Actually there are 3 Chess Mentor courses that address this that were originally written by GM Sam Shankland. Of course they are now called Lessons and were written by the chess.com team. Logically, they are in increasing order of difficulty. Here's the first one; enjoy...
https://www.chess.com/lessons/exploiting-typical-opening-errors
You should be aware that there are lots of moves that are not :theory," but are not big mistakes either. If you set out thinking you can "punish," or "refute" them, you are in for disappointment. There are plenty of opening variations for white, for instance, that theory has discarded because black equalizes too easily. But you are not going to "punish" those white openings
If you are interested in something more general, Simon William's has a move-by-move book called How to win at
sorry. How to Win at Chess Quickly. He has selected and annotated 50 GM games. The theme is mistakes in the early game, hence the title. Not exclusively openings, but plenty of examples of punishment for deviating from good principles. I have a copy and enjoyed playing though the games.
Hello everyone, I've been playing chess for almost 2 years now, I play a lot, I study a bit, and I've never been able to find an article where rather than explaining the theory of openings we focused on the fact that certain moves of the opponent are not considered theory. At my level we know the basic theory, but we are not able to properly punish certain inaccuracies made in the first moves of the games and we continue with our normal development until we get an equal position. With this topic I would like to recommend a new topic for a future article written by an experienced player.
You have just contradicted your own self. If you understand theory, then you know how to punish bad moves. If you can't punish them, you don't understand theory. You probably just memorized a few lines and are otherwise clueless as to the actual purpose of each move. If you can't explain the ideas yourself, you DO NOT understand the theory.
Case in point - Take the following two openings:
French Advance: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Qb6 6.a3 Nh6 7.b4 cxd4 8.cxd4 Nf5 9.Bb2
What is the answer to the following questions?
1) Why did Black play 3...c5?
2) Why is 6.a3 stronger than 6.Be2?
3) Does it matter whether Black takes on d4 or b4 when trading pawns? If so, explain why Black took on d4 instead of b4.
4) Why has Black not developed his Light-Squared Bishop yet?
5) What are the pros and cons of Black's 2 main options here, 9...Be7 and 9...Bd7?
Now let's take another opening - The Exchange Grunfeld, Seville Vairation
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 4.cxd5 Nxd5 5.e4 Nxc3 6.bxc3 Bg7 7.Bc4 c5 8.Ne2 O-O 9.Be3 Nc6 10.O-O Bg4 11.f3 Na5 12.Bxf7+
Now answer the following:
1) How is this line with 7.Bc4 and 8.Ne2 different than 7.Nf3 and 8.Rb1?
2) When should Black trade pawns on d4?
3) Explain the pros and cons of 12.Bxf7+ and 12.Bd3
4) After 12.Bxf7+ and 13.fxg4, what is the main plan for each side?
Notice I was easily able to regurgitate two opening lines. One being the Advance French and the other being the Exchange Grunfeld. Well, you might not believe this, but these two openings are literally the two extremes for me. I have studied and at some point played or attempted to play every main stream opening known to man kind. That said, these two openings listed are polar opposites. One of them I understand better than any other main stream chess opening. The other I still to this day cannot make heads or tails out of.
I can explain in thorough detail the answer to each and every one of those questions posed about the Advance French. If you instead asked me the questions posed there about the Grunfeld, I've got 2 words for ya. BEATS ME! Just because I could regurgitate the Seville Variation of the Grunfeld does not mean I understand it. Therefore, I DO NOT know even basic theory of the Grunfeld, despite the fact that I could regurgitate 12 moves. The French Advance, on the other hand, I could answer every question:
1) To attack the White center. Failure to do so will lead to suffocation for Black as White already has a space advantage after 3 moves
2) The problem with 6.Be2 in this line with an early Qb6 is that White simply doesn't have time to simply develop and castle. After 6...cxd4 7.cxd4 Nh6 and now Black is better after 8.Bxh6? Qxb2 as there is no way to trap the Queen, and 8.O-O fails to 8...Nf5 and there is no good way to guard the d-pawn and it will drop. Therefore, White must play 8.Nc3 when 8...Nf5 9.Na4 Qa5+ is check, which is CRITICAL. After 10.Bd2 Bb4 11.Bc3 (11.Bxb4 Qxb4 is again check, which is critical - Black is better here) 11...b5! 12.a3 Bxc3+ 13.Nxc3 Qb4 and Black has a slight advantage due to his piece activity. With best play it is likely a draw, but White should not be defending to hold a draw by move 14 given that he goes first.
