Opening theory is pretty boring stuff...i just can t get myself to do it..
Purpose of learning openings.
Sort:
Jun 18, 2016
0
#23
There are lots of reasons to study openings but I think to study them properly is to study the middle and endgames that result. For me I want middle games with an imbalance that contains positional ideas and reduce the tactical options. So I look at Adams, Caruana etc instead of nakamura. Lines that lead to queen exchanges or a knight for a bishop (or vica versa). Also you always have to play an opening and can lose quickly and feel pretty stupid, but unless you are pretty good, often the game is won/lost before the end game. But agree with the earlier post, if you have ambition to be seriously good it's the endgame that you should study first.
ylblai2 wrote:
"... 'Chess Fundamentals' ... does not deal so minutely as this book will with the things that beginners need to know. ... The third volume will treat mainly of the openings. ..." - J. R. Capablanca in A Primer of Chess, a book that devotes about 50 pages to endings and about 50 pages to an introduction to the Ruy Lopez, the King's Gambit, the Centre Game, the Danish Gambit, and the Queen's Gambit
But Capablanca said to never study openings!!!!!!1111
Jun 18, 2016
0
#25
In his auto biography he said the first time he looked in an opening book was when he was world champion and wanted to check that the advice he had given was correct. That said he thought the Sicilian was an inferior defence full of holes.
jengaias wrote:
"... Ylblai2's mission is to sell books ."
False.
jengaias wrote:
"His boss publishes many opening books ..."
Also false.
jengaias wrote:
"... he will try to mislead and misinform ignorants as much as he can. ..."
False again.
[COMMENT DELETED]
[COMMENT DELETED]
[COMMENT DELETED]
[COMMENT DELETED]
[COMMENT DELETED]
jengaias wrote:
... Capablanca ... says that even proficient players won't be benefited much by the study of openings:
" Once you become a proficient player it will be time to go over some of the many books on the openings................ but once more I must insist that such knowledge is only useful to the expert.You can play a very good game without any such knowledge and the fact is that the author himself never studied such books in his life and only when he was a leading player take a look at them and them more out of curiocity than anything else" ...
Anybody wondering about that "................" part? Might it perhaps give some indication about what Capablanca was referring to? Well here is how the "proficient player" sentence actually looks, along with the sentences immediately after it:
"Once you have become a proficient player, it will be time to study or go over some of the many books on the openings in order to become familiar with the very large number of variations in every opening. I refer to books of purely technical character. But once more I must insist on the fact that such knowledge is only useful to the expert."
Should one take "such knowledge" as a reference to knowledge from "the study of openings" or as a reference to knowledge from "books of purely technical character"? Is it very likely that the second possibility will be considered by someone who only sees the "................" version of the quote? Anyway, perhaps another passage gives some indication of what Capablanca had in mind:
"... The expert, with his thorough knowledge of the game, would derive great benefit from a book which would exhaust or nearly exhaust the possibilities of a single opening. ... Being purely technical, such books do not teach the general laws and principles which govern a game of chess. ... I have always considered purely technical books on the openings as fit only for experts or near experts. For the average player it is better to have a book dealing with the openings in a more general way. To the expert every little detail counts, but the average player cannot concern himself with such minute analysis, and must limit himself to broad lines of a general character, with the assurance that if the principles are sound he is bound to come out in good shape. Method and care are needed in the opening. The whole structure of the game may be the result of the first few moves. For the sake of experience and practice it may be well to vary the openings, but for the sake of efficiency it might be better to stick to one single opening for the attack, and one single opening or method of development for the defence. This system may be followed until the one opening in question has been mastered. Then the player may take up a new opening, and thus gradually reach the point where he feels familiar with half a dozen different openings. Half a dozen different openings, well learned, are about all the average player needs to obtain good results. ..."
jengaias wrote:
... Why one should try to alter Capablanca's teaching? ...
I am not trying to alter Capablanca's teaching.
One purpose of learning openings is to acquire an opening visualization memory bank.
