penandpaper0089 wrote:
... you can't win a chess game without tactics. ...
Is anyone advocating playing without tactics?
Opening Theory Is Pointless For Most People That Will Ever Play. Why Bother?
Sort:
penandpaper0089 wrote:
... Most games U2000 are lost due to blunders, not bad opening play of some kind or due to Karpovian understanding of the opening by the opponent. ...
Does it take "Karpovian understanding of the opening by the opponent" to get into a horrible position?
"... Take the opening books away and [engines] play badly in the opening. ... Perhaps they get into horrible positions or even positionally lost ones. ..." - penandpaper0089
Perhaps that sort of thing happens for humans, too?
Oct 9, 2017
0
#244
The beginning is every bit as important as every other phase of the game. Three phases, all important.
penandpaper0089 wrote:
... Therefore openings for most people are simply not important. ... if you're blundering then the opening is not helping you in getting to the game's win condition and has little practical use.
"... blundering may be more difficult in better positions. ..." - penandpaper0089
penandpaper0089 wrote:
... When does the opening actually become important? When games are no longer decided by blunders. Why? Because what you did in the opening actually leads to great positions that you utilize well and don't just throw away. ...
Is avoiding "horrible positions" only an issue above 2000?
penandpaper0089 wrote:
... GM Magnus Carlsen when asked about what is important to breaking the 2000 barrier quotes:
"Studying tactics, I would say. Up to that level, most games are still decided by someone hanging a piece...or blundering a checkmate - haha" ...
Is anyone advocating ignoring tactics?
penandpaper0089 wrote:
... I'm not telling anyone what to do. ...
Who decided that the thread title would proclaim that "Opening Theory Is Pointless For Most People That Will Ever Play"?
"... It's hard to see how anything but tactics is worth working on. Everything else just seems to require the most basic study ..." - penandpaper0089
FishEyedFools wrote:
I know a kid that was told 2 years ago by his coach "You will be a Master in 2 years"
Well here we are 2 years later, and this same kid hovers around 1800.
Why? Because he has convicned himself that he needs to study openings so ridiulously deep his game is suffering. After each loss he gives the same 2 excuses:
"I mixed up my opening theory"
"I forgot my openng theory"
Why is he losing games? Because of tactics. ...
Is anyone advocating studying openings ridiculously deep or doing without tactics? By the way, wouldn't many be happy to get to 1800?
SIowMove wrote:
... My main form of studying has been trial and error. Play a game. If I lose badly in the opening, I'll glance back at the game, find where I went wrong, and tell myself, "Huh. Better remember not to do something like that next time." Then I'll move on and play another game. Rinse and repeat. ...
Have a reason to think that approach will necessarily work best for "most players" without help from opening books or some sort of similar source?
penandpaper0089 wrote:
... I see no point in studying something that has little to no effect on my results. When and if the time comes when that changes then I'll act accordingly. Now isn't that time.
"... blundering may be more difficult in better positions. ..." - penandpaper0089
Oct 10, 2017
0
#252
penandpaper0089 wrote:
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.
I didn't have time to check all responses, but this is exactly what Dan Heisman preaches to all chess players. What good will it do if you can memorize and opening and play though, but later on move five after he deviates from your book line you hang a piece?
This is why Dan Heisman talks about learning five key fundamentals of chess. The last thing beginners need to do is memorize a bunch of openings. If you want to know more about these five chess fundamentals just google Dan Heisman and find his website and find out yourself.
This is a complex topic that has already been addressed. Have a nice day.
"... Dan Heisman ..." - Daybreak57
"... 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
Oct 10, 2017
0
#255
kindaspongey wrote:
FishEyedFools wrote:
I know a kid that was told 2 years ago by his coach "You will be a Master in 2 years"
Well here we are 2 years later, and this same kid hovers around 1800.
Why? Because he has convicned himself that he needs to study openings so ridiulously deep his game is suffering. After each loss he gives the same 2 excuses:
"I mixed up my opening theory"
"I forgot my openng theory"
Why is he losing games? Because of tactics. ...
Is anyone advocating studying openings ridiculously deep or doing without tactics? By the way, wouldn't many be happy to get to 1800?
Im not advocating anything. Anyone that plays chess is welcome to study any, and or all parts of the game that they wish. I was pointing out how focusing to much on openings is slowing this persons chess growth. And you have been here long enough to know that there are many, many, threads that run along the lines of: "I know the <insert opening here> 20-30 moves deep. I keep dropping pieces, do i need to study more openings?"
This topic is dicussed constantly, and will be brought up again. This will be my last comment on this.
Oct 10, 2017
0
#256
JMurakami wrote:
penandpaper0089 wrote:
JMurakami wrote:
penandpaper0089 wrote:
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.
Ya, my previous post addresses this post of yours.
I know many people think like you do because most books don't fill this knowledge gap. You get it mostly by chatting with seasoned tournament players (not blitz nor bullet ones), or by asking directly to a high rated player why is that happening to you. So, in your specific case, it's not that openings' study is pointless, but that it seems you've been doing only half of the job when studying them.
Really? What opening books do you read that teach forks, pins and skewers or double attacks and how to find them? Do your opening books keep you from blundering or is it simply that you can see the tactics well enough that you simply don't throw away pieces? I doubt we can say that it is your knowledge of the Najdorf that keeps you from blundering pieces can we?
