Opening Theory Is Pointless For Most People That Will Ever Play. Why Bother?
Sort:
Is it not easier to learn the point of these “ideas” and “plans” if you have the concrete technical patterns down (e.g., tactics and endgames)? Is that what Karpov and Capablanca meant with their emphasis on endgames? You calculate until you recognize something that may be of value to you and detriment to your opponent. The more you know, the shorter, faster, and easier your calculation and candidate move selection will be to these points, no matter what system you are playing or playing against. Of course, direct familiarity with an opening is better than not, but spending time attaining that familiarity with an opening (even if more enjoyable) comes at a cost of spending less time toward learning the more concrete fundamentals of chess (perhaps this is the “inner logic”)... stuff that a U2000 (U3000?) needs to advance their understanding.
ChiefBroccoli wrote:
JMurakami wrote:
Inner logic is the particular set of rules that give logical sense to a position in particular. General rules, on the other hand, are values that can be applied to the common situations but not necessarily to the situation in front of us.
The inner logic in a position is very clear when solving a position by tactical means, like sacrifices and such (like a minor piece defeating a Queen), but is pre–existent to the tactical solution. When someone calculates before understanding the situation and pointing to the disposition of pieces (the plan, the idea, the motif) he's trying to achieve, he's inefficient or ineffective, as will likely go wrong by wasting time in senseless candidate moves, or by not considering all those he should. And this is what happens often when not familiar with the plans in an opening system.
About the rest of your post, #623 maybe of help.
This dude rambles and pretends to know more than we do.
Chief, he's not rambling and he knows more than U2000's.
Carlsen beats GMs because he understands the inner logic better than his opponents do.
dannyhume wrote:
Is it not easier to learn the point of these “ideas” and “plans” if you have the concrete technical patterns down (e.g., tactics and endgames)? ...
The first point to consider is whether or not tactics and endgames are topics that a player either has "down" or not "down". Isn't it actually a matter of degree as to how much tactics and endgames a player knows? Who is to say what degree must be achieved before one begins learning some stuff about specific openings? One can issue a decree that players are to wait until reaching 2000, but is it compelling without a chain of reasoning that produces that specific number? When such a decree appears, isn't it reasonable to consider whether or not there seems to be general agreement on that choice?
"... This book is the first volume in a series of manuals designed for players who are building the foundations of their chess knowledge. The reader will receive the necessary basic knowledge in six areas of the game - tactcs, positional play, strategy, the calculation of variations, the opening and the endgame. ... To make the book entertaining and varied, I have mixed up these different areas, ..." - GM Artur Yusupov
"It is important for club players to build up a suitable opening repertoire." - GM Artur Yusupov (2010)
dannyhume wrote:
... Is that what Karpov and Capablanca meant with their emphasis on endgames? ...
Has anyone produced a Karpov quote specifying no learning about specific openings below a 2000 rating? Ratings, of course, were not around when Capablanca was writing, but one can look at his Primer of Chess and perhaps get some idea of his thinking. The book (which also describes the rules of the game) does indeed have some tactics and endgame discussion, but it proceeds to tell the reader:
"... Method and care are needed in the opening. The whole structure of the game may be the result of the first few moves. For the sake of experience and practice it may be well to vary the openings, but for the sake of efficiency it might be better to stick to one single opening for the attack, and one single opening or method of development for the defence. This system may be followed until the one opening in question has been mastered. Then the player may take up a new opening, and thus gradually reach the point where he feels familiar with half a dozen different openings. Half a dozen different openings, well learned, are about all the average player needs to obtain good results. Later on, if he finds it convenient and to his liking, he may try still others. ...
... This constitutes the Ruy Lopez ...
... We have now gone over one of the main variations of this most important opening. ..."
dannyhume wrote:
... Of course, direct familiarity with an opening is better than not, but spending time attaining that familiarity with an opening (even if more enjoyable) comes at a cost of spending less time toward learning the more concrete fundamentals of chess ...
One can learn about specific openings without necessarily spending a lot of time on it.
"... 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)
Isn't it pretty common for it to be considered worth the time to look at sample games? Why not look at sample games for a specific opening?
“In chess, there are, in fact, a small number of absolute truths. These are: check, mate, and stalemate.” - GM Valeri Beim
+1
Did GM Valeri Beim advocate ignoring everything but absolute truths until one has a rating over 2000?
