"... For players with very limited experience, I recommend using openings in which the play can be clarified at an early stage, often with a degree of simplification. To accomplish this safely will take a little study, because you will have to get used to playing wiith open lines for both sides' pieces, but you can't eliminate risk entirely in the opening anyway. ... teachers all over the world suggest that inexperienced players begin with 1 e4. ... You will undoubtedly see the reply 1 ... e5 most often when playing at or near a beginner's level, ... After 2 Nf3, 2 ... Nc6 will occur in the bulk of your games. ... I recommend taking up the classical and instructive move 3 Bc4 at an early stage. Then, against 3 ... Bc5, it's thematic to try to establish the ideal centre by 4 c3 and 5 d4; after that, things can get complicated enough that you need to take a look at some theory and learn the basics; ... Of course, you can also play 1 d4 ... A solid and more-or-less universal set-up is 2 Nf3 and 3 Bf4, followed in most cases by 4 e3, 5 Be2 and 6 0-0. I'd rather see my students fight their way through open positions instead; however, if you're not getting out of the opening alive after 1 e4, this method of playing 1 d4 deserves consideration. ... a commonly suggested 'easy' repertoire for White with 1 Nf3 and the King's indian Attack ... doesn't lead to an open game or one with a clear plan for White. Furthermore, it encourages mechanical play. Similarly, teachers sometimes recommend the Colle System ..., which can also be played too automatically, and usually doesn't lead to an open position. For true beginners, the King's Indian Attack and Colle System have the benefit of offering a safe position that nearly guarantees passage to some kind of playable middlegame; they may be a reasonable alternative if other openings are too intimidating. But having gained even a small amount of experience, you really should switch to more open and less automatic play." - IM John Watson in a section of his 2010 book, Mastering the Chess Openings, Volume 4
Opening Minimalism: Reasoning Against Opening Theory Study For The Club/Class Player
Yes, kindaspongey I like Watson's work in general, although I have not read any of his 4 volume set on Mastering the chess openings. Although I would disagree with him on the "automatic play" idea. It is easy to get into an "auto pilot" modality in any opening or any phase of the game. One of the dangers and beauty of chess is that we must be constantly aware and vigilant against the mind's desire to simplify and play those so called automatic and "routine" moves.
My impression was that IM Watson was suggesting "less automatic play."
Yes that was my impression also from the quote you cited. I was just pointing out that it is possible to play lazily and automatic in any opening, middle or end game position and that choice of opening does not in and of itself solve that problem. That is more a problem of the thinking methodology of the player them selves.
You have presented a cogent and convincing argument for why club level players should not study opening theory. We always hear that they shouldn’t, but you are the first person I’ve seen explain the reason so clearly. Well done.
Study time being limited, those of us at the club level will see vastly more improvement by studying endgames, tactics, and how to handle various pawn structures. Indeed, I don’t know how someone could really learn an opening without first knowing how to play the typical pawn structures that result from it.
OldPatzerMikke, I was just browsing through Dan Heisman's book "A Guide To Chess Improvement: The Best Of Novice Nook" this evening. The book is 381, 6 3/4" x 9 3/4" pages long. It contains 39 articles. One of those articles, the only article in section 6 on Openings, 6-1 Learning Opening Lines and Ideas is 14 pages long. He starts off the section by saying:
"The importance of a chess concept is directly related to how often it occurs."
He then gives three bullet points:
When a player first starts out to learn the openings, he gets the most efficient use of his time by learning:
- General opening goals and principles
- A few main opening sequences (tabyias)
- How to avoid making the same mistakes over and over
Then in the next fourteen pages he has these sections:
- Learning General Goals and Guidelines
- Piece Activation Guidelines
- Control of Center Guidelines
- King Safety Guidelines
- Learning Opening Tabiyas
- Avoiding Continual Repetition of Mistakes
- Example Tabiya: Closed Ruy Lopez (Which incidentally is seven pages, half of the whole section)
I make a similar point in my the forum under general discussion on "becoming a class A player. https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/becoming-a-class-a-player
As for you mentioning pawn structures, I agree. I think there is much more to be gained for the class player in learning the basic pawn structures as with Andy Soltis' book "Pawn Structure Chess" than any in depth opening study beyond what Heisman suggests and what Alburt and Pelts suggest in Volumes I and II of The Comprehensive Chess Course.
@JMurakami
Yes I am definitely not saying to play blindly by following opening principles and only opening principles. One still needs to carefully analyze each position to avoid blunders and take advantage of tactical errors by ones opponent, as well as to come up with reasonable plans, moves and ideas. Which as you point out need to include pawn structure, piece activity, center control. I have not yet come across a book that sufficiently gives me the ideas behind the chess openings, (including Reubin Fine's work.) As you say 21st century chess has become more about the exception than the rule and the player that can find what makes a particular position unique will be better off than the player who only looks for what a position has in common with other positions. Which is getting to the "concrete approach" you mention. I know there is no magic pill, no panacea for most players opening blues. I am however against, as is already know, too much theoretical opening study and emphasis for the class player. Now you as a master level player are at that cusp where I only suspect that the better your particular opening knowledge the better, in that it saves you time, energy and mistakes. Is that the case?
... I have not yet come across a book that sufficiently gives me the ideas behind the chess openings, ...
