I might be wrong but I think most players play to win or play to gain rating points. Knowing the theory in gambit openings aided by practice in tactics goes a long way in winning and gaining rating points. Even in standard play not all players react well to aggressive play thus the advantage or the initiative is already in the gambit players favor. However converting that advantage into a win is another thing entirely since one has to go through the middlegame and the endgame part. Gaining an advantage out of the opening when playing white and gaining equality or counter play when playing black is the goal of the opening phase which hopefully is converted into a winning middlegame and endgame, so knowledge in opening theory at least in the ones you play and even in the openings you like but don't play goes a long way. However to convert a win opening theory alone even with tactics training is not enough you have got to have the complete package. Checkout Tal Memorial 1995 Kasparov vs |Anand, Kasparov was able to win against Anand using the seldom used Evans gambit straight out of home preparation.
Opening Theory Is Pointless For Most People That Will Ever Play. Why Bother?
Looks like broccoli is going to the spongy school of really bad/unrelated/repetitive arguments.
I think it's important to make the distinction between opening theory and opening principles. If one accepts the definition that theory is a specific detailed sequence of opening ideas and moves. A sequence that can be variable from opening to opening.
Versus principles which are general goals or aims which want to be accomplished in most or all openings.
Then it's probably true that most players don't need a whole lot of opening theory knowledge to play decent chess. However, every player probably does need to be adequately grounded in opening principles.
But to keep climbing the chess ability ladder, like going from decent to good to excellent, I'd guess there is no way to improve without becoming increasingly alert as to principle tradeoffs and their ramifications. As well as the necessity of taking in more and more theory.
"Then it's probably true that most players don't need a whole lot of opening theory knowledge to play decent chess. However, every player probably does need to be adequately grounded in opening principles."
I think you are almost onto something sparky, but I think it is that we need an adequate amount of understanding with opening theory and a greater understanding of chess principles.
Chief, your combination might be the first ingredient toward the making of a good chess player.
White is easy. Just play 1.Nc3 look at a few games where it was played, play it and learn as you go.
Black not quite so simple. But Caro cann and Queens Gambit are good choices as theory very well established and you can just learn it once then play it. No need to keep up with latest trends etc. Cant get away with nothing with black, but just one book on each will do
Above tactic is extremely obvious, should be seen in less than a second.
Of course, it is fully meaningless to study any theory at all. Simply because
most of the state-of-the-art theory is wrong. For example, modern theory(top GMs included)
still don't know that the Dutch is almost unplayable, because after 1.d4 f5, white has 2. d5!,
with quite some advantage.
Similarly, in the English Opening, after 1.c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6, white gets big advanatge with
3. e4! You know what, modern theoretical handbooks even don't mention this strong move.
They would prefer the much weaker 3. e3, which exhibits very good probabilities of getting an inferior or even lost game, if black manages to push e5-e4(getting a very favourable structure similar to the
French Winawer with reversed colours).
State-of-the-art theory 50 years ago was quite different from what it is now. And state-of-the-art theory 50 years from now will also be quite different.
So that, of course, studying theory is a complete waste of time.
I would analyse games(including openings) with Stockfish instead.
Even funnier on the main diagram, starting the thread, is that the advantage mainly depends
on the side to move. Be it black's turn, and black is already better, if not won at all(which I would presume).
Qg4 Kh8 should be seen very easy, everyone gives queen checks(Ng7 is impossible because
the queen on d7 is pinned, and Qg7 because the knight on f5 remains unprotected), what might
constitute a bit of a puzzle is the second key move, Ng3!, and the black knight on f5 falls.
Reason is again purely psychological, as you won'be looking for a retreat(Ng3), when you
have just executed and attacking move(Qg4).
Tactics is all about checking all available captures and checks, nothing more, nothing less, so in order to fare good at tactics, one should simply check all available captures and checks at some depth.
@JMurakami
Sorry, I still have to find where the 'Reply with quote' button is.
Of course, you are mostly right about previous knowledge being available, but,
on the other hand, one could do even without that, if one is able to recognise
patterns: for example, you know that white pawn on e5, black pawns on e6-f7-g7 is generally
good for white in the opening, so the reversed pattern, black pawn on e4, white pawns on e3, f2, g2,
should be good for black.
