Opening Theory Is Pointless For Most People That Will Ever Play. Why Bother? - Chess Forums - Page 3

yureesystem

Sep 25, 2017

0

#41

The player who understand opening principles and he is a beast in tactics and endgame can play any opening with proficiency because he can calculate better and his evaluation is more accurate than his opponent who only concentrates on opening.

kindaspongey

Sep 25, 2017

0

#42

DeirdreSkye wrote:

... All GMs indeed have study a lot of openings but none of them took the title because of the opening.They would take it anyway while others can't be CM even if they memorise all the lines of opening theory.Why is that?Which is the piece that is missing here? ...

"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)

yureesystem

Sep 25, 2017

0

#43

GMs and IMs might hate Micheal De La Masa but he was one of the few low rated player to go to expert level studying tactics only; that should be endorsement enough to prove that tactical studying is so essential to one growth as a player.

kindaspongey

Sep 25, 2017

0

#44

DeirdreSkye wrote:

Aizen89 wrote:

Point out to me a Grandmaster or International Master that doesn't know a significant amount of opening knowledge and I'll eat my shoe, laces and all. If you want to become a strong chess player (I'd say 2200 or above), you must eventually learn it. That said, you specified under 2000. Let me tell you a story of three chess players. One was rated 1900, one 2200 and the other 2300+. The 1900 and 2300+ were very strong at tactics with the latter being good at some opening knowledge too. The 2200 was an openings beast. The 1900 and 2300 had pretty solid games. Sometimes the 1900 would win (though rarely) in tournament play against the 2300. Other times he drew. He lost, naturally, more than anything, but the games were close and competitive. The 2200 and 2300 had pretty competitive games as well, with the 2300 winning a bit more than the 2200. The 1900 got eviscerated by the 2200 almost every time they played each other. He only beat the 2200 once in a tournament game and only once or twice (I'd say once) got a draw. Within the first 10 moves of most of the games, the 2200 had already outplayed the 1900 and most of their games didn't last more than 20 moves.

I was the 1900 player. It was humiliating to get crushed so easily when others couldn't do that to me and it's because I had very little opening knowledge. The lesson here is that, while tactics are very important for players of all levels, understanding the opening is just as important. At higher levels of play, it's probably the most important thing. If tactics were, Nakamura would be world champion, not Carlsen. In essence, even though you can get by without opening theory, you're limiting yourself and will never have a shot at being truly strong in chess without it. It's like having a surgeon who knows all of the human anatomy but doesn't understand how to use a scalpel.

... If you play against a GM , he can win in any opening.Why is that?

Play against him any line , even one that gives you an advantage.As long as the position is playable , you will lose.

Why?

Because you can't calculate like him , you can't evaluate like him , you can't understand chess like him and although these are the most important skills of a chessplayer all you want to do is play the opening like him.If that makes sense to you, it's fine by me. ...

Did Aizen89 say somewhere that all that is wanted is to play the opening like a GM?

kindaspongey

Sep 25, 2017

0

#45

DeirdreSkye wrote:

... You only need the opening to get a playable position. ...

Portisch advocated that sort of thing in a contribution to a 1974 book about how to play the opening. The Portisch chapter is about 40 pages and concludes with, "... I urge the reader to do his own analysis in the development of an opening repertoire."

kindaspongey

Sep 25, 2017

0

#46

DeirdreSkye wrote:

Aizen89 wrote:

Point out to me a Grandmaster or International Master that doesn't know a significant amount of opening knowledge and I'll eat my shoe, laces and all. If you want to become a strong chess player (I'd say 2200 or above), you must eventually learn it. That said, you specified under 2000. Let me tell you a story of three chess players. One was rated 1900, one 2200 and the other 2300+. The 1900 and 2300+ were very strong at tactics with the latter being good at some opening knowledge too. The 2200 was an openings beast. The 1900 and 2300 had pretty solid games. Sometimes the 1900 would win (though rarely) in tournament play against the 2300. Other times he drew. He lost, naturally, more than anything, but the games were close and competitive. The 2200 and 2300 had pretty competitive games as well, with the 2300 winning a bit more than the 2200. The 1900 got eviscerated by the 2200 almost every time they played each other. He only beat the 2200 once in a tournament game and only once or twice (I'd say once) got a draw. Within the first 10 moves of most of the games, the 2200 had already outplayed the 1900 and most of their games didn't last more than 20 moves.