3) It absolutely does matter. If you take on b4, you give White the added option of taking with the a-pawn instead of the c-pawn. You must force Black to use his c-pawn to recapture.
4) The answer to question 2 should explain this. The Light-Squared Bishop has zero impact on the d4-square, and giving White a single extra move would allow him to get in his Be2 and Castle. For example, 5...Bd7 (which is a line but now considered slightly weaker than 5...Qb6) 6.Be2! (now White has time) Qb6 (Too late - Now instead Black should play a move like 6...f6, but with correct play, White can still maintain an advantage.) 7.O-O! cxd4 8.cxd4 Nh6 9.Nc3 Nf5 10.Na4 and now 10...Qa5 is not check, which means that White can now play 11.Bd2 Bb4 12.Bxb4!! since a recapture is not with check. Advantage White.
5) White would like to follow up with 10.Bd3. After 9...Be7, this move is possible as Black cannot capture 3 times on d4 due to a discovered attack at the end with Bb5+ and the Queen hangs, similar to the Milner-Barry Gambit. The plus side to 9...Be7 that is 10.g4?! is now dubious as 10...Nh4! trades off a critical set of pieces that is far more desirable for Black than White. So White answers 9...Be7 with 10.Bd3! However, if instead, Black were to play 9...Bd7, the idea is different. Now White cannot play 10.Bd3 as the d-pawn will drop because there is no discovered attack with a bishop move to Check the White King. However, there is nothing covering h4, and so here is where White should reply to 9...Bd7 with 10.g4!, forcing the Knight back to h6 or e7. Failure to play this move immediately will give Black the cake and allow him to eat is too. He will have prevented the active development of the BIshop to d3 AND stopped any disruption with g4 by White.
If you can't give explanations like this, then you do not know the basics of the opening. What I explains are basics! The more advanced stuff is finding that novelty on a move in the late teens or twenties. For example, the discovery by Robson with 18.Be3 in the 12...d4 line of the French Winawer, which allows White to draw by force, but there is also a line in the 18.Be3 variation further down the line where White can try to play for a win. With absolute best play, it's still a draw, but Black has to defend extremely accurately!
So again, before you can even claim a basic understanding, ask yourself the questions and do you really understand it. For me, that is a resounding yes for the French Defense (especially the advance variation as I play it often from both sides), and a big fat NO for the Grunfeld Defense, despite my ability to regurgitate lines.
So if you can't tell, the way to learn openings is to understand every move - what its purpose is, what the plan is. Go thru numerous grandmaster games. It didn't just come to me magically. I know the French from studying the games of Korchnoi, Uhlmann, Nimzowitsch, Botvinnik, etc. Not by just memorizing a bunch of lines!
@ThrillerFan very nice post. You are renowned in the chess.com community for your French Defense ability (so I figured which line you knew the answers to those questions for), but I actually had a better shot at the Grunfeld Opening. I don't play the Grunfeld, as Black, usually. However, a good friend of mine uses it as an integral part of his repertoire - naturally I've studied this opening is some detail.
Personally, I've never seen this variation until now (one thing that attracted me and sparked my curiosity into putting this into the chess.com analysis board), but I could still "reason" the opening based off of what I did know.
p.s. I actually like playing the Nf3 and Rb1 lines you mentioned with White xD
@ThrillerFan very nice post. You are renowned in the chess.com community for your French Defense ability
It is just a bunch of low level trash talk....and horrible advice.
Hello everyone, I've been playing chess for almost 2 years now, I play a lot, I study a bit, and I've never been able to find an article where rather than explaining the theory of openings we focused on the fact that certain moves of the opponent are not considered theory. At my level we know the basic theory, but we are not able to properly punish certain inaccuracies made in the first moves of the games and we continue with our normal development until we get an equal position. With this topic I would like to recommend a new topic for a future article written by an experienced player.
If you dont understand the position, then you dont understand theory.
@ThrillerFan very nice post. You are renowned in the chess.com community for your French Defense ability
It is just a bunch of low level trash talk....and horrible advice.
I am not a fan of trash talk, or bashing lower rated chess players for their chess ability. However, I don't see this here. I agree that @ThrillerFan sometimes goes a bit too far into pressing discussions (sometimes I'll just let it go with people who are not open-minded and obviously have no interest in learning something new). What I like from @ThrillerFan here though is specifically the approach of asking questions in the opening. If you can't answer those fairly straight-forward questions, then it is clear you do not fully grasp the nature of the opening position. If this is the case, then simply memorizing lines is not benefitting you as much as you could be getting out of opening study.
