I know my opinion doesn't exactly count for much, but for what it's worth, I think even beginners should learn the first few moves of an opening along with the important ideas. That way, if their opponent plays a dubious move, they will actually know why it is dubious by comparing it to the book move.
Purpose of learning openings.
Sort:
Jun 22, 2016
0
#43
If beginners (and with my ratings, I'm probably still considered a beginner) use very bad technique to begin a game, they often cannot get to the endgame. Even if you only know 5-10 moves of an opening, at least you can develop adequately (knights and bishops out, castle, connected rooks) so you have a fighting change to get to the middle and endgames. I think focusing on the endgame in study is important, and this has been one of my weaknesses I am trying to remedy.
Jun 22, 2016
0
#44
Anyone else thinks learning traps has any importance for beginners? I have been studying them, think they help build tactical skills and are imporant not so much from trying to use them, but to recognize when an opponent is trying to spring a trap on you. I had someone try the "Fishing pole trap" on me recently, and I just ignored the knight and kept playing.
GuiOhms wrote:
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?
No.
"Every now and then someone advances the idea that one may gain success in chess by using shortcuts. 'Chess is 99% tactics' - proclaims one expert, suggesting that strategic understanding is overrated; 'Improvement in chess is all about opening knowledge' - declares another. A third self-appointed authority asserts that a thorough knowledge of endings is the key to becoming a master; while his expert-friend is puzzled by the mere thought that a player can achieve anything at all without championing pawn structures.
To me, such statements seem futile. You can't hope to gain mastery of any subject by specializing in only parts of it. A complete player must master a complete game ..." - FM Amatzia Avni (2007)
Jun 23, 2016
0
#48
If you don't know who Amatzia Anvi is you shouldn't be responding to this thread.
Jun 23, 2016
0
#49
http://shop.chess.co.uk/Chess-Tips-for-the-Improving-Player-Amatzia-Avni-p/cb02598.htm.
With this book, he probably created quite a few.
Jun 23, 2016
0
#50
I don't argue that Capblanca is the better player, but Avni's statement rings true. You have to study everything.
GuiOhms wrote:
Hi. Maybe a stupid question but I have to ask... What is the need of learning openings when most of the time the opponent goes out of the "official" line?
1. It saves time on the clock. Not a big deal until you ge really good.
2. It gets you to a playable middlegame.
3. It makes playing the middlegame easier.
4. The most important of all...Study the entire game of chess.
You have a choice. You can be a well rounded player, or you can brag you know <insert opening here> 20 moves deep and blunder pieces.
Jun 23, 2016
0
#52
When i have played strong OTB kids (fide 1700-1800 age 10-12) in rapid , in chat they say what openings is this out of frustration... Becouse i made out of book move on move 2 or 3 .. Just play chess boy, forget openings, show me how you understand things.. Middle game gets messy and chaotic and they blunder and it's over ... but they play until checkmate lol.
Jun 23, 2016
0
#53
A world champion does not always have to be right. He is a bigger authority than Avni, but that does not mean he is right.
Logically, to master something, you must master every part of it. Capablanca said that studying endgames will teach you chess. It won't teach you important middlegame concepts like attack. It won't teach you opening theory. Yes, Capablanca survived without opening theory but that was his main liability.
Jun 23, 2016
0
#54
If I can I will play openings that go straight into an endgame and miss out the middlegame. That way I can study and play players with greater ability than me. Berlin or Ruy Lopez exchanges for example.
Jun 23, 2016
0
#55
jengaias wrote:
Robert_New_Alekhine wrote:
A world champion does not always have to be right. He is a bigger authority than Avni, but that does not mean he is right.
Logically, to master something, you must master every part of it. Capablanca said that studying endgames will teach you chess. It won't teach you important middlegame concepts like attack. It won't teach you opening theory. Yes, Capablanca survived without opening theory but that was his main liability.
Also logically , someone with your(and mine) low understanding of chess is unable to comprehend what a world champion says and means while he can't understand what lower level trainers/players mean.
You want to talk logically?Let's talk logically.
If you talk with someone that just started to study medicine and someone that is an accomplished surgeon, which one you will be able to understand more?The student of course(logically)
And which one you will trust for his medical expertise?The surgeon of course(logically)
Logically, what Capablanca says is beyond the comprehension of Internet Patzers.That is why they try so hard to refute it by present every unknown guy as an expert trainer.
There is evidence that it is wrong. Has any world champion other than Capablanca ever become world champion by just studying endgames?
Robert_New_Alekhine wrote:
There is evidence that it is wrong. Has any world champion other than Capablanca ever become world champion by just studying endgames?
Who said that Capa became WC by "just studying endgames"?
Who told you that "Capablanca survived without opening theory"?
Do you really get what you read, or it's far too complex for your level of understanding?
capablanca said opening books are for the experts or for players who aspire to be experts, everyone else should just study the openings in a general nature.
Learning the openings will structure your brain around the tactics and midgame plans those openings lead to. It is important for new players to learn openings to some extent, both so that they get playable middlegames to work on improving their chess in, and because it structures their learning and their thinking in a way that is conducive to learning even more.
The people that say openings are 100% useless for beginners to learn are people who, in my view, have made the error of thinking that being good at chess makes them automatically good teachers for other people.
i wonder if capablancas advice would be different now as a lot of opening books are just annotated sample games instead of the dry text books of his era
jengaias wrote:
Robert_New_Alekhine wrote:
... Capblanca ... Avni ...
... If 2 players say different things who has more chances to be right?
The world champion or the one that noone knows?
"... 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. ..." - from Capablanca's Primer of Chess
Is there a specific CAPABLANCA sentence that contradicts what FM Avni wrote?
"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?
its always easy to mock and its old news (and Unoriginal) to re-run a put down. so whats the point?