Here's a game I played today in my state's senior championship. Many of the players are former masters and experts who have forgotten more theory than most people ever learn.
In this case, I got lucky and was able to play a nice sacrificial line based on the Fool's Mate theme, but in a setting I'd never seen before:
The point of the above game is that we were both out of our known theory around move 5, and the rest was just playing chess using ideas that we had percolating in our brains from somewhat similar positions in the past.
Here's a game I played today in my state's senior championship. Many of the players are former masters and experts who have forgotten more theory than most people ever learn.
In this case, I got lucky and was able to play a nice sacrificial line based on the Fool's Mate theme, but in a setting I'd never seen before:
You did well, 6..e5! surprised me. But the sacrifice works cos of white's illogical/suicidal move 5.g4??
The point of the above game is that we were both out of our known theory around move 5, and the rest was just playing chess using ideas that we had percolating in our brains from somewhat similar positions in the past.
Knowing how to play well when out of book is certainly a skill one should have.
But how about when the game is in book?
In my opinion, it helps to know your theory as well—at least in the most common responses to your openings/defenses of choice.
You don't want to be stumbling around in a mainline, trying to find refutations to book moves.
... This thread is about chess U2000 being ...
I would not want to claim that such a statement must be respected forever, but it might help with understanding the context of some of the past comments.
Has anyone wondered how players trained in tactics before the era of computers and tactics trainers?
The answer is endgame studies.
GM Levon Aronian said he worked on endgame studies in order to prime his creativity and resourcefulness.GM Luke McShane said that he is using endgame studies to keep his tactics sharp.It is also well known that Tal , when hospitalised , he had a book with endgame studies which he solved without a board.
While tactics trainer shows you typical patterns , endgame studies force you to be unconventional and creative.If you ever read the wonderful book "The Art of the Endgame: My Journeys in the Magical World of Endgame Studies" by Jan Timman , you will understand what I mean.
One can self teach tactics to a degree. I was very good at tactics long before computers and tactic trainers and books on tactics.
However with today's aids in learning tactics--learning tactics should be relatively easy?
There are little "tricks" in learning tactics. If you know a couple of these "tricks"--your skill at learning tactics should improve greatly!?
A lot of the endgame study stuff can be reduced to shorter simpler sequences for lesser players ... e.g., Yusupov recommends mate-in-2's for analysis/calculation practice in his level 1 Build/Boost/Evolution chess books. Over 2000 of the problems in Laszlo Polgar's 5334 book are composed mate-in-2's. Convekta has a CD entitled Mate Studies which has nearly 5000 composed mate studies (mates-in 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8), and I certainly hope Chess King makes an app for this program also. None of these problems start with a check or direct attack on a piece, so they really teach to you calculate and see the "goal" mating pattern, hence you are working on visualization, calculation, pattern recognition, space/line/square control, and piece coordination. In a way, one could call these "strategic" mates, since the first move is a threat by controlling squares/space/lines rather than directly attacking a piece or checking the king (though, of course, all of these are still forced mates).
Anecdotally, I have also noticed that amateur players seem to express a preference for problems that come from "real games", while a number of more advanced players have mentioned the toil of going through difficult composed studies as a method of improvement ... Convekta, for instance, gives the composed mate-in-2 problems a rating of 1750, with mates-in-3 at 2050 and mates-in-4 at 2200.
Personally like Hawkins "Amateur to IM", and similarly Capablanca's "Last lectures" which highlight a stepping stones method of aiming for positions on positional grounds rather than just hard core calculation. This method of thinking is particularly applicable to endgames, but not unknown in middle games. I particularly disliked the horribly mechanical nature of La Maza's seven circles. That fact he gave up chess very quickly suggests that he didn't find it an enjoyable experience either.
I particularly disliked the horribly mechanical nature of La Maza's seven circles. That fact he gave up chess very quickly suggests that he didn't find it an enjoyable experience either.
Good point.
I agree with OP. Knowing how to mate with two rooks is not necessary for a beginner.
My rating is 1633 and I don't even know how the horse moves.
It seems to me that you should start learning openings when openings start being your problem. It's perfectly possible to play a game full of reasonable moves and find yourself just lost. If you are finding that you are just getting consistently worse positions out of the opening, maybe fix that.
Also, doing tactics properly is exhausting, spending half an hour clicking through the top 3 most common responses to your favorite opening move is easy, and you might notice a pattern.
There is also the obvious problem that sometimes an opening just doesn't make sense to you. I struggled against the french but love 1e4, so I had to go and do some specific work, which just meant finding a line that I found actually playable, maybe 24 moves across a few variations, and now I have an even score against the french. And from there I have been able to find plans that mean i can play other lines I haven't memorize.
Also, if you do have a memory where you can just learn lines go for it. Imagine if every game you played you were given an extra free move in the opening, lots of theory is about maximizing your tempo, it's hard to believe that having a better position every game wouldn't lead to better results. If not actually better play
Honestly I don't think learning opening theory matters until you get to an IM. Until that time, learning few short yet elite openings(in your repitoire that you are good with) is great.
Look at Bobby Fischer, he played e4 for 90% of his career, he didn't need to learn how to play all of these other openings such as d4, c4, or Nf3(or the others). He just had his small repitoire, and the difference was that he became Elite with his repitoire, he was "short and sweet". He didn't need all of those openings however the interesting thing was that he could play all of them well, however e4 was just his bread and butter for him, that is why he said e4 is "best by test". Of course in today's chessworld d4 is slightly statistically better than e4, but e4 was good for him because he was masterful with it.
