Forums

Opening Theory Is Pointless For Most People That Will Ever Play. Why Bother?

Sort:
Avatar of kindaspongey
kindaspongey
Sep 26, 2017
0
#121
DeirdreSkye wrote:

 ...     He also said that if he hadn't done the mistake to overstimate openings and spend too much time in them , ...

Not the same as advocating attempted improvement "without ever studying openings".

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

Avatar of yureesystem
yureesystem
Sep 27, 2017
0
#122
SmyslovFan wrote:
yureesystem wrote:

I can go to any fide rated tournament as a unrated and play in it and my first rating will be 1900 elo and maybe higher . Why? Because I know that tactics and endgame skills will contribute to my success, I can play third rate moves in the opeing and get a playable position and outplay them in the middle game or endgame.

Malarkey. In fact, I would bet money that you wouldn't break 1900 FIDE after your first 10 rated games.

In fact, you have a FIDE membership card. Why not try out your theory and let us know how you do. I'll wait. Well, I'll wait a few months.

 

I should be clear: I agree that studying openings isn't very important below about 1800 strength, and becomes very important only above ~2300 strength. But yureesystem places too much faith on his skills as a player from 20 years ago. If he were to try FIDE for the first time when he was 20 years younger, I'd agree with him.

The OP didn't say that the openings are meaningless. If you study tactics, you will find that tactics occur in the opening. You don't need to study opening theory to win in the opening, study tactics!

 

Here's an example from a game I played today. I was out of opening theory by about move 4. I'm sure there are games that have followed this path before, but that has nothing to do with theory and everything to do with tactics.

 

 

 

 

 

I played 1800 fide and 2150 fide and very confident I can beat them; one 2060 fide I played, he won as white and took me to the endgame and I beat him and didn't go beyond thirty moves. If I can crush a 2060 fide I am sure I beat below 2000 fide, BTW I noticed 1800 to 1999 are sloppy calculators and give me enough time I beat any amateur or worse draw. I want to play Europeans to earn my fide rating not in America. DeirdreSkye keep repeating meaningless comments how the endgame must be study first; I know this strong expert 2160 uscf who inept in the endgame but his tactics and attack is unbelievable strong; I come to the conclusion attack abilities and tactics are more important than any area of the game. This expert who was 2160 drop to 2125 something and still is incredible strong while my other friend and I are low 2000 uscf and we play the endgame better but my friend who is 2125 uscf is an attacker. I decided I needed to change my safe positional style to more aggressive style, my reward is shorter game and more wins. Playing against experts and masters one must be strong in tactics, attacking ability, need to be a good calculator and good endgame skills; your chances to beat a master increases with those skills I mention. A master fide or uscf below 2400 is not proficient in the opening and if play according to opening principles you should get a playable game and you better be very good in tactics to survive his tactical tricks.

Avatar of yureesystem
yureesystem
Sep 27, 2017
0
#123

Some expert achieve 2200 uscf and drop back to 2100; why?, tactics and endgame skill are low par against masters.

Avatar of yureesystem
yureesystem
Sep 27, 2017
0
#124
FishEyedFools wrote:
yureesystem wrote:
wayne_thomas wrote:
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.

 

 

The main reason I use Micheal De La Maza is he did  arrive to expert level tactics only; I look at some of his games and they are lacking some positional understanding. Micheal is good example a player with no talent and very low rating he studying tactics only and with hard work became expert level. He probably knew if he kept playing he probably will drop to 1900 and that is why he quit.

2 guys i know, study pretty much nothing but tactics.  They are both Expert level players.  And as soon as they get paired against anyone 2200+ they get destroyed.  

  

 

I going with my experiences, I played a very 2300 uscf and outplay him in the opening and in the early middlegame I had a plus and slowing he started to outplay me and steer it to a rook and pawn endgame; he had a king, king rook pawn and king bishop pawn and rook and I had a rook and king and miss many draws chances and lost. So opening doesn't matter against masters because they are stronger in tactics, know their attack patterns and some them are beast in the endgame; so if you want to be successful get better in tactics and endgame.

Avatar of yureesystem
yureesystem
Sep 27, 2017
0
#125
FishEyedFools wrote:
intermediatedinoz wrote:
FishEyedFools wrote:
yureesystem wrote:
wayne_thomas wrote:
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.