In this way, you don't need to have studied in any detail the French Winaver, in order to come up with 3. e4 in the English Opening.
Above tactic is extremely obvious, should be seen in less than a second.
Of course, it is fully meaningless to study any theory at all. Simply because
most of the state-of-the-art theory is wrong. For example, modern theory(top GMs included)
still don't know that the Dutch is almost unplayable, because after 1.d4 f5, white has 2. d5!,
with quite some advantage.
Similarly, in the English Opening, after 1.c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6, white gets big advanatge with
3. e4! You know what, modern theoretical handbooks even don't mention this strong move.
They would prefer the much weaker 3. e3, which exhibits very good probabilities of getting an inferior or even lost game, if black manages to push e5-e4(getting a very favourable structure similar to the
French Winawer with reversed colours).
State-of-the-art theory 50 years ago was quite different from what it is now. And state-of-the-art theory 50 years from now will also be quite different.
So that, of course, studying theory is a complete waste of time.
I would analyse games(including openings) with Stockfish instead.
Hello, Ray Gordon...
I just tried 1.d4 f5 2.d5 (!?) in a 15 10 game and won immediately (under 20 moves). Looks interesting to me (but i am still wondering why so many GMs play other variations against the Dutch). I am still not really believing that this is a "refutation".
(Btw another game (no Dutch) i lost in the endgame although i was 1 pawn ahead. Underlining my horrible endgame skills. But even an endgame noob like me can occasionally win with a good middlegame.)
I checked this opening in Chessbase:
@ chesster 3145 4.de6 is very much cooperative. Right is 4. Nc3, followed by g3 and Bg2,
and white retains quite some advantage(I have checked that thoroughly with Stockfish, not just that line, but many more).
Please, don't believe database(chessbase) so easily, they point to some truths, but most
of their conclusions are wrong. There are more moves in the opening that one could possibly investigate.
2.d5 is a very logical choice, because otherwise after 1.d4 f5 2.c4 e6 3. Nc3(d5 is again an option now, though maybe weaker) d5, the Dutch Stonewall is fully equal(draw by closure in 20 moves or so, otherwise black gets better).
I have checked each and every possible line on d5, not the just the main lines.
On your b6 line, again, g3 and Bg2 is very strong.
@JMurakami You are basically right, but then again, for piece play, there are also patterns.
For example, concenring the main puzzle, Qg4 also pins/x-ray attacks Nf5/Qd7. If you know pinning is valuable, you might play that straight away, pruning most other moves.
Please, check the line with Stockfish; I have already done that.
As said, white continues with g3, Bg2 and e2-e4.
I don't see no weakening of the a1-h8 diagonal(besides, there is no dark-square bishop
on it), and black has to decide what to do with the f5 pawn after e2-e4(g6 is very dubious, as the king position gets compromised).
There are some very complicated lines in subvariations, etc., but white should retain quite
some edge.
I don't see how black should not hurry, white has already placed a central d5 pawn, very big advantage, and black can not do so with e5-e4, so, if not hurrying, black is positionally far behind.
Concerning why no tops and over 2400 play it, when, simply a chance event, no opening book
recommends that and the tops don't spend all day long analysing potential lines, so they simply don't know.
Why do you think in 1850 they thought the Sicilian is bad, and did not play the King's Indian?
Chess is very rich, an awful lot of things will be discovered in the future, current top engines
have just started opening our eyes.
On your second post, well, inner logic seemingly flows from the pool of evaluation
patterns available on the board. 
oops, forgot to say about endgames, there is a single most important
endgame principle: activate your king, bring it to the center of the board or the opponent's
half of the board, and everything will be fine.
Unfortunately, in order to realise this, sometimes a player needs more than a decade.
For whatever reasons, someone made a distinction: Tactics or positional. In truth, it's tactics as positional, since the preparations have a role no less important than the engagement itself. The same holds true for the opening, since it's tactics as .... (fill the blank).
What makes the opening distinctive is the myriad of possible pawn structures that can arise from it and the resulting piece activity in each one. That's why I chose that game in #495, as Black's pawn structure and piece disposition is typical and sound... when White's lightquares Bishop is on e2. Sitting on the long diagonal, White can modify the queenside pawn structure and develop a strong initiative because the distinctive tactics on the e–file and the h1–a8. That sort of previous knowledge is useful, regardless of the precision in the tactical execution.
