... But the explanation on how openings prevent those blunders ...
Can you identify a specific sentence where it was stated that openings prevent those blunders?
"... you've limitations for this game, and that has nothing to do with openings nor books. It's you. See, opening a line for an attack against the own King while leaving something defenseless makes most of us alert, but for you it's something that just happens. ..." - JMurakami
... U2000 most games are decided by tactics. ...
"... 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
... tactics ... becomes the most important part of the game. ..
But not the only part?
"... Take the opening books away and [engines] play badly in the opening. ... Perhaps they get into horrible positions or even positionally lost ones. ..." - penandpaper0089
Is it useful to an U2000 player to have help avoiding a horrible position?
"... blundering may be more difficult in better positions. ..." - penandpaper0089
No it can't be said of anything in chess because tactics lead to the game's win condition and the other factors, while they should at the highest level support tactical play, simply do not or are simply insignificant when at the end of a game there are nothing but game-ending blunders. Top-level chess and class level chess are simply not the same. It's no different than comparing professional sports to amateur sports.
The players are of a different proficiency and thus the quality of the games will be vastly different. They are not going to make the best decisions regardless of how "logical" they may seem. We can see this via the many blunders seen throughout the thread.
"See, improving is getting rid of our own defects, not indulging our self esteem by blaming the world for them."
That's great Dr. Phil. It's completely off topic though. This thread is about chess U2000 being all about tactics and nothing more. It's not about 2600 Russian GMs, how logical the opening is or whatever else you think it is.
I see no reason at all for nothing more than the most basic opening ideas, as in those basic rules that stop working at some point, very basic endings, and everything else is tactics. Sooner or later you can't develop by rote. That's obvious. Then you'll have to just play chess. No I would not like my chances against a GM this way. But this isn't about that caliber of player.
... This thread is about chess U2000 being all about tactics and nothing more. ...
"... Take the opening books away and [engines] play badly in the opening. ... Perhaps they get into horrible positions or even positionally lost ones. ..." - penandpaper0089
Is it useful to an U2000 player to have help avoiding a horrible position?
... at the end of a game there are nothing but game-ending blunders. ... I see no reason at all for nothing more than the most basic opening ideas, ...
"... 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)
"... blundering may be more difficult in better positions. ..." - penandpaper0089
"It is important for club players to build up a suitable opening repertoire." - GM Artur Yusupov (2010)
It seems like this discussion is more about how a U2000 player should properly divide their study time...
What does each proponent of whatever argument mean when s/he says one should or shouldn't study "opening theory"?
How do you best study "opening theory"?
How do you learn an opening in general versus with specific memorization?
When should you start to study "opening theory"? At what point are you generally good enough with the opening to start "memorization"? Does it depend on a level your tactical skill (which is easier to assess with tactics servers)? Endgame skill (more difficult to assess)? Strategic skill (even yet more difficult to assess)?
It seems like this discussion is more about how a U2000 player should properly divide their study time...
What does each proponent of whatever argument mean when s/he says one should or shouldn't study "opening theory"?
How do you best study "opening theory"?
How do you learn an opening in general versus with specific memorization?
When should you start to study "opening theory"? At what point are you generally good enough with the opening to start "memorization"? Does it depend on a level your tactical skill (which is easier to assess with tactics servers)? Endgame skill (more difficult to assess)? Strategic skill (even yet more difficult to assess)?
Just like politics, chess gets divided into "labels" Just study the entire game.
You don't have to listen to me. Listen to Magnus Carlsen the world champion or any of the other professional players I quoted. They may not agree that the opening is a waste of time but it's obvious that tactics are what are most important. You have no answer to class players losing most of their games to blunders because that's really how it is. Because no matter how amazingly you play, sooner or later you have to roll up your sleeves and calculate the consequences of moves like 16.b4 and 18.Nd5. They fact that they are both positionally motivated is not the most important fact but rather that they must be proven to be correct and thats not exactly easy when you are blundering pieces in completely won positions let alone favorable ones.
In fact the very game you posted proves my point as it includes multiple reversals of fortune due to blunders. White went from 1.00 to -2.00 in one move at one point and it's exactly what I'm talking about. All this preparation for playing openings well and learning this structure and that led to nothing more than a winning game being thrown away followed by the opponent doing the same and the pattern repeating itself time and time again. And it was a result not of positionally bad moves but straight up blunders.
Now you tell me what good it is to get such crushing positions if you can't even utilize them or even worse throw them away and land yourself in losing ones? The fact is that White should have lost the game but didn't, not because of any amazing or logical play but because his opponent simply blundered just as he did.
What a depressing philosophy. How do you even believe this?
