Don't memorize openings--that's a sure way to lose many games. Try to understand what the goals of each opening are and how to strive for them. But the key is understanding. When you can understand what it is you are trying to say with the opening, then your strength really increases. And when faced with lines you haven't seen before, knowing why the pieces need to go where they go gives you a certain advantage if the other guy is playing by rote. Review the openings, sure, but don't become a slave to them. Use that time to strengthen other phases of your game, like Rook and Pawn endings. The opening has its place, but the point of the opening is to get to a playable middlegame--that's all.
opening game < middle game?
Sort:
Yes, openings can be defeated very easily by solid chess play, but if you know the theory and the ideas behind an opening those small advantages gained early on can win the game. Knowing theory can be a plus and a negative. Once you memorize an opening you cease to actually think about your situation, meaning that very quickly chess becomes boring. It is up to you whether or not to delve into openings.
Feb 18, 2009
0
#4
My humble thanks go out to those that chose to share their thoughts on this topic. I'm going to stretch this idea further and try my best not to undermine the suggestions provided by dashkee94, onewho_dies and Grakovsky.
I think these guys placed less emphasis on an opening and tried to express the importance of understanding why each move was made. This is the basis of my post. If it is possible to reach an equalized middle game with best effort moves, is it necessary to study opening systems that require indepth study?
If this idea has been covered previously, please provide me with links so I can learn. I am experienced with communicating on forums and I assure you that I searched before I posted this topic. :)
I have been researching various stages of chess and have found some interesting material on the opening game. In Roland's Lab Volume 1 and on chesslecture.com, it has been suggested that conservative and careful play can result in an equal position in the middle game even if a player is not familiar with a particular opening. It was stressed that this way of play forfeits any advantage that a player may gain with sharp play during the opening. Does anyone have experience that support or disproves this information?
If it is possible to reach an equalized position with sound moves that may not be the best moves that are covered in opening theory, wouldn't it be more beneficial to focus more energy on the middle game and end game? It seems pointless to study an opening system with 10 variations, each 10+ moves deep, when your opponent can nullify the hours of effort spent learning these lines with a simple, effective and maybe unconventional opening. Thoughts?