FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
... Those who argue never reach 1800 elo ...
"It is important for club players to build up a suitable opening repertoire." - GM Artur Yusupov (2010)
... where is your proof that what you say is true, ...
Is proof possible on this sort of issue?
... What is holding back most players is that they are incompetent in their tactics and will never have decent rating. ...
Why not simply tell such players to do more work on tactics?
... Why stay at 1200 or lower do something about it that will give you results, and that is not studying opening; ...
Can results be improved by improving one's ability to avoid going "very wrong very quickly"?
... I am close 2000 in daily and if I continue to study more on tactics and endgame I will go up even higher.
it is perhaps worthwhile to think of the 1974 words of Paul Keres:".... How should you open a chess game? There is no one correct method, no single course which all students must follow. ..."
... The amateur who is tactical beast will beat the so call positional player, that is a fact. Every talented junior was superb tactician and is not the other way around "positional".
Do you think it is equally easy for everyone to become a "tactical beast"? Aren't there a good many who have not been a "talented junior"?
... Who has the higher rating? My highest otb 2110 uscf, very few players get to 2000 elo and I am now at 2010 uscf. I enter any rated fide tournament I will be at 1900 and with some study get to 2000 fide in six months.
Does higher-rating necessarily mean better-at-advising-others?
Danny, it's amazing how quickly tactics get involved in chess.
The first move may be driven by abstract considerations, but it quickly becomes tactical, even on move 2 in some cases! Remember, the fastest checkmate possible is a two-mover, and there are many ways to lose in the first five moves. Almost none of those are covered in any depth by "theory" because most masters already know that stuff!
C'mon... since when it's study tactics OR study openings? People are supposed to study BOTH!
Probably the worse "idea" that runs out there is that by studying tactics the patzer won't blunder anymore or as often. He may not hang a piece that often, but since he's playing –mostly– by intuition and is placing his pieces without a decent idea, any mid player will force him into a lost game nonetheless, because the amount of strategic and positional blunders. Those are part of the game too.
To improve it's necessary to make the effort to play as if there's a GM in front of us. Playing whatever expecting the rival to hang something is -1600ish forever.
Yes, exactly. It must also be noted that the blunders in class player games tend to happen after one or two serious mistakes have already been made, and they often don't look that much like a tactics problem.
Everyone knows how to get to the 8-9 move mark and think's they're doing well, but they're getting close to 20 moves. After that time you're in the middle game, which means that everything is different for the next few moves, since there are so many possible moves. Which means you can't study for it. So I don't think that studying moves pays off. Doing well in the middle game is best, I guess.
Everyone knows how to get to the 8-9 move mark and think's they're doing well, but they're getting close to 20 moves. ...
I'm guessing you haven't really been following the likes of Magnus Carlsen. He shows that quite often, even strong GMs can get into lost positions by move 9 or 10! There's still a tremendous amount of chess that hasn't been explored, and there are many, many traps that will sting the sleepy chess player.
The reason why the claim that <<Opening Theory Is Pointless For Most People That Will Ever Play>> is silly and incorrect is that many people who have ever played chess consider that it would be OK if they could maybe play a bit better. Given that an average player wants to improve, then studying tactics is only studying part of the game and not the whole. Typical tactical situations arise from stereotypical openings and it helps if we can recognise which openings tend to lead to which types of game. Some games are more open, perhaps with more tactics that tend to burn out and resolve themselves relatively early, whereas other types of game tend to be more lastingly complex or relatively simple, all the way through. There's a myriad of differences, which can be most readily understood by looking at chess from the p.o.v. of the transposition from typical opening patterns to typical middle-game patterns and beyond.There's no real need to give concrete examples since a player with some kind of intellectual ability and chess knowledge will work this out and will understand what is meant, whereas a player without such ability probably wouldn't be able to use such examples profitably. However, just compare typical situations arising from the London System and the Moller Attack or the Max Lange. Then tell me that the player who steers the opening through quiet channels in order to surprise his opponent with tactics doesn't know what he's doing and isn't playing according to an opening system.This O.P. is fundamentally dishonest and is thus provocative only. Nothing wrong with that, provided it's realised that this is a sort of "troll" thread, created, wittingly or unwittingly, in order to get people thinking about the fundamentals of chess.
William Napier put it well, when he said "It is astonishing how much hot water a master can wade into within the first dozen moves, despite a century of opening exploration".
... This O.P. is fundamentally dishonest ...
I did not agree with the comments, but I thought that they were sincere.