Opening Theory Is Pointless For Most People That Will Ever Play. Why Bother?

Maybe you don't play something terrible and get one of those +/= positions the opening books like to rave about. I think that's pretty trivial information for most people to have. Seeing as U2000 most games are decided by tactics it seems to me that the opening evaluation is practically useless knowledge. As long as the worse side hasn't blundered anything it's fair game. Someone's going to screw up anyway. Let's look at a position:

 

 

The position evaluation is over 3.00. Some people will get the puzzle and some won't. That's not relevant. What is relevant is that if you don't find the move White has absolutely nothing. So you go from 3.00 to like 0.14 or something even though nothing was blundered. Not seeing the best move isn't losing or anything but it pretty much illustrates the point I want to make.

 

If you can't find strong moves in overwhelming positions then what does it matter what you ever manage to do in positions that are not overwhelming? If you can't hold 3.00 then you're just wasting your time searching for some +/= position because that's not going to last very long anyway. It makes the whole concept of learning anything more than basic opening principles wasted effort that could be spent elsewhere. And it even makes tactics puzzles seem more important than people say they are.

 

All this stuff about openings and middlegames and even endgames seems pointless. I rarely ever reach a basic king and pawn ending and when I do someone just loses on time. My opponent's and I play terrible moves in the opening all the time and yet the result is practically random. It's hard to see how anything but tactics is worth working on. Everything else just seems to require the most basic study while not blundering is everything else that matters.

penandpaper0089 wrote: "... Seeing as U2000 most games are decided by tactics it seems to me that the opening evaluation is practically useless knowledge. As long as the worse side hasn't blundered anything it's fair game. Someone's going to screw up anyway. ... All this stuff about openings and middlegames and even endgames seems pointless. ... It's hard to see how anything but tactics is worth working on. Everything else just seems to require the most basic study while not blundering is everything else that matters."

 

"... A remark like 'games are rarely decided in the opening' does not really do justice to the issue. ... even if an initial opening advantage gets spoiled by subsequent mistakes, this doesn't render it meaningless. In the long run, having the advantage out of the opening will bring you better results. Maybe this warning against the study of openings especially focuses on 'merely learning moves'. But almost all opening books and DVD's give ample attention to general plans and developing schemes, typical tactics, whole games, and so on. ..." - IM Willy Hendriks (2012)

"... Overall, I would advise most players to stick to a fairly limited range of openings, and not to worry about learning too much by heart. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2008)
"... 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
"... I feel that the main reasons to buy an opening book are to give a good overview of the opening, and to explain general plans and ideas. ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)
"... If the book contains illustrative games, it is worth playing these over first ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)
"... the average player only needs to know a limited amount about the openings he plays. Providing he understands the main aims of the opening, a few typical plans and a handful of basic variations, that is enough. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2008)
"... 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 way I suggest you study this book is to play through the main games once, relatively quickly, and then start playing the variation in actual games. Playing an opening in real games is of vital importance - without this kind of live practice it is impossible to get a 'feel' for the kind of game it leads to. There is time enough later for involvement with the details, after playing your games it is good to look up the line." - GM Nigel Davies (2005)

This is all great in a vacuum but not in real games.

1.) Typical plans are great. Except when you blunder. Then they don't matter anymore.

2.) Knowing what to do is super helpful. Not so much when someone changes the nature of the position to something unrecognizable and then you blunder.

 

Why are players U2000? Because they don't know the typical plans of the opening? Because they play too many openings? No. It's tactics. When players get over that I can see these things being relevant but not before.

penandpaper0089 wrote: "... Typical plans are great. Except when you blunder. Then they don't matter anymore. ..."

 

"... A remark like 'games are rarely decided in the opening' does not really do justice to the issue. ... even if an initial opening advantage gets spoiled by subsequent mistakes, this doesn't render it meaningless. In the long run, having the advantage out of the opening will bring you better results. Maybe this warning against the study of openings especially focuses on 'merely learning moves'. But almost all opening books and DVD's give ample attention to general plans and developing schemes, typical tactics, whole games, and so on. ..." - IM Willy Hendriks (2012)

After such a game, isn't there the opportunity to examine the game and learn from it?

"... This book is the first volume in a series of manuals designed for players who are building the foundations of their chess knowledge. The reader will receive the necessary basic knowledge in six areas of the game - tactcs, positional play, strategy, the calculation of variations, the opening and the endgame. ... To make the book entertaining and varied, I have mixed up these different areas, ..." - GM Artur Yusupov
"It is important for club players to build up a suitable opening repertoire." - GM Artur Yusupov (2010)

 In your example I'm pretty happy to move Qg4+ followed by Ng3 fairly quickly.   I really like your post.   I think blunder checking before moving will get a player to 1500.   

Aizen89 then makes a good point.   

 

So do both.  With more time devoted to tactics.   

 

I think it's helpful to analyze your own games.  You should find your weak spot, and focus on improving in that area, whatever it might be - attack, calculation, combinational vision, defence, endings, openings, positional judgement, strategy, or time management.

Yeah I agree. The London System wins by force.

 If all you know is the eval, then yes, that's 100% trivial. Correct opening study means you learn the common ideas and patterns for why one side has an advantage.

 Tactics flow from a superior position, so it's never useless to have a superior position even if all you know how to do is tactics.

 In spite of what I said above, I definitely agree with this. People shouldn't be afraid of openings that end in "bad" positions according to the engine because (if the opening is well established) the practical chances make up for any raw engine eval (also sometimes the engine is just wrong).

Again though it's all about knowing the common patterns and general strategic ideas in the position.

