I'm not blaming the opening at all. I'm saying it has no affect on results and so it's a waste of time.
Opening Theory Is Pointless For Most People That Will Ever Play. Why Bother?
Sort:
penandpaper0089 wrote:
I'm not blaming the opening at all. I'm saying it has no affect on results and so it's a waste of time.
It has no effect on your results.
penandpaper0089 wrote:
I'm not blaming the opening at all. I'm saying it has no affect on results and so it's a waste of time.
"... 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
Oct 11, 2017
0
#265
ponz111 wrote:
penandpaper0089 wrote:
I'm not blaming the opening at all. I'm saying it has no affect on results and so it's a waste of time.
It has no effect on your results.
Of course
Oct 11, 2017
0
#266
JMurakami wrote:
@penandpaper0089: Hmmm... okay, a last try.
No serious good player wants to improvise over the board when there's the possibility of preparing for what's coming. I agree with Fischer's opinion that chess, as it is know, gives a large advantage to those who can prepare the whole system. Again, system means not just the opening, but the evolution of the game after the initial movements. For those who have seen top GMs playing Fischer 960 this doesn't come as a surprise, as it's notorious the amount of tactical oversights they commit in the initial moves.
From another angle, and using ELO ratings as a reference, as long as an amateur plays the better lines his moves are indistinguishable from those of a +2600. For those who just memorized moves, their continuations drop to their real ELO the moment they forget or the book stops. Players who have studied the system they're playing in more detail and depth, don't drop the quality of their moves that much in a way that, many times, we can see a 1600 playing as a 2200 very well into the middlegame. Proof can be seen in U14 and U16 world championships mid and low boards' games
Kasparov, for instance, used to ask for the games of his future rivals in sim exhibitions, so as to drive them away from what they knew better. It's also well known the disastrous results of several GMs playing against teens in the soviet's Pioneers' Palaces; it wasn't that the teens were even masters, but the GMs fell right into what the pioneers knew better, so it was like playing against 40 IMs at the same time.
As a whole, and from the way you write, I have to believe you're intelligent enough as to be aware your argument has no basis... unless you're talking about blitz or bullet. If that's the scenario you're into, and regarding your rating, yeah, time devoted to tactics training may give better results than superfluous opening studies... but you won't improve your chess as a whole, just a "better" tactical eye when your opponent blunders and fewer tactical oversights from you. If you're okay with remaining a 1600ish for the years to come, sure, don't waste your time trying to figure it out which are the ideas behind the systems you're playing.
U14 and U16? You mean those tournaments in which everyone that wins is underrated and has a strength of over 2000? Yeah I know about those lol. It's pretty much an unspoken rule that you're not winning those tournaments at all if you can't play as well as an expert. It's the same for the Supernationals and similar tournaments. Don't let the 1600 rating fool you. Those kids tend to be ridiculously underrated. So no I don't think I can really take that as any more proof than the kids who went to Russian schools completely dedicated to chess... I mean who wouldn't be concerned about playing such opponents?
What happens in the average chess game? Someone plays the opening really well. GM level if that suits you! The opponent, not knowing the theory deviates. Now it's all up to the first player to finish the game well. But that doesn't really happen. Why? Because he has to calculate. He has to evaluate for himself. Sooner or later the position will look nothing like any opening. What then? We can't really guarantee that every position after the opening will be recognizable. Sooner or later you get some random position where you need a completely different approach. And that's where the blunders will start pouring in.
Now if you can play in a way in which every position you ever get on the board will be recognizable right down to the ending so that you never blunder and play logically all the time then hey that's great. That's pretty hard for most humans though.
If you get "random positions" out of your openings, then there might be something problematic in this approach. Chess is (beside tactics) always strategy, too, and middlegame pawn structures are the result from the choices in your opening. For example: if you play the Sveshnikov Sicilian with Black, you have to be aware that you have to deal with a backward pawn on d6 and probably a white N on d5. And you have to plan accordingly.
Even endgame positions can be related to the opening. For example: it is not uncommon that White gets some attack against a Sicilian or a French opening. But it Black manages to defend correctly, he might have the chance of getting a superior endgame due to his pawn structure.
It is not so much about concrete positions but about pawn structures, plans and knowledge about dynamic factors (pair of bishops, attacking schemes...).
Oct 11, 2017
0
#268
There have been far too many words in this thread, and not enough concrete examples of what constitutes a workable opening repertoire without delving too deeply into opening theory.
Most chess authors who write opening books aim their books at competitive club players and above. Such players are far above the average chess player.
Oct 11, 2017
0
#269
Jenot wrote:
If you get "random positions" out of your openings, then there might be something problematic in this approach. Chess is (beside tactics) always strategy, too, and middlegame pawn structures are the result from the choices in your opening. For example: if you play the Sveshnikov Sicilian with Black, you have to be aware that you have to deal with a backward pawn on d6 and probably a white N on d5. And you have to plan accordingly.
Even endgame positions can be related to the opening. For example: it is not uncommon that White gets some attack against a Sicilian or a French opening. But it Black manages to defend correctly, he might have the chance of getting a superior endgame due to his pawn structure.
It is not so much about concrete positions but about pawn structures, plans and knowledge about dynamic factors (pair of bishops, attacking schemes...).
