Opening Theory Is Pointless For Most People That Will Ever Play. Why Bother?
Sort:
[COMMENT DELETED]
JMurakami wrote:
... novices mostly pay attention to general guidelines to post their pieces but not in connection to a future or possible tactical battle. Some don't even pay attention to what the rival is aiming at. That is, they're thinking on what they want to do but not in what's actually happening. ...
Are there opening books that try to help with that sort of thing?
Oct 7, 2017
0
#203
kindaspongey wrote:
penandpaper0089 wrote:
... I like to play the English to avoid tactics in the opening which also means less concrete positions and opening theory. ...
So some theory is invilved?
None that I need to know. Sure every now and then you might run into a position that's just too complicated like 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 d5 5.ed when no one plays 5...Na5 putting the knight on the edge of the board and sacking a pawn the first time they see this position. But those are rare.
Oct 7, 2017
0
#204
JMurakami wrote:
penandpaper0089 wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
penandpaper0089 wrote:
... Are you saying that the chances of blundering being low would offset the FACT that most games U2000 are lost due to blunders?
I would not use the word, "offset", but, if it is impotant to be concerned about blunders, why wouldn't it be desirable to reduce the chances of blundering?
I don't think it actually matters. Sure you can play stuff like the Colle or London and try to get positions that are quiet as possible. I like to play the English to avoid tactics in the opening which also means less concrete positions and opening theory. But all this really does is push the blunders from say move 5 to move 15 or something. And a blunder on move 15 can be just as devastating as one on move 5. Sure there is also the point that the opponent could also blunder before you do because they aren't any more sure of what to do than you are. But it's not really something that you should consistent results from imo. It's just something extra that you may or may not benefit from every now and then. But I'd rather benefit from good play and leave probability or luck to work on it's own.
Ahhh.
You take a personal issue a make a general rule out of it. It's not like that.
For starters, chess is mostly about concrete approach and analysis. Maybe not as high as 99% tactics (Teichmann) but the general idea is true: Everything is about developing an unstoppable piece activity (threats, tactics). All those quiet –positional– moves make sense only because they're aiming at placing the pieces in the best squares prior to a foreseeable engagement, or to prevent the opponent to force a tactical battle when his pieces are better posted for it.
Systematic studies in chess follow that path: How and why to place the pieces and pawns in certain squares, and this applies to openings as well when analyzed together with the resulting middlegames and endings.
On the other hand, novices mostly pay attention to general guidelines to post their pieces but not in connection to a future or possible tactical battle. Some don't even pay attention to what the rival is aiming at. That is, they're thinking on what they want to do but not in what's actually happening. So some claim it's worthless to play with a plan, or study chess for that matter. All they need is 1000 tactical puzzles a day... and that's it.
That's just the point I'm making. What good is all that preparation for an attack if you can't actually carry it out or defend those of the opponent? Tactics puzzles are supposed to be good for this. They do away with the opening and throw you into that scenario and you have to find the winning attack. And when you get to the point in which blunders aren't so common and players actually can do something with those little positional moves then the opening suddenly becomes more and more important. But that's not happening with amateurs, at least consistently.
JMurakami wrote:
... Learning a system is more a structured learning exercise which uses several sources and not just one book. ...
Is anyone advocating learning from just one book?
penandpaper0089 wrote:
... What good is all that preparation for an attack if you can't actually carry it out or defend those of the opponent? ...
"... blundering may be more difficult in better positions. ..." - penandpaper0089
And attacks and defense easier in better positions?
penandpaper0089 wrote:
... when you get to the point in which blunders aren't so common and players actually can do something with those little positional moves then the opening suddenly becomes more and more important. ...
"... blundering may be more difficult in better positions. ..." - penandpaper0089
JMurakami wrote:
@kindaspongey: "Is anyone advocating learning from just one book?"
Regarding openings, sure indeed. The last fashion was the ECO series, before that it was ...
Has it been over a decade since one of those five volumes was revised? Why would there have been any revision if the idea was that one of those was the end of the story?
JMurakami wrote:
... there's some misunderstanding about what a plan means. Some take it as positional (preparations) only, when it also involves the tactical execution. Some opening books don't give the latter because it would make the book too big, and just leave the lines with an evaluation (if advantage, it means there's no good counter to the active side). But the student still needs to work on them and not just believe that the game will finish in auto–mode. Which is mostly the reason for threads like this one.
Is that a reason to proclaim that plans are not relevant below 2000?