 

 

The main reason I use Micheal De La Maza is he did  arrive to expert level tactics only; I look at some of his games and they are lacking some positional understanding. Micheal is good example a player with no talent and very low rating he studying tactics only and with hard work became expert level. He probably knew if he kept playing he probably will drop to 1900 and that is why he quit.

2 guys i know, study pretty much nothing but tactics.  They are both Expert level players.  And as soon as they get paired against anyone 2200+ they get destroyed.  

the players inhere with a rating of 2200 are at least some 100 points stronger in real life, most of them, and they will beat you because they are better prepared in the opening phase, not because of tactics or a better understanding, unless of course you've been using a chessbase tree while you were playing, a form of cheating in my opinion

At the 2200+ level i somewhat agree, but below that, its more tactics, and mistakes, than openings.  JMO...

 

 

 

I have no fear against a 2200 fide or uscf, they are lacking in certain skills and if I play sensible I should have a playable game; now a 2400 uscf or fide that is different story, no matter how sensible I play he will crush me. I only drew one 2480 uscf and I do fear the 2400 elo, they play a level I don't understand.

Avatar of yureesystem
yureesystem
Sep 27, 2017
0
#126
DeirdreSkye wrote:
cappablanco wrote:

My question would be why isn't it possible to study both the opening and the theory along with everything else?

 

   Studying GM games is not considered studying "opening theory" or if it does then everything is "opening theory" since endgames are also produced from an opening.

   The study you mention is probably the optimum way to study openings.You would like to knowe that a very good trainer in my chess club who has created several titled players suggests exactly that.

   The problem is not the opening study per se but those who seriously neglect endgame study with the excuse that " they rarely play endgames because they lose or win before it".That is a total nonsense that unfortunately even good players say.

    The other problem is what should be the focus?What is more important of a player of your level.In many endgame books is mentioned that endgames is the best calculation exercise and the best way to understand the true potential and the subtleties of the pieces.Is increasing your calculation skill and understanding the subtleties of the pieces more important , equally important or less important than openings?

  There are a lot of examples of players that can't understand an opening no matter how much they study it because they have never studyied endgame.

   Why amateurs insist that French exchange is drawish.Because they are unable to convert a middlegame advantage into an edgame winning position and in French exchange that is a vital skill.

    Why they insist that the bishop is bad?Because they are unable to understand how important is in the endgame.

    In some lines , many moves can't be fully understood if you don't understand endgame no matter how much GM games you study.Amatuers don't really understand that  opening play can't afford to ignore the possible endgames and it's often dictated by them.Middlegame even more.

    Overall , the road to deep understanding of every opening and the middlegame it produces , passes from the endgame.Those who claim that opening is equally important with the endgame are not those who don't understand endgame as you might think.They are those that don't understand opening.

That is why Smyslov said "Endgame is the key to chess mastery".

That is why Capablanca said:

“In order to improve your game, you must study the endgame before everything else, for whereas the endings can be studied and mastered by themselves, the middle game and the opening must be studied in relation to the endgame.” 

    2 world champions , one of them considered one of the most gifted players of all times.

So answering your question.

     Yes , you can study opening theory along with "everything else" but it will be useless before you master "everything else".

 

 

You talk like you are some otb expert but your rating is? Do you understand what pieces to exchange and which ones to keep? I can train a beginner on mostly on tactics and some elementary endgame against your student on only endgame and my student will beat your student. Amateurs below expert level are inept and incompetent in tactics and that is why  they lose and no amount of endgame study will improve their skills until they get better in tactics. What I am stating is facts and from otb play and observation.

Avatar of kindaspongey
kindaspongey
Sep 27, 2017
0
#127

yureesystem wrote: "... I can train a beginner on mostly on tactics and some elementary endgame against your student on only endgame and my student will beat your student. ..."

 

"... 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

"... 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)

Avatar of cappablanco
cappablanco
Sep 27, 2017
0
#128
kindaspongey wrote:
yureesystem wrote:

... So I do believe tactics and endgame skills contributes to my success not opening

Did anyone claim that tactics and endgame skills do not contribute to your success? As for openings, it is perhaps worthwhile to think of the 1974 words of Paul Keres:

".... How should you open a chess game? There is no one correct method, no single course which all students must follow. ..."