Any player that is seeking to reach master class rating knows that he must acquire 4 visualization memory banks:
Tactics visualization memory bank
Endgame visualization memory bank
Opening visualization memory bank
Middle Game visualization memory bank
jengaias wrote:
... you posted this:
"... 'Chess Fundamentals' ... does not deal so minutely as this book will with the things that beginners need to know. ... The third volume will treat mainly of the openings. ..." - J. R. Capablanca in A Primer of Chess, a book that devotes about 50 pages to endings and about 50 pages to an introduction to the Ruy Lopez, the King's Gambit, the Centre Game, the Danish Gambit, and the Queen's Gambit
Don't you clearly try to create the impression that Capablanca emphasizes in openings
"emphasizes" is the language of JENGAIAS, not me.
jengaias wrote:
when it is obvious that he does exactly the opposite?Capablanca tries to convince through all the book that opening study is absolutely unecessary for enyone except proficient players.
In the "proficient player" passage, Capablanca did not write "opening study". We see, "I refer to books of purely technical character." Later on, we see, "... For the average player it is better to have a book dealing with the openings in a more general way. ... for the sake of efficiency it might be better to stick to one single opening for the attack, and one single opening or method of development for the defence. This system may be followed until the one opening in question has been mastered. Then the player may take up a new opening, and thus gradually reach the point where he feels familiar with half a dozen different openings. Half a dozen different openings, well learned, are about all the average player needs to obtain good results. ..."
jengaias wrote:
He even says that he never needed it himself to become world champion.
In the "author himself" passage, Capablanca indicated that he never studied "books of purely technical character" "in his life", but, nevertheless, later on, we see, "... For the average player it is better to have a book dealing with the openings in a more general way. ... Half a dozen different openings, well learned, are about all the average player needs to obtain good results. ..." At an earlier point, there had been a reference to an intention to write a book that would "treat mainly of the openings".
jengaias wrote:
He clearly says that to become a player like Capablanca you need to study endgame while openings are not at all necessary.Isn't that one of the most important parts of his book?
I am unaware of a place in A Primer of Chess where Capablanca purported to discuss necessities in order "to become a player like Capablanca". I do see a place where it was mentioned that the expert "would derive great benefit from a book which would exhaust or nearly exhaust the possibilities of a single opening."
jengaias wrote:
Yet you have never mentioned this
I see no reason for me to mention interpretations typed by jengaias.
jengaias wrote:
but you mentioned instead that it is a book with 50 pages on openings.
In addition to the pages on openings, I mentioned "about 50 pages" on endings.
jengaias wrote:
2 are the reasons one would do that:
1)Either he is a total idiot who can't understand what is important or
2)He is on a mission to mislead and misinform as many as he can.
I am not on a mission to mislead and misinform. By the way, where did Capablanca write that "even proficient players won't be benefited much by the study of openings"?
Jun 18, 2016
0
#35
As not to get beaten up in an anti-Marshall.
http://www.365chess.com/view_game.php?g=3991576
How ironic? A blunder. A clever man commits no minor blunders. ~ Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe, lol
jengaias wrote (~27 hours ago):
... Capablanca tries to convince through all the book that opening study is absolutely unecessary for enyone except proficient players. ...
jengaias wrote (~25 hours ago):
In the "proficient player" passage, Capablanca did not write "opening study". He wrote, "I refer to books of purely technical character." Later, on, he wrote, "... For the average player it is better to have a book dealing with the openings in a more general way. ... for the sake of efficiency it might be better to stick to one single opening for the attack, and one single opening or method of development for the defence. This system may be followed until the one opening in question has been mastered. Then the player may take up a new opening, and thus gradually reach the point where he feels familiar with half a dozen different openings. Half a dozen different openings, well learned, are about all the average player needs to obtain good results. ..."
Capablanca talks about PLAYING openings
Above, in the Primer of Chess quote, one can see more than the idea of "the average player" playing this or that opening. There is also the "have a book" sentence.
jengaias wrote (~25 hours ago):
and he suggests that you play only a few to become familiar with them,
In the language quoted above from the book, there is more than the idea of becoming familiar with a few openings. There is a reference to following a system until one opening "has been mastered" and going on to another opening. There is also a reference to a need for "the average player" to have "well learned" "half a dozen different openings".
jengaias wrote (~25 hours ago):
which by the way , is an excellent advise.
Is the actual advice (quoted above from the book) the sort of thing one would write if one wanted to convince the reader "that opening study is absolutely unecessary for enyone except proficient players"?
jengaias wrote (~27 hours ago):
... He clearly says that to become a player like Capablanca you need to study endgame while openings are not at all necessary. ...
jengaias wrote (~25 hours ago):
I am unaware of a place in A Primer of Chess where Capablanca purported to tell readers what was necessary "to become a player like Capablanca".
