Playing sharp openings reduces tendency to blunder?

Does playing sharp openings tend to reduce one's tendency to blunder? If someone is blunder prone would choosing sharp openings be a good way to cure this?

I am not 100% sure about if playing sharp openings would fix a blunder problem. If blundering pieces is a problem then in my opinion it is a thought process problem not an opening problem. Maybe instead of changing openings you should try this first. Before you play a move always check to see if your opponent has any checks, captures, or threats. If you start checking for those and you can meet those then I think you will stop blundering pieces.

My line of thinking goes something like this. If one lives in a small town with not much traffic, crossing the road may be safe. Whereas in a big city one learns to keep a lookout more as danger can come from anywhere. Therefore alertness of potential danger increases. 

Perhaps... But at the lower levels, any opening will have tactical opportunities offensively and defensively because of the lower quality moves we play, whereas at the higher levels, those so-called “sharp” openings with forcing tactical lines are often too complicated for an amateur to calculate out on their own except for memorizing the forcing lines, which is not ideal (though you could maybe use them as a study tool .. but then again, these are lines based on analysis by IM’s, GM’s, and computers, so what could an amateur really learn other than memorization).

If you are prone to blundering to simpler moves than expected when you are doing tactical problems, then I’d have to agree with chrisbarcacook, that you need to be more systematic in your thinking at a more fundamental level (checks, captures, and threats such as crude targeting of your king and your pieces), so you don’t miss these threats and opportunities appropriate to your current analytical and pattern-recognition abilities, and the level of opponents you ought to be playing against.

If one is already prone to blundering, they will have a bad time playing "sharp openings". It seems like your logic is heavily reliant on the assumption that the person in question is extremely dedicated to learning how they lost after losing/blundering in sharp positions

To clarify my analogy. A person who lives a big city is more alert and on the lookout for 'threats' than someone from a small town or village. My reasoning goes that if someone plays sharp openings they may grow to be constantly on the lookout for 'threats' compared to someone who plays 'quiet' openings. 

In Bullet/Blitz maybe. In Rapid/Classic i dont think so. What i mean: if u have enough of time to think, ur thinking is the problem, not ur alertness or so IMO.

can it

Well it's a stupid analogy. It's like saying should a person who's partially blind go live in the city with lots of cars there "so they may grow to be constantly on the lookout for threats". 

No of course they shouldn't. They should live in the country where they won't face so many threats.   

Just think for a second - so if a person is bad at the grunfeld - totally hopeless and can't get into it all - they should play the grunfeld every time so they might "grow" to be good at it? No they shouldn't. They should play whatever way they like and if they are trying to achieve something on the board they shouldn't be playing the dumbest way so they might "grow" from it. 

It's like if you're bad at math saying oh I better take the advanced math course where I'll be doing math all the time because then it will make me better at math.  

Working on your weaknesses is one thing, playing right into your weaknesses will end in disaster.    

So following your logic if a player is bad at endgames they should stay clear of endgames. Whereas following my logic if a player is bad at endgames then they should practice more endgames. 

the question is ambiguous since you don't specify timeframe. in general no, its much easier to blunder in sharp positions , but if what  you meant is, if i keep playing positions from sharp openings, i will eventually blunder less as i improve, the answer is sure, but how much of that is just improving in general or exposure to sharp openings is unclear. 

Some sharp openings are just bad period, so just entering into them is a blunder of its own. Others let you punch above your weight class, thanks to traps.  There is merit to the idea of exposing yourself to your weaker areas to improve on them though. if you tend to blunder in sharp positions, then some exposure may do you some good

The problem I see with this analogy is that in the small town vs large town examples it shows a skill of crossing the road not being seen as important in the small town but seen as very important in the large one. So the reactions are different. Simple blunders, on the other hand, are things openings both sharp and not sharp both consider critical. So it will not matter which opening you pick, these random blunders remain essential to correct. So you aren't necessarily made to be more aware of these things. A lot of this comes down to psychology though, if your brain believes it is more essential to do something, it will be more likely to do it, though it's hard to trick yourself into thinking as much, there needs to be something actually driving it.

Looking for specific weaknesses in your understanding of chess, (perhaps you blunder to knights more often, etc) and getting more familiar with such positions, isn't a terrible idea. If you keep losing to a specific opening type, perhaps you should learn more about that opening, maybe play it a few games or face someone who actively uses it to get practice. But just the idea of an opening that is sharp vs not sharp is something that might be too broad to get the specific results you are looking for. 

In my (sad) experience I've found that I can blunder to the heavens at any point in the game, irrespective of opening, haha.  @chrisbaracook's suggestion is extremely helpful prior to making the move but I'd add that those same evaluations (checks, captures, and threats) should also be made after the candidate move is chosen (before making the actual move).  This just might save you from one of those D'oh! moments.

Right. I mean it's the obvious thing. Steer clear of endgames. That's my logic. Why did you even bother asking if you had already made up your mind? It has already been explained to you why your idea won't work. And the reason I cut out the second part of your quote is because you changed the word "play" to "practice", which could be interpreted very differently, as in studying endgames.  

 

Yes you should 100% be calculating the checks, captures, and threats after you have chosen your candidate move

Agreed. I move too fast which compounds the problem. 

.. So maybe i should play tactically complex openings which should have the effect of slowing me down.

Playing sharp openings actual does the opposite, it makes blundering the more easy.

The more complex the position the bigger tendency that a person can blunder. It is very easy to blunder if you are in a position you don't know or play moves that have no merit.

But simultaneously it depends on what you mean by a sharp position, are you talking about a position that s utter chaos, an opposite sides castle or a game where both sides castle on the same side but have a kingside attack? The question is a very broad question and answering it is more subjective than objective, but even in my subjective opinion I say: No, sharp openings do not have the tendency of reducing blunders but rather if anything in the general view it would make more people blunder since the position would be complicated and most likely due to the lack of simplicity would cause people to do moves that they have no business doing in which either weakens a position, blunders a piece, or loses tempo etc. 

I do think there are some simple endgames that can seem complex, however in all other cases I would think a solid position would be easier to play and blunder less than a complicated position that is sharp.

Hopefully this was helpful… However, I do believe if you want to get increasingly better you should not focus on specifically the positions, as there will be different positions to come about. But rather focus on your style; focus on your preferences to specific openings. Also question the strength of your positional play you can test this by playing middlegame positions and your endgames skills. Also if you want to understand how to dominant positions study a position over and over and get experience and then you will become a master at it, and then you won’t have to worry about if a position is sharp or not, as you will be masterful at a few openings/few positions that can easily get you to higher levels within the game.

I don’t know your true level, however from the estimations from your rating this is some of the ways you can prove your game. I don’t think understanding if sharp or solid/quiet positions alone will help your game, but it is a good step, but it is not enough. If you want to get to 1800+ I recommend you to look at some positional concepts and then continue to play to gain more experience and then you will be well on your way.

Best to you on your chess journey!

 

I appreciate your thoughtful comment. Plenty of things for me to chew over. 

@richard807 

Of course my fellow member, I am glad you can use it and hopefully it can bring good value to your chess journey.

It just a takes a matter of time and your willingness to be good at the game and then after that the possiblities are endless. But just remember that there is an effective way to go about the journey and an ineffective way, I just try to give as much effective knowledge/information as possible, so you are absolutley welcome! 

Keep playing and you will improve it is just a matter of time if you put in the work/grind.