JMurakami wrote: "... there's some misunderstanding about what a plan means. Some take it as positional (preparations) only, when it also involves the tactical execution. Some opening books don't give the latter because it would make the book too big, and just leave the lines with an evaluation (if advantage, it means there's no good counter to the active side). But the student still needs to work on them and not just believe that the game will finish in auto–mode. Which is mostly the reason for threads like this one."
Is that a valid reason to proclaim that plans are not relevant below 2000?
Oct 8, 2017
0
#211
kindaspongey wrote:
penandpaper0089 wrote:
... It's not until a certain level is reached that openings actually affect the game in a relevant way. This is the way I see the game at any rate. Some may disagree ...
"It is important for club players to build up a suitable opening repertoire." - GM Artur Yusupov (2010)
Artur Yusupov acknowledges that he misjudged the strength of the players in his target audience. He acknowledges that his works are not really for beginners.
Yusupov differentiates between having a repertoire and studying opening theory.
He recommends that players rated around 1500 should stay away from concrete theory.
This is his complete response to a 1500 USCF rated player:
Why not have a repertoire? And the English is certainly a decent opening, good enough for Carlsen, Kramnik and so on, so why not for you?
For children I recommend starting with 1.e4 to make the game more tactical, but otherwise I would recommend you to stay with an opening you like and not care about what other people think! It is important to enjoy chess and to get positions we enjoy playing, more than maybe getting an advantage.
And yes, stay out of the concrete opening theory for now.
http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/blog/2152
penandpaper0089 wrote:
JMurakami wrote:
penandpaper0089 wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
penandpaper0089 wrote:
... Are you saying that the chances of blundering being low would offset the FACT that most games U2000 are lost due to blunders?
I would not use the word, "offset", but, if it is impotant to be concerned about blunders, why wouldn't it be desirable to reduce the chances of blundering?
I don't think it actually matters. Sure you can play stuff like the Colle or London and try to get positions that are quiet as possible. I like to play the English to avoid tactics in the opening which also means less concrete positions and opening theory. But all this really does is push the blunders from say move 5 to move 15 or something. And a blunder on move 15 can be just as devastating as one on move 5. Sure there is also the point that the opponent could also blunder before you do because they aren't any more sure of what to do than you are. But it's not really something that you should consistent results from imo. It's just something extra that you may or may not benefit from every now and then. But I'd rather benefit from good play and leave probability or luck to work on it's own.
Ahhh.
You take a personal issue a make a general rule out of it. It's not like that.
For starters, chess is mostly about concrete approach and analysis. Maybe not as high as 99% tactics (Teichmann) but the general idea is true: Everything is about developing an unstoppable piece activity (threats, tactics). All those quiet –positional– moves make sense only because they're aiming at placing the pieces in the best squares prior to a foreseeable engagement, or to prevent the opponent to force a tactical battle when his pieces are better posted for it.
Systematic studies in chess follow that path: How and why to place the pieces and pawns in certain squares, and this applies to openings as well when analyzed together with the resulting middlegames and endings.
On the other hand, novices mostly pay attention to general guidelines to post their pieces but not in connection to a future or possible tactical battle. Some don't even pay attention to what the rival is aiming at. That is, they're thinking on what they want to do but not in what's actually happening. So some claim it's worthless to play with a plan, or study chess for that matter. All they need is 1000 tactical puzzles a day... and that's it.
That's just the point I'm making. What good is all that preparation for an attack if you can't actually carry it out or defend those of the opponent? Tactics puzzles are supposed to be good for this. They do away with the opening and throw you into that scenario and you have to find the winning attack. And when you get to the point in which blunders aren't so common and players actually can do something with those little positional moves then the opening suddenly becomes more and more important. But that's not happening with amateurs, at least consistently.
SmyslovFan wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
... "It is important for club players to build up a suitable opening repertoire." - GM Artur Yusupov (2010)
... This is his complete response to a 1500 USCF rated player:
Why not have a repertoire? And the English is certainly a decent opening, good enough for Carlsen, Kramnik and so on, so why not for you?
For children I recommend starting with 1.e4 to make the game more tactical, but otherwise I would recommend you to stay with an opening you like and not care about what other people think! It is important to enjoy chess and to get positions we enjoy playing, more than maybe getting an advantage.
And yes, stay out of the concrete opening theory for now.
Does it sound to you as though he changed his mind about having a repertoire? Do you see a statement in this thread advocating "concrete opening theory"? Is there any reason to believe GM Artur Yusupov would disapprove of the comments of Nunn and Giddins?
