Forums

Named chess openings... help!

Sort:
transpo
transpo
Jun 8, 2012
0
#21
Estragon wrote:
paulgottlieb wrote:

All that advice to ignore opening theory and concentrate on tactics, etc., is well meant, but I disagree--at least somewhat. Part of enjoying chess is being part of the chess community, and if you don't understand a lot of what people are talking about, it's hard to feel part of that community. Every aspiring chess player should at least know the names of the major opening systems, and have some idea of what people are talking about whan they mention the "Ruy Lopez," "Sicilian Defense," or "Nimzo-Indian." Books like "Chess for Dummies" or Seirawan's "Winning Chess Openings" give a good general overview of the major opening systems and teach good opening principles.

The openings are as much a part of the game as the middlegame and endings, and I believe a beginning player should learn so basic opening principles from the start, along with tactics and basic end games.

Oh, I'm all for learning the names of the openings, and the first few moves that define them.  And I always recommend learning the basic rules of opening development.   But that's not what anyone means when they say "study openings."

You and I both know that the overwhelming majority of players hoping to improve "study the opening" by spending money on books and videos and memorizing variations.  It is specifically this sort of "studying" I contend is not only no help, but actually counter-productive, holding back a player's normal progress.

Human nature leads us to seek that magic bullet, that perfect opening line that makes us better players.  The fact that we have a better chance of capturing Sasquatch and teaching him table manners than succeeding in our search for that opening doesn't seem to discourage many of us.

Almost all chessplayers, beginners to GMs to WC, we are all on a grail quest.  We all want to analyze the position and find the unltimate "truth" in that position.  It is exhilirating to us.  We who live in a world where "truth" and meaning can only be found in bits and pieces.  And, contaminated with the double edge sword that tells us you have to take the good with the bad. Chess players want to take the good and leave the rest.  It is wonderful to indulge our need to find the "absolute truth." That "absolute truth" we are certain we can find in the chess position.  The quest for the holy grail goes on undaunted, undiminished, undeterred, and fervently confident that it is just over that hill. 

Paprika2215
Paprika2215
Jun 8, 2012
0
#22

I never imagined there would be this many people who'd respond! I don't use forums that much, so... But anyway, I'm glad that all of you could give advice to me, and so much! Laughing I gotta say, I think it's actually pretty funny that I started a whole conversation on what's the best thing to do when studying chess: learning openings and their names, playing games as much as possible to learn from your mistakes and/or boost rating, or focus entirely on the mid-game and end-games because that'd be the most effective thing if you want to win a game.

So thank you everyone! And by all means, continue the discussion! Tongue out

TonyH
TonyH
Jun 8, 2012
0
#23

A funny story about openings. One of my students who is 1900+ uscf at 14 and I were talking about what she plays against various openings. I asked her what she played against the Nimzo Indian? She said "what's that?" 

I laughed. She understood the ideas once I mentioned the starting moves, (control of the light squares d5 and e4 etc) but didnt know the name of the opening.

ChessSponge
ChessSponge
Jun 8, 2012
0
#24

My stance has always been that if something is a hobby for you, approach it in whatever way gives you enjoyment.

 

A lot of people on here always want to "correct" other players approaches to learning. I believe they tend to forget that to the majority of chess players it is a hobby and a game and nothing more. Yes, if you want to maximize your rate of learning/rate of gaining elo then the opening is not something to study early. If you just want to have fun and reading about openings is fun, then DO IT!

 

If someone wants to build a model as a hobby and someone who views model building as a professional art that isn't to be taken lightly begins to give the hobby person a guide on how to approach model building to raise your skill as high and as quick as possible, that hobbyist modeler would probably just go "Wow, that sounds tedious and boring, I'm done with this".

 

Same goes to the chess community. A lot of people just want to play games and have fun. They don't care what the "right way" to learn is, they just want to enjoy the game. Telling them to study 300 end game problems followed by 10 hours of tactics problems before playing or looking at an opening move would scare most of them off from ever playing again. Now if a person comes to the boards and says "I want to hit 1800 ELO as fast as possible, what should I do?" By all means fill him with a guide on how to get there that doesn't inclue a single opening.

VectorVictor
VectorVictor
Jun 8, 2012
0
#25
ChessSponge wrote:

My stance has always been that if something is a hobby for you, approach it in whatever way gives you enjoyment.

 

A lot of people on here always want to "correct" other players approaches to learning. I believe they tend to forget that to the majority of chess players it is a hobby and a game and nothing more. Yes, if you want to maximize your rate of learning/rate of gaining elo then the opening is not something to study early. If you just want to have fun and reading about openings is fun, then DO IT!

 

If someone wants to build a model as a hobby and someone who views model building as a professional art that isn't to be taken lightly begins to give the hobby person a guide on how to approach model building to raise your skill as high and as quick as possible, that hobbyist modeler would probably just go "Wow, that sounds tedious and boring, I'm done with this".