It's not about the opening but simply the fact that in a game with more positions than atoms in the universe, it's highly unlikely that you would recognize them all or even ones that come up in your games. We also must remember that two people are playing. Just because you play the opening well doesn't mean your opponent will and you may have to change plans completely because something has changed. Then you get in some position that is nothing like the opening, which is a typical occurrence in most games.
This position arose out of the French defense. Now maybe you French players already know this position and know all the best moves because you've seen it before and cannot possibly go wrong here. Or maybe this is just a random position.This happens in every game. Your opening knowledge is useless in such positions and other things become more important. Tactics, calculation, evaluation of the position e.t.c; And it just so happens that you've been using them for the entire game. Opening theory and knowledge has outlived it's usefulness by now. And if blunders are occurring here, then why should i waste my time in the opening?
Opening knowledge is a cushion. You can do without it(if you are so tactically better than your opponent). But, you would feel much more comfortable with it. Of course, everything has a saturation limit, so moderation and balance is advised.
Oct 11, 2017
0
#271
"Most people who will ever play", the subject of this thread, will never break 1500 USCF. Think about that for a moment then go back and read the comments about how necessary opening theory is to those players.
Of course, every player should know the basics. Every player should know to develop their pieces democratically towards the center, push pawns only to help with development and control of the center, and protect the king in the opening. The fourth objective is to try to stop the opponent from doing the same.
Here's an early game from Magnus Carlsen that has almost nothing to do with opening theory, and everything to do with following opening principles:
When going through this game, ask yourself what would have happened if Black had castled on move 13, and how he could have defended better.
Oct 11, 2017
0
#272
SmyslovFan wrote:
"Most people who will ever play", the subject of this thread, will never break 1500 USCF. Think about that for a moment then go back and read the comments about how necessary opening theory is to those players.
Of course, every player should know the basics. Every player should know to develop their pieces democratically towards the center, push pawns only to help with development and control of the center, and protect the king in the opening. The fourth objective is to try to stop the opponent from doing the same.
Here's an early game from Magnus Carlsen that has almost nothing to do with opening theory, and everything to do with following opening principles:
When going through this game, ask yourself what would have happened if Black had castled on move 13, and how he could have defended better.
Sure this is fine. This gets posted all the time here: http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/ten-rules-opening
That's more than enough. There are even opening suggestions at the bottom. Beyond this though it's just meh.
Yes, there are too many positions to "know" them all. That's why i was advocating the strategic understanding of a certain position (pawn structure, good squares for the pieces...). You can have also a strategic (not "knowing everything by heart") understanding of an opening position. I think that the example of the Carlsen game does illustrate that too.
Yes, a blunder might end the game. But it is still useful to have a strategic understanding and a plan.
Planless play will increase the probability of a blunder.
Jenot wrote:
Yes, there are too many positions to "know" them all. That's why i was advocating the strategic understanding of a certain position (pawn structure, good squares for the pieces...). You can have also a strategic (not "knowing everything by heart") understanding of an opening position. I think that the example of the Carlsen game does illustrate that too.
Yes, a blunder might end the game. But it is still useful to have a strategic understanding and a plan.
Planless play will increase the probability of a blunder.
Exactly!!!
Oct 11, 2017
0
#275
Sure but you can find a plan without ever having used it or seen it before. Understanding positions doesn't require an opening book either. Just evaluate the position as usual. The fact that it's move 4 or 14 won't change the fact that this is ultimately what you are doing all the time.
[COMMENT DELETED]
SmyslovFan wrote:
... Most chess authors who write opening books aim their books at competitive club players and above. Such players are far above the average chess player.
"... 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
penandpaper0089 wrote:
... Then you get in some position that is nothing like the opening, which is a typical occurrence in most games.
... Your opening knowledge is useless in such positions and other things become more important. Tactics, calculation, evaluation of the position e.t.c; And it just so happens that you've been using them for the entire game. Opening theory and knowledge has outlived it's usefulness by now. And if blunders are occurring here, then why should i waste my time in the opening?
"... 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?
Is anyone advocating that players ignore "Tactics, calculation, evaluation of the position e.t.c"?
"One of the most important ideas in chess improvement is to identify mistakes and try to minimize their recurrence. ... If researching a game in a popular opening book is a mystery, it does not have to be ..." - Dan Heisman (2007)
SmyslovFan wrote:
... Of course, every player should know the basics. Every player should know to develop their pieces democratically towards the center, push pawns only to help with development and control of the center, and protect the king in the opening. The fourth objective is to try to stop the opponent from doing the same. ...
"... 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)
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.
Oh I see. Then it's a matter of... personal nature, right?
For starters, the good opening study saves time in the game and narrows the search, thus adding precision. I never said you get to see every single position, but the basic and typical positions and procedures, and keeps adding more and more as you keep studying and playing them.
In any case, if you don't see elemental tactical hits is not because studying openings is wrong, but because you're distracted, don't pay enough attention, don't work on pieces' relationships, or just want to play by intuition alone without taking the job of analyzing what the hell is going on over the board. Whatever the reason –or reasons–, we all do that at one point or another... you're not alone. But if you want to improve is better to seek for the real causes and not just blame whatever you hate most (to study *coff coff*), nor to spread wrongful advice because, funny as it is, there are people who know even less than you and may actually believe you know what you're talking about.
--------------------------------------------------------
TLDR: Don't blame Adidas when missing a kick.
--------------------------------------------------------
This. Opening study is about so much more than the +/=, and I would speak my piece here, but I'm saving it for a blog post which comes out tomorrow.