"... 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)
"... 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)
Is there a reason to believe GM Artur Yusupov now thinks that plans are not relevant for players below 2000?
raisingsun reminded us that penandpaper0089 wrote: "... when you get to the point in which blunders aren't so common and players actually can do something with those little positional moves then the opening suddenly becomes more and more important. ..."
"... 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)
"It's important to understand why this is so. It's simply that blundering may be more difficult in better positions. ..." - penandpaper0089
And attacks and defense easier in better positions?
Oct 8, 2017
0
#214
You ask questions instead of make statements. You do this in order to act like you never actually believed anything you wrote. If you want to engage in honest conversation, great. If you want to try to score points with dubious rhetorical questions, have fun with that too. I said before, I won't play along.
SmyslovFan wrote:
You ask questions instead of make statements. You do this in order to act like you never actually believed anything you wrote. ...
Do you have in mind anything specific that I "wrote"?
Oct 8, 2017
0
#216
kindaspongey wrote:
Do you see a statement in this thread advocating "concrete opening theory"?
kindaspongey wrote:
Do you have in mind anything specific that I "wrote"?
That's the convenient thing about quote mining without actually giving an opinion isn't it? You can appear to undermine people giving all manner of different opening advises, and if you're ever pressed on an issue you can say you were never claiming anything to begin with... and then proceed to dump even more quotes (lol).
I agree with smyslovfan, I find it childish. He gave good criticism in #241 and you just spam quotes in reply.
It's also unhelpful. It's misleading to novices, the people you're trying to... help? Are you trying to help them? For example:
"It is important for club players to build up a suitable opening repertoire." - GM Artur Yusupov (2010)
Since there's no context this is a completely empty platitude. You might as well say the key to playing chess well is playing good moves while avoiding mistakes. Even worse, you present it as a counter point.
poodle_noodle wrote:
... You can appear to undermine people giving all manner of different opening advises, and if you're ever pressed on an issue you can say you were never claiming anything to begin with...
Do you have in mind a specific example of apparent "opening advises"?
"... He gave good criticism in #241 and you just spam quotes in reply. ..." - poodle_noodle
kindaspongey wrote (in reply to #241 (and #242)):
SmyslovFan wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:
... "It is important for club players to build up a suitable opening repertoire." - GM Artur Yusupov (2010)
... This is his complete response to a 1500 USCF rated player:
Why not have a repertoire? And the English is certainly a decent opening, good enough for Carlsen, Kramnik and so on, so why not for you?
For children I recommend starting with 1.e4 to make the game more tactical, but otherwise I would recommend you to stay with an opening you like and not care about what other people think! It is important to enjoy chess and to get positions we enjoy playing, more than maybe getting an advantage.
And yes, stay out of the concrete opening theory for now.
Does it sound to you as though he changed his mind about having a repertoire? Do you see a statement in this thread advocating "concrete opening theory"? Is there any reason to believe GM Artur Yusupov would disapprove of the comments of Nunn and Giddins?
"... 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)
"... 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)
Is there a reason to believe GM Artur Yusupov now thinks that plans are not relevant for players below 2000?
...
As you can see, my reply was not "just" quotes. Do you have anything to say about the questions that I raised about the Yusupov quote? Do you see me saying that I was never claiming anything to begin with?
"... It's misleading to novices, the people you're trying to... help? Are you trying to help them? ..." - poodle_noodle (~3 hours ago)
kindaspongey wrote (~1 day ago):
penandpaper0089 wrote ... :
kindaspongey wrote:
... Did penandpaper0089 ... say something about the typical plans of the opening being relevant when players get over 2000 but not before?
Yes. ...
This gives an indication of the focus of my contributions in the last 7 hours.
In this thread, do you see a place where I decided to switch to helping novices? Did the Yusupov quote say "club players" or "novices"?
"'It is important for club players to build up a suitable opening repertoire.' - GM Artur Yusupov (2010)
Since there's no context this is a completely empty platitude. You might as well say the key to playing chess well is playing good moves while avoiding mistakes. Even worse, you present it as a counter point." - poodle_noodle (~3 hours ago)
Since there's no context this is a completely empty platitude. You might as well say the key to playing chess well is playing good moves while avoiding mistakes. Even worse, you present it as a counter point." - poodle_noodle (~3 hours ago)
kindaspongey wrote (~1 day ago):
penandpaper0089 wrote:
... It's not until a certain level is reached that openings actually affect the game in a relevant way. This is the way I see the game at any rate. Some may disagree ...
"It is important for club players to build up a suitable opening repertoire." - GM Artur Yusupov (2010)
Would it be appropriate to produce an example of my use of the quote when complaining about it?