The following is an extract from the introduction I made when annotating Carlsen–Radjabov, Tata Steel 2015:
-----
Most chess followers are used to the term “positional game” although, to some of them, the meaning isn’t as transparent as it should.
Let’s say someone is thinking on applying for a job in an English speaking country, and he doesn’t speak the language; then, studying the language prior to the application seems reasonable. Someone else is thinking on traveling alone through the desert; then, his main concern should be having enough water for the entire journey.
Positional playing in chess is just like that. It’s about thinking of where the pieces and pawns should be if and when the close battle starts (which in chess receives the name of tactical battle, or tactics), and rather than hoping for the best and calculating in depth the tactics once they start, the player prepares his forces prior to the engagement while, at the same time, denying his opponent the same preparations. Then, positional play is more about not engaging into tactics until the conditions are favorable. And, when the position isn’t mature yet, to continuously improving the position by placing the pieces and pawns in even stronger posts.
The goal is to ensure superiority of forces in the sector where the battle is about to –or may– take place, or to prevent the opponent to engage into a tactical battle in a given sector, as the positional conditions for his success doesn’t exist, or doesn’t exist yet.
These conditions are often called “general principles”, “positional principles” or “positional rules”. There are several, and they allow the players to make a raw or precise evaluation of the situation on the board. Working around the visual (external) aspects of the position, such as the pawn structures, these principles help to understand the inner logic and to determine the relative value of the control or occupation of lines and squares, where the lines represent the routes inside the own position or towards the enemy’s position, and the squares represent the strongholds where to place the attacking or defensive forces in a way they are most effective, and can’t be easily disturbed.
Of course, when playing positional the opponent will object our continuous accumulation of positional gains. Then, although positional play is more about delayed large tactic operations, small tactics (in the form of threats and pressure), are necessary to force positional concessions from him.
Another explanation –of what positional play is about– comes from thinking of the value of chess pieces (Q=9, R=5, B=3, N=3, P=1). These come from an estimation –of their area of effect and their mobility– in thousands of games, meaning they’re statistical estimations. Then, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that these values don’t always apply to every position, as the real values depend on the pieces actual effective area of effect and coordination against the opponent’s, their mobility to reach the battle zone in time, and their capacity to remain there. Which leads to the conclusion: Positional play is about increasing our pieces value and decreasing the opponent’s, before large tactical operations.
--------
I love reading your concepts they resonate so much to your soundness in your play. A lot of it is very advance and you have trolls who don't understand these advance concepts and mock it.
I remember in one post it had the Najdorf variation and it went very deep in the middle game with opposite color bishops, I took a great interesting in this post. In several sub-variation it went deep into the endgame with one rook each and opposite color bishop; there is a point when opening doesn't matter and a player better be proficient in other part of the game. We are constantly making decisions in our game, should we exchange queens, should I double my opponent pawns and many others. In one of my game against another 1900 I am in a knight endgame, I could penetrate in the queen side and win his a-pawn but I lose because my king will be too far away to stop his c-pawn from queening; these are decision player make must verify with analysis. Knight endgame are very tricky and must be handle with a delicate touch, exact analysis is a must, I won so many knight endgame because my opponent was pushing wood, greedy or poor calculation skills. My point is a player is going into the middle game, what skills does he to make decision and make sound plans?
@JMurakami No Leningrad nowadays, it is called Saint Petersburg.
chessgames gives 38% white wins and only 29% black wins, so one of the poor openings
for black.
Moreover, the structures are incompatible, as in my suggested line white has already
played d5, and that turns everything around.
".... 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)
The 99% thing is a figure of speech, but some take it seriously to the letter. However, tactics isn't only motifs. For example, adding piece pressure against a backward pawn is a positional theme... supported by the actual tactical threat of capturing it under good (or safe) conditions.
Teichmann's quote must be understood in the light of most strategic and positional ideas aiming to create an advantageous tactical scenario, and not in the number itself.
what do you recommend to someone develop this other side of tatics ?