"... For beginning players, [Discovering Chess Openings by GM John Emms] will offer an opportunity to start out on the right foot and really get a feel for what is happening on the board. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2006)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627114655/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen91.pdf
"... Once you identify an opening you really like and wish to learn in more depth, then should you pick up a book on a particular opening or variation. Start with ones that explain the opening variations and are not just meant for advanced players. ..." - Dan Heisman (2001)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140626180930/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman06.pdf
"... For inexperienced players, I think the model that bases opening discussions on more or less complete games that are fully annotated, though with a main focus on the opening and early middlegame, is the ideal. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2010)
"... Everyman Chess has started a new series aimed at those who want to understand the basics of an opening, i.e., the not-yet-so-strong players. ... I imagine [there] will be a long series based on the premise of bringing the basic ideas of an opening to the reader through plenty of introductory text, game annotations, hints, plans and much more. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2002)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627055734/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen38.pdf
"The importance of a chess concept is directly related to how often it occurs."
Is there a list of frequency?
@kindaspongey
&
@JMurakami
Thank you both for your excellent thoughts and insights !!!!
@SeniorPatzer
No there isn't, not that I am aware of. It is most likely experiential and anecdotal. Kind of like K+B+N v K lots of coaches teach that endgame as part of basic end game knowledge but I know that at least Soltis and Silman see no practical value in it since the chances of it actually occurring in a players competitive experience is very, very low. For that reason I have always been against learning it as a basic mating pattern. Now on the other hand if a person learns it as an exercise in visualization, piece cooperation and calculation THEN it can have benefits.
@JMurakami
I like Suetin, I have "Plan Like A Grandmaster" and "Three Steps To Chess Mastery." I just recently was re-reading Three Steps, and was re-discovering just what an excellent work it really is. I think that when I first encountered it I was to immature as player to fully grasp what he was explicating. I suspect this may be the case with many players and many books, i.e. encountering a really good book, but encountering it before one is really ready to take on and absorb what the author is trying to convey.
You don't need to convince anyone. If you don't want to study openings then don't. Most of the problem, as shown in the threads in this forum, is that people are not studying in the rightway i.e looking for plans and concepts, trying to understand what that they are doing. Instead look for quick fixes and the best opening sequencies. For example it is established that Nimzo is the best opening against 1.d4, but it involves being comfortable playing with many different pawn structures. People think they can shortcut learning this information. They don't look for openings which suit their current chess knowledge, which is most likely a lot simpler opening than the Nimzo.
So save your time and energy for more productive uses, be an opening minimalist. When you make it to the realm of titled players then you can take up the mantle of opening theory.
I agree.
When you work on other aspects of the game, your opening play tends to get stronger as a result.
For most players (U2200), learning theory isn't really practical, for the reasons you listed. It can help to learn the fundamental basics of an opening, sure (the first five moves or so)—but beyond that . . . Eh. I'd save it for later. And that's if you even need it.
My experiences has shown that you can be competitive up to Expert with minimal opening study. After that, you better know your stuff.
Are you the one who told us about using Fundamental Chess Openings and chess opening wizard software?
My experiences has shown that you can be competitive up to Expert with minimal opening study. After that, you better know your stuff.
Okay, that resembles getting payed regardless of the quality of the job we've done.
If a player plans on remaining at the level "I'm getting payed regardless...", then some guidelines is enough. But if he wants to improve, he better starts wasting time and learn how to do a good job right away. The "minimum effort" and "regardless" things are defects that take a long, long time to get rid off when seeking to master the game.
Obviously, but im referring to the casual player like myself. At 54 i dont have unreasonable expectations regarding how much i can improve.
I am against the emphasis in modern chess on opening theory. For the class/club level player, i.e. below 2200 you are simply going to run into to much randomness. Say you want to play 1. e4, and you want to play the Scotch Game. In MCO 14 you are given 24 main lines to look at let alone the accompanying the 102 separate notes to those main lines. Also, if you are going to play 1. e4 you will need to be prepared for the Petrov's Defense, the Philidor's Defense, the Latvian Gambit. and possibly the Queen Pawn Counter Gambit as well as the Owens Defense and Basman's Defense. And this only takes care of the possible 1. ... e5 or double king pawn openings. You will also need to be prepared for the other non-double king pawn openings such as, the Alekhine's Defense, the Caro-Kann Defense, the French Defense, the Pirc Defense, the Robatasch Defense, the Center Counter Defense, the Nimzovich Defense. I haven't yet included the Sicilian Defenses yet but you will have to choose there too what to play. And there as well if you don't play a line where you can force the opening within a few moves, as e.g. the closed Sicilians you will have tons of analysis to learn and study.
Part of the problem with opening theory is that it includes the strongest and most challenging moves to the particular lines and opening involved. Those strong moves and lines might be played by FM'S, IM's and GM's but most of the time you are going to get second best moves from your local 1600 or 1800 player. Which means that you are most likely going to need to figure things out over the board anyhow.
The amount of time a player spends on the studying of opening systems and variations is not proportional to the amount of pay back the player is going to get back from them and I suggest spending time on middle game and endgame strategy and tactics. This is what practical play for the average player dictates. Opening study time and energies for the class/club player would be better spent playing a certain opening say the Scotch, looking at some of the tactics and traps involved in it for both sides, then after playing it against an opponent looking at a reference book and with a chess engine seeing where you might have played better at. Then rinse and repeat, look at some more of the tactics and traps involved in the Scotch, play the Scotch in a tournament and once again analyze the game to see where you can improve in the opening phase.
If a player wants to study openings, pick ones that are systems, such as the Colle or the KIA for example, that your opponent cannot stop you from setting up, or pick openings that you can get into very quickly such as the Center Counter, or Philidor Defense. If you pick an opening/line that you have to get to move 12 to get into then chances are very good that your opponent will not cooperate and will play some "non-book" move and all your openning study and preparation will go out the window. And once again you are back at square one, on your own resources of basic principles along with calculation as your two best friends.
So save your time and energy for more productive uses, be an opening minimalist. When you make it to the realm of titled players then you can take up the mantle of opening theory.
Cheers,