 

Same goes to the chess community. A lot of people just want to play games and have fun. They don't care what the "right way" to learn is, they just want to enjoy the game. Telling them to study 300 end game problems followed by 10 hours of tactics problems before playing or looking at an opening move would scare most of them off from ever playing again. Now if a person comes to the boards and says "I want to hit 1800 ELO as fast as possible, what should I do?" By all means fill him with a guide on how to get there that doesn't inclue a single opening.

There aren't enough thumbs-up in the world.

odisea777
odisea777
Jun 8, 2012
0
#26
TonyH wrote:

A funny story about openings. One of my students who is 1900+ uscf at 14 and I were talking about what she plays against various openings. I asked her what she played against the Nimzo Indian? She said "what's that?" 

I laughed. She understood the ideas once I mentioned the starting moves, (control of the light squares d5 and e4 etc) but didnt know the name of the opening.

I like this idea; you don't have to memorize openings if you are like this student - learn what can happen and how to respond to it; it does not matter whether you know that the name of your opening is the Nimzo Indian. It is the move combinations and variations that matter. good post!!

odisea777
odisea777
Jun 8, 2012
0
#27
ab121705 wrote:
TonyH wrote:

A funny story about openings. One of my students who is 1900+ uscf at 14 and I were talking about what she plays against various openings. I asked her what she played against the Nimzo Indian? She said "what's that?" 

I laughed. She understood the ideas once I mentioned the starting moves, (control of the light squares d5 and e4 etc) but didnt know the name of the opening.

I like this idea; you don't have to memorize openings if you are like this student - learn what can happen and how to respond to it; it does not matter whether you know that the name of your opening is the Nimzo Indian. It is the move combinations and variations that matter. good post!!

then again, knowing the names by which the move combinations are known can make it easier to converse about chess; i.e. rather than stating the specific moves in an opening, just say the name by which the opening is known - shorthand way of referring to the moves. I guess that's how these names come about.....thoughts?

Scottrf
Scottrf
Jun 8, 2012
0
#28
ChessSponge wrote:

My stance has always been that if something is a hobby for you, approach it in whatever way gives you enjoyment.

 

A lot of people on here always want to "correct" other players approaches to learning. I believe they tend to forget that to the majority of chess players it is a hobby and a game and nothing more. Yes, if you want to maximize your rate of learning/rate of gaining elo then the opening is not something to study early. If you just want to have fun and reading about openings is fun, then DO IT!

 

If someone wants to build a model as a hobby and someone who views model building as a professional art that isn't to be taken lightly begins to give the hobby person a guide on how to approach model building to raise your skill as high and as quick as possible, that hobbyist modeler would probably just go "Wow, that sounds tedious and boring, I'm done with this".

 

Same goes to the chess community. A lot of people just want to play games and have fun. They don't care what the "right way" to learn is, they just want to enjoy the game. Telling them to study 300 end game problems followed by 10 hours of tactics problems before playing or looking at an opening move would scare most of them off from ever playing again. Now if a person comes to the boards and says "I want to hit 1800 ELO as fast as possible, what should I do?" By all means fill him with a guide on how to get there that doesn't inclue a single opening.

I'd agree if I didn't read a dozen posts a day asking the best approach to learning or the quickest way to increase their rating.

People don't ask how to have fun with chess.

Paprika2215
Paprika2215
Jun 11, 2012
0
#29
Scottrf wrote:
ChessSponge wrote:

My stance has always been that if something is a hobby for you, approach it in whatever way gives you enjoyment.

 

A lot of people on here always want to "correct" other players approaches to learning. I believe they tend to forget that to the majority of chess players it is a hobby and a game and nothing more. Yes, if you want to maximize your rate of learning/rate of gaining elo then the opening is not something to study early. If you just want to have fun and reading about openings is fun, then DO IT!

 

If someone wants to build a model as a hobby and someone who views model building as a professional art that isn't to be taken lightly begins to give the hobby person a guide on how to approach model building to raise your skill as high and as quick as possible, that hobbyist modeler would probably just go "Wow, that sounds tedious and boring, I'm done with this".

 

Same goes to the chess community. A lot of people just want to play games and have fun. They don't care what the "right way" to learn is, they just want to enjoy the game. Telling them to study 300 end game problems followed by 10 hours of tactics problems before playing or looking at an opening move would scare most of them off from ever playing again. Now if a person comes to the boards and says "I want to hit 1800 ELO as fast as possible, what should I do?" By all means fill him with a guide on how to get there that doesn't inclue a single opening.

I'd agree if I didn't read a dozen posts a day asking the best approach to learning or the quickest way to increase their rating.

People don't ask how to have fun with chess.

Of course people don't ask how to have fun with chess, isn't obvious why not? Everyone enjoys things in their own way, so the same goes for playing and/or learning chess!