Opening choices against much higher rated opponents

I was talking about OTB competition, and getting better at practice speeds of G/5, up to G/30 with (a five second delay).

If weaker players want to "win games" and "push up their OTB rating," my suggestions will work for anyone below @1800 USCF.

And it's much less demanding of your time.

Correspondence Chess is a "whole nother" kettle of fish.  Presumably that's about the great mystery and beauty of chess, and the Claude Shannon number of possible outcomes.

All your post proves is that chess players are an eccentric lot, holding very strong opinions about the nature of the game, and all its phases.

And yes, we are all fairly contrarian.

But my suggestions are for the 90 percent of active tournament players who can't seem to make it into the "A Class" USCF.

Your rebuttables are mostly about "how the GMs suggest we should play the Royal Game."  So what.  We are probably both correct.

But you are wrong about improving lower ranked player's rating.  These players mostly "burn out" before reaching the "A Class," partly because of this "purist" advice to study only classical openings, that everyong keeps telling them.  So they play into a maze of tactical complications that their opponents have already studied.

My advise was very general.  Lots of flexibility to choose your systems, and AFTER you become stronger, then simply switch into all the classical (and popular) and "big theory" opening systems.

That's pretty much what you are want to suggest above.  But you're too busy "refuting" me.

Whatever.

Everbody plays the Sicilan, , Nimzo, KID, and double e-pawn with white.  Suggesting that lower rated players start in those systems just keeps them getting beat and going back to "the coaches" with money in hand.

I suggest delaying this study until later, when you are more knowledgeable.  It's entirely your choice.

"Universal Openings" save lots of time (initially) and let's you concentrate on getting stronger in the middle and endgame, where most games are won or lost.

Most classical opening systems can be completely bypassed by starting with narrow opening repetoires.  So do it.  You can always expand your opening repetoire at a later date.  The assertion by some of "the coaches" in this thread that narrow openings stunt your chess development is bogus.  Any opening that you study, and learn well, will surely help your game.

I didn't say "memorize." I said learn them well, and learn their thematic middlegame positions.  You need to play an opening (any opening) repeatedly if you want to learn its nuances.

Games are decided in the middle or endgame.  Openings (writ large) are mostly a "black hole" for the study time of lower rated players.

The OP essentially asked "how to get booked up" against higher rated players.  You suggested he do it the old fashion way ("according to the chess coaches").

I say nobody needs a chess coach to reach the A Class, USCF.  But you still have to study systematically the openings you choose.

Your assertion that "universal systems" are somehow more "strategically complex" is very misleading.  Where doesn't that idea come from?  Larsen's attack, or a reversed Slave (London System) are clearly much simpler than the Ruy Lopez, and the theory is much smaller and easier to learn.  Buy a couple good books on them and your'll have most everthing published (on them) for the last ten years.

I said chose openings, study them intensely, and use them until you become strong enough to expand your repetoire.  The improvement flows naturally from the continual playing.

There's no magic bullet, but my suggestions are much simpler and easier to implement, and then the student is free to play "Chess Purist" AFTER he gets stronger. 

But winning at correspondence chess and winning at blitz, is a "whole nother" kettle of fish.  I'm talking about speeds of G/15 up to regulation OTB.

Actually, I tend to agree with Bresando here. What makes "universal systems" challenging, is that it's not always clear what you should be aiming for, while classical openings usually have clear-cut objectives.

However, maybe we need to be more specific here, as some universal systems are much simpler than others. For example, the Colle is pretty straightforward (basic development scheme + push e4 and launch kingside attack) - same for the Stonewall attack (put a Knight on e5, bring the queen + rook on the kingside, checkmate...). Others are way more difficult to interpret (modern defence, King's Indian Attack) and require a higher level of positional understanding.

Overall, I think the main "trap" of universal systems is that they may comfort you with the idea you don't really need to take into account what the opponent is doing, which is an essential chess skill to develop, while classical opening force you to take care of this very early on. Now, if you don't fall in this trap, system openings are a way to reduce the amount of opening knowledge required to reach playable middlegames.

If weaker players want to "win games" and "push up their OTB rating," my suggestions will work for anyone below @1800 USCF. It will work of course  since the opening is not that important, but in my personal opinion it would work worse than playing standard stuff

And it's much less demanding of your time. Serious doubts on this. Playing mainlines at sub-1800 level is absolutely not time demanding. You can play any opening with no theory and just an idea about the genereal themes.

All your post proves is that chess players are an eccentric lot, holding very strong opinions about the nature of the game, and all its phases. Agreed, we are bizarre people :D

But my suggestions are for the 90 percent of active tournament players who can't seem to make it into the "A Class" USCF. Everyone can reach that level by following either your or "mine" (the usual) suggestion, so again you are certainly right. But most people arrived there with "my" mehtod.

But you are wrong about improving lower ranked player's rating.  These players mostly "burn out" before reaching the "A Class" and it's because everyong keeps telling them "how to study openings." We are in strong digagreement on this. The idea that a <2000 player loses more than a game out of 1000 because of the opening is ridicolous. Those players "burn out" because they either study too little, or in a not efficient way, or simply do not care about improving. The opening choice has no role in this.