"... [de la Maza's] 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)
kindaspongey wrote:
dannyhume wrote:
... Of course, direct familiarity with an opening is better than not, but spending time attaining that familiarity with an opening (even if more enjoyable) comes at a cost of spending less time toward learning the more concrete fundamentals of chess ...
One can learn about specific openings without necessarily spending a lot of time on it.
"... 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)
Isn't it pretty common for it to be considered worth the time to look at sample games? Why not look at sample games for a specific opening?
Adding to this, there is a single way to improve:
- play with stronger opponents
- analyse with stronger opponents/engines
- browse the games of stronger/much stronger players
If you do this, you will improve twice or 3 times faster next to the option to do
the very same with opponents of equal or lower strength.
JMurakami wrote:
dannyhume wrote:
“In chess, there are, in fact, a small number of absolute truths. These are: check, mate, and stalemate.” - GM Valeri Beim
A proposal which is useful only if chess is played using binary logic (true, false), which isn't the case.
In chess we use "everyday logic", "fuzzy logic". When a car is about to run over us, we don't calculate the absolute best way to avoid the collision. We move away. How far, how fast? It doesn't matter as long as we avoid being injured.
In chess we measure the chances for success in terms of probability. A little better, better, clear advantage, should win. We don't need to play absolute chess to win a game, just better than the opponent's, more precise than his.
Then, whatever increases our precision at every stage of the game shouldn't be left aside just because we commit blunders. For that, someone should demonstrate that blunders are a direct consequence of studying openings, and not because the time not devoted to study tactics.
Why? Because not even World Champions are blunder free, and we can't argue that they're weak in tactics. And because when going to work, or taking a bath, we aren't studying tactics neither, and is a clear absurd to say we shouldn't take a bath to be better at chess.
World champions are indeed weak in tactics next to top engines.
Some people really do solve puzzles when taking a shower. 
JMurakami wrote:
World Champions aren't weak in tactics. They commit oversights, which isn't the same.
The more time a chess player has to think properly and check his replies, the less chances for such mistakes, and the stronger he is against engines. Alas, in correspondence chess, "androids" (human+engine) perform better than engines or humans alone. Not long ago, a correspondence IM told me engines alone are rated below 2700 in correspondence games, which is +600 drop to their "classic" rated performance.
TLDR: Engines don't know better, we just mess things up worse.
Agreed and not agree! Classical chess is almost dead as a show waiting for Carlsen and Karjakin play their opening preparation, although six hours of play, which means about 10 min thinking per move are not enough to stop human World Champions seeing Ghosts.
I think there were games in the Rapid tie-breaks were Magnus played more accurately than some of his classical due to the fact that he didn't have more time to see a Ghost in a deep calculated line.
Sometimes for humans, the intuitive play turns to be more accurate, a thing which doesn't count for engines because they simple understand chess different.
....the phrase : The more time a chess player has to think properly and check his replies...its relative to the individual form and momentum.
For the same reason if you put an engine to re-estimate a position which had evaluated as a draw 0.0 exactly and play with her the human winning variation and then returns back to reevaluate she will insist that the game from this position is a draw.
Take for example this variation in the Sicilian Najdorf English Attack. 23...f6 is the correct move which engines point out but they don't know why exactly!! The fact that they don't know why is proven if instead, you play 23...Rfc8 which has been played a dozen times in correspondence games by Androids which evaluated by engines as a dead draw but actually Black loses by force.
This is a proof that sometimes human and engine cooperation doesn't work if both don't understand chess well....and yes a human can evaluate better than they do.
I didn't answer the OP question. I think all the previous comments have already given sufficient answers. My post was a comment to your last statement that i agree with what you say but everything seems relevant when it comes talking for chess. That was my point and excuse me if i find the courage answering like this...don't take it personally.
Now Personally, to answer the OP, i wish i could ever find a balanced rhythm between doing tactics and study openings, Middlegames or endgame technique but from the moment, i am not professional i find my self-bother with chess one dimension each period.
Don't answer the Question if someone should drop opening theory in favor of everything else because what it requires is systematic work in everything at the same period.
Chess is not a bicycle....and those who think that understand any given position are not Capablanca.