I was the 1900 player. It was humiliating to get crushed so easily when others couldn't do that to me and it's because I had very little opening knowledge. The lesson here is that, while tactics are very important for players of all levels, understanding the opening is just as important. At higher levels of play, it's probably the most important thing. If tactics were, Nakamura would be world champion, not Carlsen. In essence, even though you can get by without opening theory, you're limiting yourself and will never have a shot at being truly strong in chess without it. It's like having a surgeon who knows all of the human anatomy but doesn't understand how to use a scalpel.

... If you need to study thousand of hours just to do that , then you do something seriously wrong and openings won't fix it. ...

Did Aizen89 somewhere advocate studying openings for thousands of hours?

kindaspongey

Sep 25, 2017

0

#47

DeirdreSkye wrote:

... Amatuers study a lot of openings because they simply seriously lack in understanding.

Tell an amateur to play French defense.What will happen? ...

Perhaps it is better to also tell an amateur:

"... Overall, I would advise most players to stick to a fairly limited range of openings, and not to worry about learning too much by heart. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2008)
"... I feel that the main reasons to buy an opening book are to give a good overview of the opening, and to explain general plans and ideas. ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)
"... 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)

"... Each player should choose an opening that attracts him. Some players are looking for a gambit as White, others for Black gambits. Many players that are starting out (or have bad memories) want to avoid mainstream systems, others want dynamic openings, and others want calm positional pathways. It’s all about personal taste and personal need.
For example, if you feel you’re poor at tactics you can choose a quiet positional opening (trying to hide from your weakness and just play chess), or seek more dynamic openings that engender lots of tactics and sacrifices (this might lead to more losses but, over time, will improve your tactical skills and make you stronger)." - IM Jeremy Silman (January 28, 2016)
https://www.chess.com/article/view/opening-questions-and-a-dream-mate

dannyhume

Sep 25, 2017

0

#48

I find it interesting that Nakamura said Kasparov's "greatness" was more due to his opening prep and not so much his middlegame skills.

kindaspongey

Sep 25, 2017

0

#49

DeirdreSkye wrote:

... and all this hilarious "adventure" from a guy that can hardly calculate 5 correct moves in a row , has serious gaps in his understanding and he has hardly ever study endgames past the basic pawn and rook endings. ...

"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)

kindaspongey

Sep 25, 2017

0

#50

DeirdreSkye wrote:

OP didn't say "ignore mistakes".

His point is that opening evaluation that gives an advantage is pointless if you don't know what to do with the advantage.

Did penandpaper0089 also say something about the typical plans of the opening being relevant when players get over 2000 but not before?

kindaspongey

Sep 25, 2017

0

#51

wayne_thomas wrote:

dannyhume wrote: " If a respected coach or stronger player told you should study your games for weaknesses and errors, inevitably your first weak move would be in the opening."

That's what I thought as well. Is the OP suggesting that we should ignore mistakes we make in the opening, and only analyze mistakes that seem to be tactical in nature? What about strategic mistakes? Do we leave those be as well?

"... OP didn't say 'ignore mistakes'. ..." - DeirdreSkye

I thought wayne_thomas was referring to the idea of ignoring mistakes in the opening and ignoring strategic mistakes. Perhaps wayne_thomas was reacting to:

"... It's hard to see how anything but tactics is worth working on. Everything else just seems to require the most basic study ..." - penandpaper0089

wayne_thomas

Sep 25, 2017

0

#52

yureesystem wrote:

GMs and IMs might hate Micheal De La Maza but he was one of the few low rated player to go to expert level studying tactics only; that should be endorsement enough to prove that tactical studying is so essential to one growth as a player.

Michael de la Maza played sometimes 3 or 4 OTB tournies per month for two years. I suspect that this may have had something to do with the improvement he saw.