Sure opening books do go into middlegame themes but they don't keep you from blundering - tactics being the deciding factor in games U2000. And what about positions that are nothing like the opening? Knowledge of the Slav became irrelevant in Petrosian's game for example once we reached an isolated pawn game. But the point is simply that it is tactics that decide games for most and not the opening. You can play the opening perfectly if you want to. That doesn't mean anything if you just blunder in the middlegame.
Just look at the position I posted in the English earlier. Can we say that I missed Qg4+ winning material because I don't understand the English opening well enough? I think it had nothing to do with that and everything to do with simply missing hanging pieces and checks. In fact, simply looking for checks for no apparent reason (something you're supposed to do) might have led to seeing the winning attack anyway.
If you miss a simple tactic it has little to do with opening study. And I write little because most openings have some typical tactical hits. The Sicilian Dragon is a typical example of a mixture of tactical motifs with positional play: For instance, Black's Rc8xNc3, d6–d5 alone or in combo with e7–e5, Bc8(or d7)xg4 followed by Nf6xe4, etc., etc. If a player isn't aware of them and hopes to find them over the board just because he trained on 1000 tactical problems with little to no connection with these ideas, chances are he won't see them at all, or won't prepare the position to make good use of them.
Also, yes, it's my correct knowledge in some systems what prevents me from blundering material when playing them. Besides, it's not my idea and isn't followed by me only. GMs not only advice to play a few systems and study them in detail and depth, but they also do that themselves.
Probably the main problem you have is that you want to do one thing or another, not both. Anyways, for what is worth, yes, devoting time to tactical sight training only, gives faster results against weak opposition; however, chess is a logical game and if a player starts a tactical battle from an inferior position, it backfires. That game between Petrosian and Sorokin is an example: Black went active without positional or tactical justification against White's queenside, and was educated by a 15 years old.
Well this is fine if you can recognize every position you will ever play down to the endings and never blunder. That's great. Maybe you should beat that Magnus guy because sometimes he gets into positions he doesn't recognize and blunders.
penandpaper0089 wrote:
JMurakami wrote:
penandpaper0089 wrote:
JMurakami wrote:
penandpaper0089 wrote:
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.
Ya, my previous post addresses this post of yours.
I know many people think like you do because most books don't fill this knowledge gap. You get it mostly by chatting with seasoned tournament players (not blitz nor bullet ones), or by asking directly to a high rated player why is that happening to you. So, in your specific case, it's not that openings' study is pointless, but that it seems you've been doing only half of the job when studying them.
Really? What opening books do you read that teach forks, pins and skewers or double attacks and how to find them? Do your opening books keep you from blundering or is it simply that you can see the tactics well enough that you simply don't throw away pieces? I doubt we can say that it is your knowledge of the Najdorf that keeps you from blundering pieces can we?
Sure opening books do go into middlegame themes but they don't keep you from blundering - tactics being the deciding factor in games U2000. And what about positions that are nothing like the opening? Knowledge of the Slav became irrelevant in Petrosian's game for example once we reached an isolated pawn game. But the point is simply that it is tactics that decide games for most and not the opening. You can play the opening perfectly if you want to. That doesn't mean anything if you just blunder in the middlegame.
Just look at the position I posted in the English earlier. Can we say that I missed Qg4+ winning material because I don't understand the English opening well enough? I think it had nothing to do with that and everything to do with simply missing hanging pieces and checks. In fact, simply looking for checks for no apparent reason (something you're supposed to do) might have led to seeing the winning attack anyway.
If you miss a simple tactic it has little to do with opening study. And I write little because most openings have some typical tactical hits. The Sicilian Dragon is a typical example of a mixture of tactical motifs with positional play: For instance, Black's Rc8xNc3, d6–d5 alone or in combo with e7–e5, Bc8(or d7)xg4 followed by Nf6xe4, etc., etc. If a player isn't aware of them and hopes to find them over the board just because he trained on 1000 tactical problems with little to no connection with these ideas, chances are he won't see them at all, or won't prepare the position to make good use of them.
Also, yes, it's my correct knowledge in some systems what prevents me from blundering material when playing them. Besides, it's not my idea and isn't followed by me only. GMs not only advice to play a few systems and study them in detail and depth, but they also do that themselves.
Probably the main problem you have is that you want to do one thing or another, not both. Anyways, for what is worth, yes, devoting time to tactical sight training only, gives faster results against weak opposition; however, chess is a logical game and if a player starts a tactical battle from an inferior position, it backfires. That game between Petrosian and Sorokin is an example: Black went active without positional or tactical justification against White's queenside, and was educated by a 15 years old.
Well this is fine if you can recognize every position you will ever play down to the endings and never blunder. That's great. Maybe you should ...
Is something useful only if it enables one to recognize every position one will ever play down to the endings and never blunder?
Oct 10, 2017
0
#259
penandpaper0089 wrote:
Spongey please stop...
As Nancy Reagan said: "Just say No"
No there aren't. But I see no point in studying something that has little to no effect on my results. When and if the time comes when that changes then I'll act accordingly. Now isn't that time.
If opening study to you means going over every line in some 400 page book on a single opening, then yeah, I agree, that's not useful. Trying to learn practically every line is probably not useful until 2600+
But, for example, I know main lines of some openings I never play, simply because I'll follow top tournaments now and then. The Berlin is a good example.