Remember kids, it doesn't matter if your position is completely lost, you can always count on your opponent to screw up with a tactical blunder even if you're playing a classical game. Chess is not 99% tactics. Nakamura said it best at the US Champs. Maybe 50/50 at this point. One thing is clear, if you're going to play a sharp position without knowing positional ailments or theory to any degree against an opponent that actually may know what he's doing, then all you're left with is hope. But hope chess is not chess. The OP could do well to learn some endgames or positional ideas instead of assuming his opponents will blunder their queen at some point. Unless all you play is bullet, then I guess it doesn't matter.
Chess is 100% tactics. Tactics work best when the pieces are mobile and co-ordinated together and squares are controlled. All we see in opening theory (and strategy or positional play) are ideas on how to achieve this. Most of this thread is 100% futile and egocentric.
Chess is not 100% tactics. You can lose a game without making any tactical blunders. Positional chess is unavoidable by even the best of tacticians.
" because tactics lead to the game's win condition "
You cannot just do any successful tactics without the proper position which makes this tactic possible.
I know these books with hundreds of positions with "find the winning tactics". They are OK. No doubt about that. But how will you be able to apply these tactics if you don't even reach these positions?
You have studied the Bxh7+ sacrifice. OK. But there is no automatism that you will reach a position where this is winning (sometimes it is just a possible move, but not winning; sometimes it is bad). Only if your opponent played worse. It might be the consequence of superior positional play or bad play by your opponent in the opening.
You have to calculate. OK. But how will you be able to determine whether a variation is actually good? By just counting pieces and pawns? Or are other (positional) factors involved too in your estimation?
I remember the first versions of the Fritz program. They played tactically well, but i could win with the black pieces by applying a Kings Indian. The program had no strategical clue in this very closed position and shuffled the pieces aimlessly back and forth ("waiting for tactics?"). But when the pawn-breakthrough came (g5-g4 versus the wK) it was too late. No "tactical" defense helped in this stage.
No doubt that tactics are very important. But without strategical understanding (and Carlsen has lots of it, and Aronian too...) it might happen that you won't get the chance of applying tactics.
I drew against two IMs (tournament games) in tactical positions.
But i remember losing against two other IMs who played strategical variations (c4 and g3, it resulted in an Anglo-Grünfeld). I had no chance. The endgames were just lost. No tactics in the entire game.
I drew also a GM. Result of good opening play (he played a dubious variation). Against another GM i had an "almost draw", i lost in the endgame, but had neither problems in the opening nor in the middlegame (the endgame was equal too in the beginning).
Chess is not A or B (tactics = A or something different = B). You need tactics, but something additionally on top.
It seems like this discussion is more about how a U2000 player should properly divide their study time...
What does each proponent of whatever argument mean when s/he says one should or shouldn't study "opening theory"?
How do you best study "opening theory"?
How do you learn an opening in general versus with specific memorization?
When should you start to study "opening theory"? At what point are you generally good enough with the opening to start "memorization"? Does it depend on a level your tactical skill (which is easier to assess with tactics servers)? Endgame skill (more difficult to assess)? Strategic skill (even yet more difficult to assess)?
I suspect that appropriate specifics will vary from player to player, depending on such things as rating, taste in openings, level of ambition, ability to learn tactics, ability to learn openings, the sort of opponents that one expects to face, the amount of study time that one has, and probably other stuff that I am unable to think of at the moment. I have posted quotes that sound to me like the sort of advice that would approximately suit many, but I hope that anyone would feel free to modify to suit individual needs. Considering how often I have heard about the problem, it probably is a good idea to be wary of spending too much time on openings (at the expense of other areas needing work). One might be able to get a clue from one's own games about what is actually useful. To borrow a Heisman example, if one never reaches the position after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 O-O Be7 6 Re1 b5 7 Bb3 d6 8 c3 O-O, one is not likely to get a lot of benefit from studying stuff that could come after that. On the other hand, if one is repeatedly losing to a 1 e4 e5 2 d4 exd4 3 c3 enthusiast, it might make sense to look up some defensive suggestions. Here again are some of those quotes:
"... 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)
"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)
"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 ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2007)
And here is another quote:
"... Reviewing Your Own Games ... Besides going over the games yourself, there are many other aids available: strong players/instructors, chess programs, databases, books, etc. ... With regard to the opening, I will repeat a common Novice Nook mantra: After each game (or series of blitz games), review the opening(s) to ascertain, 'If a future opponent makes the same moves, where would I differ to improve?' ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2005)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627023809/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman50.pdf
I think if one studies his/her own games to learn from mistakes, they will find that they happen in the opening, but those mistakes will also be tactical for the most part, certainly the lower rated one is.