 Sort of. But you have to remember the other player is human too. Give an engine a 0.1 position and you can't win, but for humans some 0.00 positions might as well be losing because of how easy it is for one side, and difficult for the other.

So again, as long as you understand the position (due to opening study lets say), you can afford to miss tactics here and there because your peers will do the same, and in the end, the person who understands the position is still more likely to win.

 I don't know... basically everyone says you should make it a daily routine.

 Well, that's likely in large part due to you just playing blitz.

In long games, where you get to practice good technique (and you're rewarded for knowing technical endgames by heart) you really learn these things. Then when you go back to blitz, you can win these pawn endgames with nearly 100% premoves. I've had plenty of games like this, where I get a winning endgame, and play the last 40 moves in less than 30 seconds.

 You might be surprised how much a good position counts. I was helping a much lower rated player at the club and set up a position that was really good for him, really bad for me, and said we should play it out. Even though I was, I don't know, 500 points better at least, I really struggled and in the end even lost.

So at the very least, you need to avoid positions with no play, you need to understand the basic middlegame concepts that are present in the opening lines you choose, because even a really bad player will be able to push you around if your position has nothing to do, and even a really bad player will find effective moves if they have all the play in the position.

As an example of not playing the best moves, the engine showing 0.00, but still having practical chances due to superior position requiring black to be more accurate than white:

 

According to the OP's hypothesis, random move generators should prove to be as good as humans. We know that isn't the case. Clearly some value is obtained through study and even the "general opening priciples" he mentions was developed from practical play, i.e. learning from experience.

I accept the point that rote memorization of specific opening move sequences is mostly mundane and unpractical. That misses the point of studying opening theory and master games in general. I want to find the ideas and reoccuring themes that can be gained from such study.

Case in point. I recently decided to start playing an obscure opening (Bird's Opening). Everytime I encountered it, from the black side, the ideas of how to play against it baffled me. Clearly there was a "supprise value" that white was counting on. I figured I'd start playing it myself just to learn it's weaknesses. I quickly found through my losses that I was mishandling the position as both White and Black. I began looking through old games and books, studying theory,  and I'm now beginning to pick up the patterns to play the opening correctly. My play is gradually improving.  I have picked up on the common themes of a two bishop sacrifice, exploiting f6 as a weakness, the long Knight manuevers, Nc3-e2-g3-h5 etc.  These ideas I would have missed had I not been willing to pick up a book and study.

MikeCrockett wrote: "... I began looking through old games and books, studying theory, and I'm now beginning to pick up the patterns to play the opening correctly. My play is gradually improving. ... These ideas I would have missed had I not been willing to pick up a book and study."

 

"... In the middlegame and especially the endgame you can get a long way through relying on general principles and the calculation of variations; in the opening you can go very wrong very quickly if you don't know what ideas have worked and what haven't in the past. It has taken hundreds of years of trial and error by great minds like Alekhine and, in our day, Kasparov to reach our current knowledge of the openings. ..." - GM Neil McDonald (2001)

There is a difference in between not studying openings and playing weird ones. Larsen probably knew a lot about b3 if not he would have been left in worse positions where on average he would have lost.

Not sure what people mean by "studying opening theory"... a lot of it is phraseology. If a respected coach or stronger player told you should study your games for weaknesses and errors, inevitably your first weak move would be in the opening (unless you subconsciously recreate several hundred years of modern opening theory OTB every time you play). You would probably compare your crap move to a good move, such as played by say, a GM, or recommended in a repertoire book, and turn on the engine if your resources didn't cover what you played.

If you play the same moves at the beginning of your games, then that consistency ought to theoretically help you learn because of the repetition and practice needed to learn from your mistakes and to learn themes, structures, and plans in the games you play.

Of course, if you try to memorize games, opening books, and analysis, hoping that your opponent will fall into a clearly advantageous line that only you have memorized, then that type of "study" of opening theory seems useless.

dannyhume wrote: " If a respected coach or stronger player told you should study your games for weaknesses and errors, inevitably your first weak move would be in the opening."

That's what I thought as well.  Is the OP suggesting that we should ignore mistakes we make in the opening, and only analyze mistakes that seem to be tactical in nature?  What about strategic mistakes?  Do we leave those be as well?

Opening theory helps you play against most moves not all of them, also it wasn't impossible to analyse openings those days, you just did with other humans.

I guess I was thrown off by his comment: "It's hard to see how anything but tactics is worth working on."

Do you mean learning openings themselves or learning Opening Theory - the theory behind the openings?

If you don't understand basic opening theory, you won't often get to positions where you can put tactics to work. If you don't fight for space, tempo, central control, and development with threats you wont win against good players.

An easy example is getting your Queen out too early, then wasting tempos while it is chased around and your opponent develops his pieces. Another is moving your White QB to d2, then to g5, then back to e3 - wasting two tempos since you could have played Be3 in one move.  You need to understand opening theory to avoid such things.

As far as individual openings go, I agree it's pointless for non-masters to memorize long lines. But having a repertoire of a small number of openings where you understand the goals of those openings gives you a framework for getting to the middlegame and a familiarity that lets you play faster because you know there aren't any traps in certain positions.

The OP didn't say "ignore mistakes", but you can read between the lines. If you want to be able to capitalize on a 0.3 pawn technical advantage, you would first have to become a 2900-level rated endgame technician so that you can capitalize on all concrete, forced winning positions, but OP also says that much of endgame study is a waste. Tactics teach you to capitalize on others' bigger errors and prevent big ones of your own (capitalizing upon your opponent's really bad moves and reducing your own really bad moves), but if you don't know what you are aiming for (making good moves), then you will shuffle around and "hope" your opponent makes the first major visible mistake, which doesn't help since "tactics flow from a superior position."