One of the reasons he gets criticized is he burned out, and quit playing in 2001. At least most of our GM and IM friends are still around, playing, teaching, writing books.

kindaspongey

Sep 25, 2017

0

#53

SmithyQ wrote:

wayne_thomas wrote:

dannyhume wrote: " If a respected coach or stronger player told you should study your games for weaknesses and errors, inevitably your first weak move would be in the opening."

That's what I thought as well. Is the OP suggesting that we should ignore mistakes we make in the opening, and only analyze mistakes that seem to be tactical in nature? What about strategic mistakes? Do we leave those be as well?

... If you make mistakes in the opening, that’s great, because almost certainly the right answer is already known. You can check theory, check opening monographs, check databases and see what GMs think is a better plan. You then compare this to your thought process and figure out why you didn’t come up with it. ... theory can help you fix your opening mistakes if you use it in the right way. ...

Is that stuff likely to happen if one has decided to believe this?

"... It's hard to see how anything but tactics is worth working on. Everything else just seems to require the most basic study ..." - penandpaper0089

kindaspongey

Sep 25, 2017

0

#54

Benedictine wrote:

... predominant study of the opening is pretty much a waste of time. ...

Did penandpaper0089 go somewhat beyond that?

"... It's hard to see how anything but tactics is worth working on. Everything else just seems to require the most basic study ..."

kindaspongey

Sep 25, 2017

0

#55

DeirdreSkye wrote:

Has anyone wondered how players trained in tactics before the era of computers and tactics trainers?

The answer is endgame studies. ...

Wasn't Winning Chess written by Irving Chernev and Fred Reinfeld more than six decades ago?
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708093415/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review919.pdf

kindaspongey

Sep 25, 2017

0

#56

goldenchocolate wrote:

... the average 1500 level player will gain only a very little bit from each hour of opening study, much less than with each hour of studying tactics for example. So yes, in this regard, studying the opening is indeed pointless (unless you know absolutely nothing at all, not even the basics)

Perhaps it is better to tell the average 1500 level player:
"... Overall, I would advise most players to stick to a fairly limited range of openings, and not to worry about learning too much by heart. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2008)
"... I feel that the main reasons to buy an opening book are to give a good overview of the opening, and to explain general plans and ideas. ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)
"... 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)

"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)

kindaspongey

Sep 25, 2017

0

#57

imsighked2 wrote:

Knowing at least 13 moves in for most openings (my goal) at least helps you understand how to get to a middle game where you can use your tactics and an endgame where you have a shot. Knowing at least eight moves in on unusual openings at least helps you not make major mistakes and fall for traps those openings tend to use . . .

"It is important for club players to build up a suitable opening repertoire." - GM Artur Yusupov (2010)
"... Overall, I would advise most players to stick to a fairly limited range of openings, and not to worry about learning too much by heart. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2008)
"... I feel that the main reasons to buy an opening book are to give a good overview of the opening, and to explain general plans and ideas. ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)
"... 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)

kindaspongey

Sep 25, 2017

0

#58

yureesystem wrote:

... studying opening won't help you get better ...

"It is important for club players to build up a suitable opening repertoire." - GM Artur Yusupov (2010)

kindaspongey

Sep 25, 2017

0

#59

yureesystem wrote:

... most players who concentrated on opening stay low rated; why? Because you lose through blunders and miss opportunity and allowing your opponent to win, main reason is missing tactics or attacks patterns and your position deteriorate to a lost.

"... 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

kindaspongey

Sep 25, 2017

0

#60

yureesystem wrote:

Most of my wins occur from tactics, better understand in attacking and mating patterns and most the time I have better endgame technique than my opponent; noticed I did not mention opening. I was playing otb master and we off book line on fifth move and everything depended on opening principles and good judgment; In one line I needed to sacrifice the exchange to gain an advantage and it was still very unclear, I took the safe route and lost. If a player spends more time on tactics and endgame he will become a strong player. A lot time I am equal in the opening and I outplay my opponent even though we rated the same; 1900 opening expert will lose to a 1900 tactics and endgame expert because after the opening if you can't recognize the opportunities but your opponent can, you lose.

"... 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)

"... 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