@kindaspongey thx It's nice to see some chess related content. That Keres quote implies that although there is no right way to open your game the opening is still something you should study along with tactics, mating patterns, middlegames, endgames etc.

I see kids in my chess club who are very good and they look at some basic lines in some openings but they still practice tactics and mating patterns a lot.

Just because someone studies openings or opening principles doesn't mean they neglect other parts of their chess skills.

It's funny how people who say openings aren't important (the same guys recommend lazy openings they found in books like "Crush all openings with one system: Play the [Insert opening name here]")

are the ones who have this lazy attitude towards other parts of the game, too.

They learn one opening system against everything and never think about their moves. Instead they mindlessly repeat their moves thinking: Pah! Opening doesn't matter! Chess begins at the middlegame. 

A move is a move, it doesn't matter whether it is played in the opening or in the middlegame or in the endgame. And if it is a bad move there will be consequences.

 

Avatar of Benedictine
Benedictine
Sep 29, 2017
0
#129

If you are not playing above expert strength in proper OTB controls then your tactics are not good enough. You can study other things but tactics should be the first study priority. A 1500 player is a 1500 player because he/she blunders too much and doesn't take tactical opportunities, not because they are not booked up in a specific variation of the Nimzo Indian or some other opening line.

Avatar of Optimissed
Optimissed
Sep 29, 2017
0
#130
DeirdreSkye wrote:
Optimissed wrote:

<<Let me tell you one.My teacher got the IM  title without ever studying openings>>

Your teacher is probably lying to try to make a (bad) point. Also, what to one person is studying openings, to another is "getting a basic grounding".

       He had no reason to lie.It is much esier for a trainer to teach openings than anything else.Right now in the club there are 8 players(from NM to IM) that give regular lectures in openings , 4 of them  give lectures in basic endgames too and only 1 that gives lectures in middlegame , analysis and advanced endgames(surprisingly the only one that understands advanced endgames is the only one that understands the complex concepts of middlegame and analysis, coincidence?).

     He also said that if he hadn't done the mistake to overstimate openings and spend too much time in them ,if he continued to refine his endgame technique he could be grandmaster(actually he said that it would be his only chance to be a grandmaster).

        Note that he loses a lot of students because he doesn't compromise and give them what they want.Most run away when they hear that they have to do an intense endgame training if they want to improve.

     Overall , you are unable to say if he lies or not(you have to talk to him first) and you are also unable to tell if his point is good or bad(you have reach his level first). >>>

I'm not sure how to make this point .... but he's only a chess instructor. He isn't some kind of God, or else he'd be busy winning the world championship. There are a lot of chess instructors, just as there are a lot of reasonably strong players, of which he is one. They don't all think alike and they may disagree and have different opinions and points of view. Is all this reasonable, so far?

As for someone reaching IM standard without studying any openings .... how is it even possible to study chess without studying openings?

What he means is that he didn't prioritise openings. He's making a point and, to do that, he emphasised one priority over another possibility: that of studying chess deliberately via a study of opening theory, which is also possible, since openings lead on to characteristically typical middle games and even endings. 

So I don't think you and I are really disagreeing too much.
   

 

 

Avatar of penandpaper0089
penandpaper0089
Oct 6, 2017
0
#131
kindaspongey wrote:
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?

Yes. Why? Because under 2000 you simply aren't good enough to continue to play logical moves forever. The moves that just so happen to be good in the opening phase are good not because the opening is a phase in which special rules change the way the game is played. But rather because they make sense according to the position. Regardless of whether it's move 3 or move 30 you must be able look at the position and play according to the position. But that's just being able to analyze positions yes? It's not some special skill that is used in the opening. It's used for the entire game. The opening may have practical challenges in the fact that nothing has moved but they are not so difficult that you should be forced to lose if you make a positional mistake against amateurs. A tactical mistake on the other hand can be decisive.

 

We can see this with engines. Players like Kasparov have called them stupid. Players say that they understand nothing. Take the opening books away and they play badly in the opening. But they don't seem to just lose in the opening or have the problems most people complain about. Why? Is it their amazing opening skill? No, rather it is the fact that they don't blunder very easily at all. Perhaps they get into horrible positions or even positionally lost ones. But they rarely lose outright in the opening. Because the fact is that someone has to blunder for that to happen. And guess how most games under 2000 are decided. It certainly isn't amazing understanding of the opening that's causing this.