JMurakami wrote:
Ahh. I mean, we've talked about longer time controls and their effect in chess as an spectacle for the masses... for months... didn't we?
But here I was replying to the believing that humans can't solve tactics as good as engines... which isn't true. We can, but the more complicated the position the more time we need to examine the increased number of lines. When time is in short supply, we just have to take our best guess and that's when mistakes show up. Which is relevant to the OP because there's this idea that once someone has solved a number of tactical puzzles he will play fast an accurate... no matter what.
....and i was answered to this statement that humans when thinking a position doesn't count tactics only but intuitive play based on positional understanding which engines don't so the comparison its a bit artificial. One of the reasons someone must learn openings and the transition to the middlegame is the potential to grow this aspect of the game when the decision to make a move or not becomes irrelevant with our time thinking. Evidently, Carlsen is a player who plays fast because of his understanding on the positions much more than his ability to calculate fast.
For example, Karjakin in one of his games vs Carlsen in the final was thinking for twenty minutes to take a strategic decision that tactics lead to a position unclear which engine evaluation and speed of execution does not confirm a better estimation of the decision either.
The fact that engines calculate faster doesn't make them always more accurate so we cant really compare the quality of thinking humans provide on the board with an engine unless the position is away too clear....
Furthermore, humans knowing that playing against humans many times " gambling " tactics in order to apply psychological pressure. Its a state of mind we cant take away from the nature of the game.
Solving tactics isn't even about play fast or accurate. Grandmasters when they want to stay sharp before a tournament they prefer to compose puzzles rather than to solve tactics thing which is more natural to the elimination process of thinking required to actual game conditions. Includes more creative thinking.
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
JMurakami wrote:
Here's another example. I had this game against Sweden FM Sigur and shows the clash of ideas during the opening, and how the outcome leads to favorable tactical situations later on. Of course the game has several inaccuracies; nonetheless it shows the roles of the opening, pawn structures and piece disposition and activity in the evolution of tactics during the game.
Good game.
I presume after g3 and Bg2 white is already lost.
Why would you presume white is lost by two normal moves g3 and Bg2, he could of done better in the opening; 9...Rc8 10.Bg5 fighting on d5 square, black does better with 9...Be7 instead of 9...Rc8.
Nov 1, 2017
0
#557
There have been some interesting conversations in this thread, many of which are only tangentially related to the purported topic.
Wouldn't it make more sense to start new threads to carry on these topics?
Great! Well...to continue the aforesaid discussion, if there is an opening book you all should study out there to make richer your opening knowledge and at the same time excel in tactics this is Dreevs vs the Benoni. Its the perfect example to watch how a modern GM thinking for the sharp and complicated positions arise from the main Tabiya and also see at the same time how engines struggle to understand and follow up what is going on even in positions were it tactical nature should have been more familiar with them.
GM Dreev as it uses in his opening books has done a remarkable work not only explaining the best moves in each position but also why the alternatives do not work or which are more or less playable and why, so the reader to understands all the intricacies of the position. Although the book is written for the first player to provide him a guide to a positional opening advantage it can be used from Blacks point of view also.
JMurakami wrote:
dannyhume wrote:
“In chess, there are, in fact, a small number of absolute truths. These are: check, mate, and stalemate.” - GM Valeri Beim
A proposal which is useful only if chess is played using binary logic (true, false), which isn't the case.
In chess we use "everyday logic", "fuzzy logic". When a car is about to run over us, we don't calculate the absolute best way to avoid the collision. We move away. How far, how fast? It doesn't matter as long as we avoid being injured.
In chess we measure the chances for success in terms of probability. A little better, better, clear advantage, should win. We don't need to play absolute chess to win a game, just better than the opponent's, more precise than his.
Then, whatever increases our precision at every stage of the game shouldn't be left aside just because we commit blunders. For that, someone should demonstrate that blunders are a direct consequence of studying openings, and not because the time not devoted to study tactics.
Why? Because not even World Champions are blunder free, and we can't argue that they're weak in tactics. And because when going to work, or taking a bath, we aren't studying tactics neither, and is a clear absurd to say we shouldn't take a bath to be better at chess.
