FREE - In Google Play
FREE - in Win Phone Store
I see 4. f3 a lot...
StupidGM: Really? In tournament play? How much is a lot?
I have trouble believing this scenario.
BTW I'm all for people working on their opening early on. As far as I'm concerned that's just a matter of how you work on openings and how much time you spend on them versus other important aspects of the game.
I saw every crazy opening in tournaments. 4. f3 is the type of "surprise" move that people who swear off theory swear by, then swear at after they see 4...Bb4.
Most chess isn't played in tournaments, btw, and what you say only supports the idea that someone needs to study the main lines if they are going to play in tournaments.
All parts of the game are important, but every game has an opening, and every game begins with equality, so the opening is just more important due to that.
SGM: You said your fabulous 4... Bb4 insight was worth 50 Elo points.
You're still not answering the question: how often did you see 4. f3 in tournament play?
Elo points don't mean anything anywhere else.
I played in tournaments in the 1980s, about 200 games a year tops. I saw f3 gambits against the French many times. I also saw the Latvian, numerous Center Counters, 1. b3, and many unsound lines.
You seem to want to interrogate me or start an argument rather than address the main topic of the thread, which is whether or not one needs to study openings.
Knowing how to bust ANY unsound line is worth 25-50 Elo points, btw.
SGM: Well, "many times" is only slightly more precise than "a lot."
We can agree to disagree.
I don't believe you beat 4.f3 enough times to raise your rating 50 Elo points.
And knowing how to bust one unsound line means you can bust "ANY unsound line."
Might only be 20 points, but the principle is the same. Each conversion of a loss to a win is worth 32 Elo points, btw.
Busting unsound openings is so basic to GMs that they don't really have to study them, except for the trickier ones.
People who say openings don't matter often get most of their rating points from a trick or offbeat line that they've booked up in, even if they don't think of themselves as opening players. Around 2500 or so the fog clears and "real chess" takes over.
I have played chess for 25 years and I think I only faced the BD gambit once... seems like wasted time to me
A better example might be learning what to do in say the English.
Replacing bad moves in one's repertoire with stronger moves will impact the Elo rating more than any other single study one can do. Besides, most people over 1600 already know middlegame and endgame theory, and certainly by the time they get to 2000, so why is that 2250 who preaches avoiding opening theory not 2750 instead?
If Carlsen tried the Trompowski against me he'd have to be booked up to about move 15 to avoid a disadvantage. The rules of chess don't change just because he plays something.
Hello I am a beginner chess player (started 1,5 month ago), struggling at 1.000 rapid rating on chess.com. I have learned the basic fundamentals, like develop your pieces, protect them, castle early, don't move pieces twice in a row etc. In a lot of games, I find myself doing all that, but I struggle at the next moves - the middle game - lack of plan I guess. What can I do in order to get the initiative in the middle game? Usually the players at my range are more experienced, so I find myself defending, or if I try to attack, I sometimes blunder, because I play a bad move. Everywhere I read, I have yet to see that beginners should study openings. I believe, that learning an opening (10-15 moves) could give you an advantage in the middle game, especially at my level, and help me have an actual plan. Am I wrong? What should I do?
Thank you very much
P. S. I also find it difficult to apply the tactics puzzles I have sold, as there are barely any tactics that can be done, with a bad positioning.>>>Hi, there are a lot of people here selling their bad ideas, which seem to be some kind of ideology.Beginners SHOULD study openngs because, by so doing, they get to see how openings lead naturally into middle-games and to attacking or defensive plans. Not to study openings is to ignore the best method there is of improving quickly.
If one wants to improve, they should upgrade their repertoire beyond that of their rating peers. Most people can stay at their current rating because that rating does not require such an upgrade. The rating is almost exclusively tied to the opening strength, but that doesn't mean a player can't learn from bad openings against equally bad opponents, as happens in small groups who just trade rating points with each other.