Bobby was just playing from a point of understanding and a point of experience for the most part. Sure he studied theory but it wasn't something that he needed to overly prepare for. Except for his big rivals, such as Petrosian, Spassky, and others...
Also another person that comes to mind is Capablanca, he rarley studied opening theory and he played the same openings over and over again and was just elite with his own repitoire. And though later in his chess career he wrote books on opening theory, he wasn't known for preperation and wasn't know for being that person who would know all of the lines in a given opening or certain opening(s).
So the point is, No, I don't believe you need to have higher levels of opening theory until higher master levels and honestly depending on the gifts of a player I don't think it matters if someone has high opening theory at all. Honestly I haven't studied any opening theory and I am fine, preparing just doesn't matter on my level but the stronger I get the more important it may become, but even so it doesn't bother me knowing all of these lines as I have my own openings I am good with, so extreme preperation just isn't needed.
But I do believe there needs to be a balance of preperation and understanding the higher someone gets in strength as one can do without the other in top level play and the goal is to be the most effective. Understanding this it makes the more to study only when neccessary, however if not neccessary don't.
Understanding and Experience beats book moves, however with theory I believe that If you are an IM(International Master) or above I believe that it is definitley important in your game, and if left unchecked can put you in a serious disadvantage. Unless you have special gifts in the game of chess such as Bobby or Capablanca...(in which some may have, however most may not, we will never know until people get on that level and their play reflects on their games.)
Honestly I don't think learning opening theory matters until you get to an IM. Until that time, learning few short yet elite openings(in your repitoire that you are good with) is great.
Look at Bobby Fischer, he played e4 for 90% of his career, he didn't need to learn how to play all of these other openings such as d4, c4, or Nf3(or the others). He just had his small repitoire, and the difference was that he became Elite with his repitoire, he was "short and sweet". He didn't need all of those openings however the interesting thing was that he could play all of them well, however e4 was just his bread and butter for him, that is why he said e4 is "best by test". Of course in today's chessworld d4 is slightly statistically better than e4, but e4 was good for him because he was masterful with it.
Bobby was just playing from a point of understanding and a point of experience for the most part. Sure he studied theory but it wasn't something that he needed to overly prepare for. Except for his big rivals, such as Petrosian, Spassky, and others...
Also another person that comes to mind is Capablanca, he rarley studied opening theory and he played the same openings over and over again and was just elite with his own repitoire. And though later in his chess career he wrote books on opening theory, he wasn't known for preperation and wasn't know for being that person who would know all of the lines in a given opening or certain opening(s).
So the point is, No, I don't believe you need to have higher levels of opening theory until higher master levels and honestly depending on the gifts of a player I don't think it matters if someone has high opening theory at all. Honestly I haven't studied any opening theory and I am fine, preparing just doesn't matter on my level but the stronger I get the more important it may become, but even so it doesn't bother me knowing all of these lines as I have my own openings I am good with, so extreme preperation just isn't needed.
But I do believe there needs to be a balance of preperation and understanding the higher someone gets in strength as one can do without the other in top level play and the goal is to be the most effective. Understanding this it makes the more to study only when neccessary, however if not neccessary don't.
Understanding and Experience beats book moves, however with theory I believe that If you are an IM(International Master) or above I believe that it is definitley important in your game, and if left unchecked can put you in a serious disadvantage. Unless you have special gifts in the game of chess such as Bobby or Capablanca...(in which some may have, however most may not, we will never know until people get on that level and their play reflects on their games.)
Really and when did you get your IM or even FM status?
Bro you are stupid.
Fischer was one of the world's greatest exponents of opening theory.
Capablanca was known for doing less study than most yes, but he knew all the openings as well as he could breathe - he even wrote books containing them. So what the heII are you talking about?
"Sure he studied theory but".... you have no fu_king clue what you're talking about.
@Uhohspagettio1 You have no respect... You lack maturity and security as for your sake you are a child in the way you speak, no man, young or old talks like that.
This is past a conversation of chess, your breaking boundaries... Do you talk to your friends or family like this? Surely there is a better way to approach someone, it is sad though as this is just about chess, what if this was something real in real life, what then?
If you spoke like this to someone face to face they wouldn't be approving, I know I wouldn't. Regardless tread carefully as this is not appropiate, I am not going to report you because that is not productive but do yourself a favour and reflect upon yourself. I don't know if you lost a game or something along these lines but hopefully you can get back to your right mind.
That's first.
Secondly: I said Bobby kept it short and sweet... He was elite with e4, and specifically e4 and I said he could be effecient with other openings, however he was good with e4 and he didn't need to study it as he was a mastermind already in the game.
And as for Capablanca I said he didn't study opening theory, but he didn't write about them until after his games, and didn't study or prepare for his opponents. Again he was short and sweet and most of his repitoire consisted of e4 openings.
Before you come at someone next time, don't judge just listen first, and then you will learn something, for your sake and for the sake of the rest of the chess.com community @Uhohspaghettio1 I suggest you don't respond if you are going to respond like that, regardless of what a person says...
Bobby Fischer definitely knew how to play queens pawn games/ English etc. Just because he played 1. e4 exclusively as white doesn't mean that he didn't know how to play those positions. He was probably more experienced than many other GMs in openings he didn't even play. To say Fischer didn't learn how to play d4, c4 and Nf3 shows extreme ignorance on the matter.
@Steven-ODonoghue
You are one of chess.com's biggest trolls and you are talking about ignorance...
That seems hypocritcal, just saying. Plus you are not reading what I am writing correctly but that's ok, you probably are not comprehending what I am saying so it is fine, but to clarify just mind your own business...
I hope someone locks this forum topic. Thanks for doing this discussion. Goodbye.