In terms of improving as fast as one can, after my last few OTB tournaments, I am less inclined to believe that studying opening theory is going to be important, though certainly reviewing your bad non-tactical-blunder move, comparing with theory, and adding that to your "repertoire" is good. I think people give up prematurely after improving a little with tactics, because they end up playing tougher competition and then think that they need to do other things ("Oh NOW I am good enough to start studying openings"). Everyone needs to practice concrete forced winning sequences from simpler to complex, therefore at the lower levels tactics and endgames must reign supreme. Now if player A trains 100% like that, as opposed to the equally-talented/disciplined/time-devoted player B who trains 70% concrete positional analysis (e.g., tactics/endgames) with the other 30% going to openings/strategy, I am more inclined now to believe that player A will have the upper hand in the long run, though player B may score early victories in the opening until player A has studied more of the concrete sequences to make up for B's early advantages.
Also, there is a bias among chess authors to sell opening books. Tactics servers are everywhere. Databases are large and unwieldy for the amateur and lack verbiage. Endgames just aren't as universally demanded.
@yureesystem:
There are several reasons for not including some lines in the annotations. When simple tactics, to make the reader find them himself.
While most believe that the natural talent is the measure for how good can someone be at chess –or most things in life for that matter–, I'd say it's the will to do things and work hard to achieve them. For instance, you had "to think for yourself" what happened after 18...Qxb5 or 18...exd5 and, at some level, began to understand that having a pawn at e4 and a Rook at e1 gave those Knights in b5 and c3 the tactical possibilities against Black's position (that's coordination), which in turn was prepared by active play (threats) that left his pieces (the Queen in particular) misplaced and his King in the middle.
See, all those things didn't occur to the both of us just during the 130+ seconds that the game lasted. We both knew them, we both were trying to draw a picture with our pieces and, at the same time, preventing the rival to finish his (by taking away tempos from him with piece activity).
Tactics is, by far, the most important thing a novice must develop. There's no argument there. However, the better tables don't rely on just one, but several legs. The more and stronger legs you keep adding, the more things that table is good for. Rome wasn't built in one day, they say.
"How do you get a extremely low rated player to think for himself?" In essence, by giving him the tools to analyze a position by himself rather than playing the very first thing that crosses his mind. Not even Carlsen plays by intuition: He checks what he's about to do. And this check isn't only calculation (tactics alone). Regarding the role and approach to the opening, you can check this article, or this another too. Or read the blog if interested.
There's one more thing to address your question. Amateurs have this funny idea that masters see everything on the board, that analyze more moves and in higher depth. The reality is that masters analyze way, way less moves and ideas than the typical amateur. The difference is that, either by talent or previous work, he narrows the search and analysis to just a few moves and ideas, and effectively.
In that game I posted, I wasn't looking for grabbing the a–pawn because I narrowed my search a bit too much, but I wasn't looking for a kingside attack either. I was following a plan since I played a2–a4 and, when it was achieved, the tactics were favorable to me. Now, it's good to know tactics but I can assure you that if I wouldn't have prepared the position during the opening, the IM would've vanquished me as he's pretty strong in tactical sight (+2500 bullet).
I want to thank you for all the wonderful advice and sharing your knowledge freely.
I am playing this low 1900, I outplay him in the opening and middle game and now we are in a very difficult endgame but its won. I need to find a correct plan to win this endgame or all that I accomplish in that game is for naught; if your tactics and endgame is poor so is entire game.
dannyhume wrote: "... Everyone needs to practice concrete forced winning sequences from simpler to complex, therefore at the lower levels tactics and endgames must reign supreme. Now if player A trains 100% like that, as opposed to the equally-talented/disciplined/time-devoted player B who trains 70% concrete positional analysis (e.g., tactics/endgames) with the other 30% going to openings/strategy, I am more inclined now to believe that player A will have the upper hand in the long run, though player B may score early victories in the opening until player A has studied more of the concrete sequences to make up for B's early advantages. Also, there is a bias among chess authors to sell opening books. ..."
".... hiis entire approach is based on checking if your opponent has any tactical threats and seeing if you can execute a tactic yourself. But what do you do in the 90% of positions where neither of these is the case? ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)
"If you want to improve in classical ( slow ) chess you have to work on all 3 phases of the game . ..." - NM Reb (August 30, 2017)
"Yes, you can easily become a master. All you need to do is some serious, focused work on your play.
That 'chess is 99% tactics and blah-blah' thing is crap. Chess is several things (opening, endgame, middlegame strategy, positional play, tactics, psychology, time management...) which should be treated properly as a whole. getting just one element of lay and working exclusively on it is of very doubtful value, and at worst it may well turn out being a waste of time." - IM pfren (August 21, 2017)
"... you do need to study openings at every level. But until you reach a very advanced level, what you need to do is master the principles, ideas, pawn structures, strategies, and tactics of the openings you play, and NOT to memorize long opening lines." - FM chuddog (April 24, 2017)
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
... In such books you get a few typical tactical shots and then the middlegame reaches something unrecognizable. Opening books are useless for that. ...
Is something only worthwhile if it is useful for everything?