@ThrillerFan very nice post. You are renowned in the chess.com community for your French Defense ability
It is just a bunch of low level trash talk....and horrible advice.
I am not a fan of trash talk, or bashing lower rated chess players for their chess ability. However, I don't see this here. I agree that @ThrillerFan sometimes goes a bit too far into pressing discussions (sometimes I'll just let it go with people who are not open-minded and obviously have no interest in learning something new). What I like from @ThrillerFan here though is specifically the approach of asking questions in the opening. If you can't answer those fairly straight-forward questions, then it is clear you do not fully grasp the nature of the opening position. If this is the case, then simply memorizing lines is not benefitting you as much as you could be getting out of opening study.
He just claims it is low level trash talk because he is too embarrassed to admit the truth. His way of trying to say that he falls in that category of "memorize but clearly don't understand" is by falsely bashing the one that has revealed the truth! I am the next James Comey!
Thank you all for your answers. I don't really study openings from memory, I don't know why any of you came to this conclusion. That's exactly why I wrote this post. Above all, it bothers me to hear non-constructive criticism with a rather arrogant tone from people with a lower rating. I am hear to listen and to learn, not to be taunted.
Once out of the ooening, ThrillerFan is more or less clueless about chess. He has a huge ego though.
Once out of the ooening, ThrillerFan is more or less clueless about chess. He has a huge ego though.
You have no clue what you are talking about.
Until you have something intelligent to say, SHUT UP! I don't need to hear personal attacks from some stupid imbecile! And just for your information, I got an offer to write for a major chess publication! So think before you open that mouth of yours!
Once out of the ooening, ThrillerFan is more or less clueless about chess. He has a huge ego though.
Ignorance surely is bliss. If you have ever read anything written by TF, then you would know that he knows his stuff.
He's 1900 fide, That's all I need to know. Despite being just another amateur like most of us, he constantly talks down to people like he's some kind of a super GM, which he's not.
He's 1900 fide, That's all I need to know. Despite being just another amateur like most of us, he constantly talks down to people like he's some kind of a super GM, which he's not.
LOOK, YOU BETTER STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH! ONE MORE AND I AM REPORTING YOU! IT IS ILLEGAL TO MISQUOTE OR FALSELY PARAPHRASE PEOPLE ON SOCIAL MEDIA, AND NOWHERE DID I EVER CLAIM TO BE A SUPER GM! ALSO, FIDE GIVES A FALSE READING AS ONLY ABOUT 10 PERCENT OF RATED GAMES I PLAY ARE FIDE RATED, AND MY USCF IS DOWN RIGHT NOW MAINLY DUE TO THE PANDEMIC, AND YET MY CORRESPONDENCE (ICCF - THE REAL THING, NOT SOME BOPKIS CHESS.COM CORRESPONDENCE, WHICH IS 2153 BY THE WAY) WILL BE UP OVER 200 POINTS COME 1/1/2021 COMPARED TO 4/1/2020, AND THIS IS WHERE MOST RECENT PLAY HAS BEEN.
ALSO, SINCE CLEARLY SOME ARE TOO STUPID TO KNOW THIS, AMATEURS ARE NOT CONSISTENT ACROSS THE BOARD LIKE A GM IS. 1900 DOES NOT MEAN 1900 IN ALL ASPECTS. I KNOW 1900 PLAYERS THAT DO NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT LUCENA'S POSITION IS, BUT THEY HAVE GREAT CLOCK MANAGEMENT. I KNOW ALL MY BASIC ENDINGS, FROM LUCENA'S POSITION TO MATING WITH BISHOP AND KNIGHT, BUT MY CLOCK MANAGEMENT IS PATHETIC, SO DO NOT JUST GO AROUND TOOTING YOUR HORN LIKE SOME KNOW IT ALL WITH YOU HEAD CHOPPED OFF AND START MAKING FRIVILOUS CLAIMS ABOUT PEOPLE WHEN YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHAT ON EARTH YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!
ONE MORE FALSE CLAIM FROM YOU ABOUT ME AND I START REPORTING YOU FOR EACH AND EVERY SMALL NEGATIVE FALSEHOOD THAT YOU POST - GOT IT??????
Hello everyone, I've been playing chess for almost 2 years now, I play a lot, I study a bit, and I've never been able to find an article where rather than explaining the theory of openings we focused on the fact that certain moves of the opponent are not considered theory. At my level we know the basic theory, but we are not able to properly punish certain inaccuracies made in the first moves of the games and we continue with our normal development until we get an equal position. With this topic I would like to recommend a new topic for a future article written by an experienced player.