Yes we use "fuzzy logic", but "unfuzzy logic" is always superior. If we could precisely calculate how fast the car and what precise direction the car was coming at us, we could more easily escape the car. Now in any particular case, the said car may be far enough a way that a very crude escape might work, but as the video game Frogger shows, such "fuzzy logic" would be entirely inadequate as the car's ability to come at us starts to overwhelm our analytical and physical capabilities. I am pretty good about not getting hit in the car while in the street, but the person who actively trains, studies behaviors of drivers, and the precise maneuvering capabilities of a variety of vehicles with a variety of tires on a variety of surfaces is likely going to do better than me at avoiding cars while on the autobahn, even though I always look at video of those who failed and perform a nice retrospective analysis of why they failed.
It is similar to flipping a coin... most of us would put the probability of heads and tails at 50%, but we could alter the results if we knew with mathematical precision how to create the correct balance of forces to favor one result over the other repetitively.
In chess, the same applies...if you can convert a 4 to 3 pawn majority, for instance, you are better off than someone who needs to see the classic KP v K with the stronger king on the 6th rank. In an earlier phase of the game, you can calculate more scenarios that lead you to the mathematically-certain winning position, while the other player is trying to assess less precise concepts such as space, mobility, minor pieces, etc., in the position (such concepts helpful compared to blindly acting, but not compared to mathematical certainty). Indeed, not even Carlsen's years of position judgment can outperform an endgame tablebase for those endings.
And while blunders are not a direct consequence of studying openings (I believe any chess study ought to lessen the odds of blunder, though some are slower and less efficient), the odds of blundering are certainly less the more one is familiar with a variety of mathematically certain concepts in chess (e.g., tactics and endgames), and that is achieved through studying.
kindaspongey wrote:
Did GM Valeri Beim advocate ignoring everything but absolute truths until one has a rating over 2000?
"... [de la Maza's] 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)
I was quoting authority to speak your language, but even I don't agree with Beim... in my opinion, the only absolute truths in chess are mate and draw (check is simply a part of "the rules" which are a foundational necessity in the universe of chess).
To answer your question: You don't need to ignore everything that is not an absolute truth, however that "everything" is most certainly subservient to them. Here is a practical example in chess... if you have a mate in 1, you take it. You don't purposely let it go in order to attain greater mobility for your pieces, control of the center, or take more space... that would be absurd. All positional concepts, opening principles, and plans are attempts to achieve checkmate through gradual means (gradual because it is assumed your opponent is as strong as the mathematical/logical rules of chess allow... your worst-case scenario opponent). All value assessments are attempts to judge the certainty with which one side can achieve the goal of checkmate through these gradual means. But as experience grows, plans evolve, and analytical tools become stronger, assessments (and hence theory) change. Yet mate and draw do not. So I think the OP's point "against" theory has logical merit amongst the U2000 crowd that is lacking in the concrete absolute truths of chess, because ultimately if you can't see why an assessment is +/-, then you are merely engaging in mimicry of far more advanced analysts at very specific reference points.
I recalled in a previous thread arguing in favor of studying openings (I am not against them totally, but they are a major rabbithole), IM pfren, I believe, mentioned that the famed Chess Steps method doesn't even hardly cover openings (a few sections on basic opening principles; nothing on any specific openings), and that program is meant for players up to level 2000 FIDE.
Off topic:
The pin and exchange is a tested method. Black gets the darksquares Bishop, but may have to live with an opposite Knight in d5. Each sides advantage counters the rival's, and you get dynamic balance.
Point is, he gambled (with the fast fianchetto) and didn't pay off. Being White he had room for a gamble. But after Nc6–b4, he had nothing spare to gamble with again, yet he did. Leaving aside the off–board reasons for doing it, he ran into a difficult position almost immediately.
Nonetheless, he immediately noticed I was drilling his position and that he misvalued the doubled h–pawns. Rather than allowing me a recital by memory (most +2200s playing a system have thousands of hours playing or studying it), he immediately modified the central pawn structures to make us both "think on our own". It almost succeeded when I blundered with Bg7–e5 (and no follow up) instead of Bg7–f8–c5, but he panicked (a King, surrounded by infantry, a Rook in 7th and marauding Bishops have an effect on most people's balance).
So, me confused and him panicking for some 10 seconds during that game. All the knowledge, theory and logic going down the drain during that lapse. That's blitz, that's competitive chess.
That is why I don't quite like it: you lose your sound reasoning.