A teacher always tries to make the student as good as him and better if possible(a well known truth for thousand of years, which you ignore.Did you finish highschool?).
Is it appropriate to distinguish beteen an actual Capablanca sentence mentioning the idea of becoming "a player like Capablanca" and a thought that occurs to someone else because of a belief about what "a teacher always tries to" do? When I finished high school, I was well aware of the caution appropriate for claims (supposedly well known for thousands of years) about what is "always" true about those in some group.
jengaias wrote (~25 hours ago):
And,
do you know anyone that wouldn't like to have Capablanca's expertise???????
I imagine that many would not be interested in making a plausible effort to acquire Capablanca's expertise. Is jengaias currently making such an effort? I imagine that the contemplation of such an effort would be pretty far from the minds of many readers of a book like A Primer of Chess. If, by some chance, a reader did contemplate such an effort, attention might have been given to the place in the book where it was mentioned that the expert "would derive great benefit from a book which would exhaust or nearly exhaust the possibilities of a single opening."
jengaias wrote (~34 hours ago):
... Capablanca ... says that even proficient players won't be benefited much by the study of openings
jengaias wrote (~25 hours ago):
By the way, where did Capablanca write that "even proficient players won't be benefited much by the study of openings"?
These questions make me believe you are on a mission.I can't believe anyone can be that stupid.
Isn't it obvious?He says that he didn't need to study openings to be the No 1 player in the world.What more do you want him to say?It can't be more clear than that.
I suppose it is possible that Capablanca believed that proficient players would not be benefited much by something that would not have benefited Capablanca much, but is it appropriate to assume that Capablanca had such a belief if he didn't write it? Again, we DO see a place in the book where it was mentioned that the expert "would derive great benefit from a book which would exhaust or nearly exhaust the possibilities of a single opening."
GuiOhms wrote (~3 days ago):
... What is the need of learning openings when most of the time the opponent goes out of the "official" line?
It occurs to me that this Primer of Chess stuff does have some relevance: "... I have always considered purely technical books on the openings as fit only for experts or near experts. For the average player it is better to have a book dealing with the openings in a more general way. ..."
If an opening book does not seem helpful, perhaps it is because it is the wrong sort of opening book for the particular reader. Maybe Discovering Chess Openings by GM John Emms (2006)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627114655/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen91.pdf
or Openings for Amateurs by Pete Tamburro (2014)
http://kenilworthian.blogspot.com/2014/05/review-of-pete-tamburros-openings-for.html
would be alternatives worth consideration.
"... I feel that the main reasons to buy an opening book are to give a good overview of the opening, and to explain general plans and ideas. ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)
Ok. I think there's a lot of opinions down here! Ok for Capablanca. Now is anybody read about Jeremy Silman's imbalances theory, Nimzowitsch's system?
"Jeremy Silman's HOW TO REASSESS YOUR CHESS is an example of a good book which explains many important ideas in clear terms." - GM John Nunn (2006)
"My System is an iconoclastic book. A lot of things in there is sheer provocation, and it does need an expereienced player to know what exactly must be taken at its face value.
I love 'My System', and I have read it cover to cover one dozen times, but suggesting it to a class player is an entirely different matter." - IM pfren (~5 weeks ago)
ylblai2 a écrit :
"My System is an iconoclastic book. A lot of things in there is sheer provocation, and it does need an expereienced player to know what exactly must be taken at its face value.
I love 'My System', and I have read it cover to cover one dozen times, but suggesting it to a class player is an entirely different matter." - IM pfren (~5 weeks ago)
Are you a book seller?
Openings create a framework for you to learn strategy, tactics and endgame play.
So despite the constantly repeated bad advice to never study openings, yes you should study openings. But study them properly.
That's a bad advice given by Capablanca.
But today every ignorant thinks he knows better than Capablanca.
"... 'Chess Fundamentals' ... does not deal so minutely as this book will with the things that beginners need to know. ... The third volume will treat mainly of the openings. ..." - J. R. Capablanca in A Primer of Chess, a book that devotes about 50 pages to endings and about 50 pages to an introduction to the Ruy Lopez, the King's Gambit, the Centre Game, the Danish Gambit, and the Queen's Gambit