My advise was very general.  Lots of flexibility to choose your systems, and AFTER you become stronger, then simply switch into all the classical (and popular) and "big theory" opening systems. You can do this of course but my impression is that the only effect is slowing down the improvement and condemning yourself to a longer and harder study when you finally take up a classical opening.

That's pretty much what you are want to suggest above.  But you're too busy "refuting" me. We are having a discussion, it's rather narmal that not everyone agrees :)

Everbody plays the Sicilan, KID, double e-pawn with white.  Suggesting that lower rated players start in those systems just keeps them getting beat and going back to "the coaches" with money in hand. Come on, these is no need for a great cospiration of chess coaches against amateurs :D you are again overvaluing the importance of the opening. You never lose your game in the opening unless both players are rated 2500. This just doesn't make sense.

But all those systems can be completely bypassed by playing narrow opening repetoires.  So do it. Yes, but what i'm saying is that you are bypassing the chess knowledge originating from these openings (i'm referring to typical middlegame plans, not to concrete lines). Narrow repertoire=little variety=repetitive middlegames=slower learning of new patterns=slower improvement. You are bypassing a desiderable thing.

Games are decided in the middle or endgame.  Openings are mostly a "black hole" for the study time of lower rated players. Not if a player just studyes the ideas and very few moves. This will give him a good basis for middlegame without wasting much time, and an evolutive repertoire which can bedeepened later. But i agree that the sillyest thing amateur can do is starding learning the latest novelty on move 20. That is putting your time in a black hole.

I say nobody needs a chess coach to reach the A Class, USCF.  But you still have to study the openings you choose systematically.Of course! Who said that you need a coach to reach 1800? of couse you can reach this relatively low level on your own.

Your assertion that "universal systems" are somehow more "strategically complex" is very misleading.  Where doesn't that idea come from?  Larsen's attack clearly much simpler than the Ruy Lopez, and the theory is much smaller and easier to learn. Larsen attack simpler than the ruy? Of course the ruy is much simpler! theory is deeper but the plan is more defined in the early moves and so is much easyer to play the ruy. By applying thematic ideas you will never be worse than equal. insrtead 1.b3 is tremendously difficult to handle, subtle stategical decisions in the opening are needed and i wouldnt expect anyone rated below 2000 to handle this comfortably. 

There's no magic bullet, but my suggestions are much simpler and easier to implement, and then the student is free to play "Chess Purist" AFTER he gets stronger. I think the classical advice is simpler, saves time and is more logical, but of course every player is different and someone might be better off by following your advice.

Dear Bresando,

Our Myers-Briggs types are quite distinct.  You're a Sensor and I'm an Intuitive. We're basically polar opposites.

You're peeling out my comments and trying to refute each of them individually.  I gave general advice to a general question.  You can't see my forest, and I can't see your trees.

1) If you are a weaker player, then playing into what other chess players are typically studying intensely (ie. Sicilians, KIDs, French, Caro-Kann, etc.) is a recipe for losing lots of games.

2) Getting good on defense first, with the black pieces, and then turning that opening system round and playing it with the white pieces saves an immense amount of time for a new recruit to the Royal Game.  This way, you're opening work from the white side is already basically done.

That's it for my assertions.  Both very general, indeed.

Your post simply peels out my text and aggressively refutes each chosen sentence.  We come from different psychological planets.  Nothing wrong with that.

But when WGMs on Chess.com publically admit that it "takes two to three years to get comfortable with the thematic middlegames of the Ruy Lopez," I say to weaker players--

"That's exactly why you probably shouldn't start your chess studies with the Ruy, because you won't understand the "light square, dark square" strategy behind that opening, until you are much stronger player."

Yes, the Ruy, Nimzo, KID, and Sicilian are the greatest openings.  Their opening theory is gigantic and everybody studies and plays it.  But so what. 

I'm talking about a practical process for getting to 1800 USCF and having (roughly) that same playing strength a G/30 or higher speed, where the Royal Game is still lots of fun.

Personally I would much rather study chess for five hours than play a five hour game at less than "B Class" playing strength.  What's the point of playing so weakly at very slow speeds?  It's embarrassing.

But telling weaker players to study the Sicilian for five hours because "you'll be a better man" for it is nuts.  If white doesn't play e4, all that opening work is basically useless.

And playing the Sicilian because it will somehow "make you a better chess player" over the long time is just nonsense.

I have asserted that intensely studying the openings you play will make you a better player in that opening.  This is tautologically true.  Please don't try to refute it.   

But whatever suits you, more power to you.  Knock yourself out.

We have both provided our opinions to the OP.  Maybe he will chime in later in this thread.

Best Wishes,

kborg

The coaches are trolling for students.  I'm done with this thread.  Bye bye.

At perfect summary from another text above--

"Now, if you don't fall in this trap, system openings are a way to reduce the amount of opening knowledge required to reach playable middlegames."

Q.E.D.

*(typo corrected from above).