 

What occurs at higher levels is simply that players have gotten to the point in which they are able to take advantage of even small positional issues and cause problems for the opponent. So those positional errors that aren't losing suddenly become a problem because your opponents will actually be able to take advantage of them and press for a very long time. Under 2000? No such thing. And even so plenty of GMs like Judit Polgar have talked about having trouble in the openings and having to win in the middlegames. Surely this is not impossible for us to do.

Avatar of SmyslovFan
SmyslovFan
Oct 6, 2017
0
#132

One thing that needs to be differentiated is correspondence play.

While it's true that purely human correspondence play is becoming a dinosaur whose only realm where it's not completely extinct may be chess.com (maybe), it is still a testing ground where even the lowest of fish can study and benefit from opening theory. It's even possible for the plankton of the chess world to contribute something to opening theory in correspondence chess!

 

So, while I agree with the general consensus that opening theory is vastly overvalued by players rated under 2000 OTB, there is still a use for it for correspondence players.

But, even then, most brilliant opening novelties will still be wasted in the interesting middle games that will arise from those novelties.

Avatar of kindaspongey
kindaspongey
Oct 6, 2017
0
#133
penandpaper0089 wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:

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

Yes. Why? Because under 2000 you simply aren't good enough to continue to play logical moves forever. ...

Are typical plans of the opening only relevant when players are good enough to continue to play logical moves forever?

Avatar of kindaspongey
kindaspongey
Oct 6, 2017
0
#134
penandpaper0089 wrote:

... The moves that just so happen to be good in the opening phase are good not because the opening is a phase in which special rules change the way the game is played. But rather because they make sense according to the position. Regardless of whether it's move 3 or move 30 you must be able look at the position and play according to the position. But that's just being able to analyze positions yes? It's not some special skill that is used in the opening. It's used for the entire game. ...

"... 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)

Avatar of kindaspongey
kindaspongey
Oct 6, 2017
0
#135
penandpaper0089 wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:

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

Yes. ... The opening may have practical challenges in the fact that nothing has moved but they are not so difficult that you should be forced to lose if you make a positional mistake against amateurs. ...

Are typical plans of the opening only relevant to players who are forced to lose after making a positional mistake against an amateur?

Avatar of kindaspongey
kindaspongey
Oct 6, 2017
0
#136
penandpaper0089 wrote:

... A tactical mistake on the other hand can be decisive. ...

Is anyone advocating not learning tactics?

Avatar of kindaspongey
kindaspongey
Oct 6, 2017
0
#137
penandpaper0089 wrote:

... Take the opening books away and [engines] play badly in the opening. But they don't seem to just lose in the opening or have the problems most people complain about. Why? Is it their amazing opening skill? No, rather it is the fact that they don't blunder very easily at all. ...

Is it realistic for a human to hope to be like an engine in this respect?

Avatar of kindaspongey
kindaspongey
Oct 6, 2017
0
#138
penandpaper0089 wrote:

... guess how most games under 2000 are decided. It certainly isn't amazing understanding of the opening that's causing this. ...

"... 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)

Avatar of kindaspongey
kindaspongey
Oct 6, 2017
0
#139
penandpaper0089 wrote:
kindaspongey wrote:

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

Yes. ... 

... What occurs at higher levels is simply that players have gotten to the point in which they are able to take advantage of even small positional issues and cause problems for the opponent. So those positional errors that aren't losing suddenly become a problem because your opponents will actually be able to take advantage of them and press for a very long time. Under 2000? No such thing. ...

Are the typical plans of the opening only relevant when players are able to take advantage of small positional issues and press for a very long time?

"... Take the opening books away and [engines] play badly in the opening. ... Perhaps they get into horrible positions or even positionally lost ones. ..." - penandpaper0089

Perhaps that sort of thing happens for humans, too?

Avatar of SmyslovFan
SmyslovFan
Oct 6, 2017
0
#140

Here's a game I just played. Was it decided in the opening, or due to tactics? Yes, I know the answer. 

And if you try to find the opening past about move 5 in a book, you may be disappointed. (I found one game in a database that followed the same course to 7.Qd2.)