have enough interest in developing my opening ability by studying master games, despite my vast collection of chess books and CDs.  Maybe someday that will change, but in the meantime I'll enjoy just playing the game.

Great article by Monokroussos, thanks for posting the link! "Study all openings, not just your own" - great point.

I see what you mean. I concede the statement "usually means weak play which can be exploited". Of course, it doesn't always mean weak play, and against strong players, it usually doesn't! It usually does mean that, against solid play, there should be an advantage. I think it all comes down to knowing why we play what we play, why they play what they play, and having better "why's".

Plus, even players who employ radical departures, such as yourself, usually prepare them beforehand. Trappy lines like 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 f5!? or the (new-to-me) 1.e4 e5 2.f4 Bc5 3.Nf3 Nf6!? (which isn't even in Fritz 10's opening book, whether green, blue, or otherwise) require even a small amount of study time to understand them. I just don't know why anyone would want to look at an opening for the first time in an important tournament game, unless it is very obscure (and, of course, the opponent is uncorking it). The idea is to surprise the opponent, not me!

My thoughts on certain points.

A. It avoids early material loss or positional disadvantages due to traps.

This is the main reason why I look at openings.

B. It can give major positional advantages against the unknowing.

Converting many types of "advantages" requires a level of skill and ability that most of us do not possess.

D. Departures from main line theory usually means weak play

Such departures may also be due to a player who needs to play with some risk to win, when a draw means losing a match, or losing out on prize money.

E. It gives a familiarity with how to fight for the center properly.

I'd say being able to utilize a central advantage or defending against a central advantage is more important but also more difficult.

By the way, I recently re-read NM Dan Heisman's The Improving Chess Thinker from a local library.  You might enjoy how he identifies thought patterns (or find it boring, I don't know).

Actually, I own two books on common thought errors in chess: GM Evans' The 10 Most Common Chess Mistakes (and how to avoid them!) and GM Rowson's The Seven Deadly Chess Sins.  Maybe I should get some GM books about how to play chess well...

My first 2-3 years with my local club I used to play this way - do whatever it takes to get new and interesting positions, even if my opponent has more experience with similar positions than I do!  Eventually I listened to Dan P.'s advice that I'd play better if I use opening systems / tabia of related positions so I'm not constantly improvising.  But at the same time, because I'm lazy at studying chess has become quite boring.

Whatever makes the game interesting is certainly worth it, whether a person leans more to the Botvinnik or Tal side.

Yes, I'd definitely like to hear your thoughts about those books, and I think I will probably have a look at them myself.