Thank you for all the replies, lots of useful info here.

kborg: I'm not interested in playing system openings, but thank you for the advice. I enjoy learning the game, and I'm not just trying to get as high rating as possible. Therefore I feel that learning mainlines, as all coaches and strong players suggest, is more right for me, as I don't want to miss out on important knowledge. It may take a little while longer to reach 1800, if I ever will, but that doesn't bother me.

Perhaps the best advice was "play your regular openings, that way, you'll learn them better". I can certainly see the point in that, and if I try to avoid playing opening variations that are full of nasty tricks and traps I will have little problem with players that know more theory than I do. For example, I wouldn't enter the Marshall attack of RL as either color against a higher rated player as I've heard that it is sharp and theory heavy.

But what to do against the Sicilian as white? I understand that many variations are very sharp and difficult to play, which as I see it greatly favors a well-prepared higher rated player. Should I stick with Alapin sicilian (which I've played more than main line) against higher rated opponents? I'm not very good at playing IQP positions, but the games are in my experience not as complicated as mainline Sicilians can be.

I think Alapin is a good practical choice. It's rich enough to give you an interesting game, and Sicilian players don't like facing it

And improving your play in IQP positions is good for your overall chess, so you're not wasting your time anyway.

I've always found the Alapin a bit boring, that's why I've recently started playing main lines when playing opponents at my rating level. Perhaps it's because I don't know how to properly play the positions that arise from the opening?

Ultimately, what is important is to feel comfortable with the opening you're playing, and it's a very personal matter.

Some people feel better with a system opening where they can always play the same first moves, some people are happy to play a sideline they will probably know better than their opponent, some people are all in with dubious and sharp gambits, and some people prefer classical play and main lines.

There's no single recipe to play on par with a stronger player, but confidence is key : if you feel uncomfortable with your opening scheme, your opponent will feel it and start to pounce. But if you display confidence, even while playing a dubious line, he may start to have doubts himself and make some mistake.

As for the Alapin, well, the idea is that you can often build up a kingside attack, but of course, it's less sharp than your regular open Sicilian

Well with the words of Dzindzi (i dont know how to write em).. people ask me for sharp lines and then they forget its not only sharp for one side but for both sides and thes opponent can make the line even sharper. Dont play sharp stuff play mainline stuff, he probably will underestimate you and overplay his position and even if you lose, if you play mainline maybe you can remember those lines for latter.. . if you just prepare one sharp opening for one opponent its a waste of time, maybe you dont even need it anymore in the future because you are much better or anything.. just play serious stuff... eventually you win...

Ok, thank you. I'll post my next game in the Alapin so that you can analyze it and help me. ;)

 well actually it is a suprise, because popular classical openings are tested by time and they have good play for both sides, so you are more likely to stand a chance in one of those. so what even if he knows the line as well, that doesnt mean he will beat you, but if you play a complex system then you have much lesser play... and you really need to be good to play it properly.. so what if everyone learns the same openings, than its a fun battle and either you win or you gain knowledge

Ive found that studying opening theory is pretty much useless at my level aside from learning general opening principles. Ofc, you should learn main lines to what you are playing, and the plans behind them but this only takes about 20 minutes, and you will almost never use any of the lines you know lol. Low rated games (below 1800-2000) usually get out of book very quickly, and you will always get out of book in every game you play, so knowing general opening principals, and trying to get your pieces active etc. etc. will give you far more rewards than worrying about move order or if your opponent is going to get a .15 pawn theoritical advantage out of the opening. Many people get to tabiya of their opening and are like "herp durr what do I do now?"

Just learn the main tabiyas of a few openings, look at annotated master games played in that opening, and try it out, and look up what you should have done after every game,  fix your mistake, and your "opening tree" will get longer and longer every time you play. Sooner or later you will be crushing people out of the opening in lines you learned from being crushed yourself. I would try to play stronger opposition 3/4 of the time if possible, the only way you can learn from your mistakes is to be punished for them.

Universal Systems vs. Classical Openings

kborg put the caviat on his advice that if a player wants to reach 1800, he can play universal stuff without worrying about classical openings very much. While this is true, I would say that this is a bad idea IF the player wants to advance further than 1800. If 1800 is the goal, one can just play system stuff all the time and get there.

If a player has a desire to go further, they should start playing classical openings from the beginning. It's very difficult to learn how to play chess against the 1800+ crowd than against 1100s. Because, rest assured, playing universal systems doesn't teach you much about chess.

Both approaches ARE valid. But again, IMO, universal systems should be used ONLY if a player does not aspire to go past 1800.

And yes, I am a chess coach (but don't worry, I'm not accepting new students at this time anyway). When teaching a student, I operate under the assumption that they want to go as far as they can. If a parent or student told me otherwise, I would consider a short-cut approach.

 +1

The advice to play sharp lines against stronger players never worked for me. On the contrary, I use sharp lines against weaker players, but fare much better against stronger players if I go for closed positions with slow positional buildup (which is not the same as passive play, mind you). Yes, of course really strong players would beat me regardless of style of play, but those "stronger" guys I used to play at clubs and tournaments back in the days were mainly better in tactics and visualisation. And we all know that one tactical mistake and you're done.