Purpose of learning openings. - Chess Forums - Page 4

GuiOhms · 2016-06-16T14:13:33-07:00

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?

kindaspongey

Jun 23, 2016

0

#61

jengaias wrote (~9 weeks ago):

... Seirawan said opening preparation is the most important part of a grandmaster's preparation for a tournament.And when asked , what the opening preparation of a grandmaster includes, he said :

"First , I want to know all the possible endgames that are produced from my opening". ...

jengaias wrote (~5 weeks ago):

... Seirawan , when asked what a grandmaster's opening preparation is, he said:

"Knowing your openings endgames first , then the middlegames , then the lines" ...

jengaias wrote (~6 hours ago):

... Seirawan said that the most important part of the opening preparation of ANY player is knowing the endgames resulting from his openings. ...

Has there been some evolution here?

kindaspongey

Jun 23, 2016

0

#62

jengaias wrote:

... Averbakh in his books says that "every beginner owe to study the basic endgames before everything else" ...

Does anyone see a contradiction between that and this?

"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)

jengaias wrote:

... the 5 volumes are basic endgames for Averbakh ...

What is the Averbakh quote saying that?

jengaias wrote:

... Averbakh also says that " a sure indication of a strong player is good technique in complex endgames" ...

How "strong" was he talking about? Does anyone see a contradiction with FM Amatzia Avni?

dfgh123

Jun 23, 2016

0

#63

ylblai2 wrote:

"... 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

i remember reading that paragraph in the book and finding it contradictory to other parts

zborg

Jun 23, 2016

0

#64

thegreat_patzer wrote:

@yuri.

I don't see what happens after Bxe6 fxB? then what

White has a winning advantage about 10-ply later. Unfortuately, it wasn't provided.

That's typical. Much like the (habitually) recurring topic of this thread. Yawn.

kindaspongey

Jun 23, 2016

0

#65

dfgh123 wrote:

ylblai2 wrote:

"... 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

i remember reading that paragraph in the book and finding it contradictory to other parts

If you identify a specific other part, we can discuss it.

dfgh123

Jun 23, 2016

0

#66

he says opening books are for experts, but how else could an average player well learn half a dozen openings without them

Robert_New_Alekhine

Jun 23, 2016

0

#67

jengaias wrote:

ylblai2 wrote:

jengaias wrote:

... Averbakh in his books says that "every beginner owe to study the basic endgames before everything else" ...

Does anyone see a contradiction between that and this?

"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)

jengaias wrote:

... the 5 volumes are basic endgames for Averbakh ...

What is the Averbakh quote saying that?

jengaias wrote:

... Averbakh also says that " a sure indication of a strong player is good technique in complex endgames" ...

How "strong" was he talking about? Does anyone see a contradiction with FM Amatzia Avni?

And I was wondering when you will appear.You are a bit late , you are losing your touch.

Yes we see the contradiction , that contradiction is our discussion.

Here is another contradiction:

Averbakh: Soviet Champion ahead of Petrosian , Korchnoi and Geller and qualified for the 1953 candidates tournament.One of the best endgame theoreticians of all times.

Amatzia Anvi:Nothing.

Were you going to comment on that contradiction or it's bad for business?

So you think he's doing it for business?

You yourself are pretending to be a man on this site when you are a woman. I'm not going to believe everything you say, if that's ok with you.

zborg

Jun 23, 2016

0

#68

"Contradictions, Marxism, and Chess Dialectics" are entirely too mixed up to make sense anymore.

Time to move on, perhaps ?? Your choice.

Snake-in-the-grass

Jun 23, 2016

0

#69

Put them under pressure with 1.e4!!

Or have a shot with 1.Nh3!

kindaspongey

Jun 23, 2016

0

#70

ylblai2 wrote:

jengaias wrote:

... Averbakh in his books says that "every beginner owe to study the basic endgames before everything else" ...

Does anyone see a contradiction between that and this?

"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) ...

jengaias wrote:

Yes we see the contradiction , that contradiction is our discussion.

Is there anywhere in "our discussion" where a quote was produced of Averbakh saying, "the 5 volumes are basic endgames for Averbakh"?

jengaias wrote:

Here is another contradiction:

Averbakh: Soviet Champion ahead of Petrosian , Korchnoi and Geller and qualified for the 1953 candidates tournament.One of the best endgame theoreticians of all times.

Amatzia Anvi:Nothing.

Were you going to comment on that contradiction

Is there a specific FM Amatzia Avni sentence that contradicts this? Does anyone claim that Averbakh did not "master" the "complete game"?

"... In games between novice chess players, color is not the most important factor, but acquired knowledge is crucial. Without the basics of opening play it is easy to fail, and that's why openings must be learned. ..." - Journey to the Chess Kingdom by Yuri Averbakh and Mikhail Beilin

jengaias wrote:

or it's bad for business?

No "business" is involved.

kindaspongey

Jun 23, 2016

0

#71

"... 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

kindaspongey

Jun 23, 2016

0

#72

ylblai2 wrote:

"... 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

dfgh123 wrote:

he says opening books are for experts, but how else could an average player well learn half a dozen openings without them

Here is an example of a specific passage:

"... 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."

As you can see, it doesn't say, "opening books". It says, "purely technical books on the openings", and refers to another sort of book, "dealing with the openings in a more general way", as "better" "for the average player".

odisea777

Jun 23, 2016

0

#73

there is no "official" line; there are many possibilities; that's why learning openings is so difficult and not worth it unless you are way advanced (like maybe 2000 in my opinion).

Your time is much better spent learning tactics because they apply in every game.

kindaspongey

Jun 23, 2016

0

#74

"... In games between novice chess players, color is not the most important factor, but acquired knowledge is crucial. Without the basics of opening play it is easy to fail, and that's why openings must be learned. ..." - Journey to the Chess Kingdom by Yuri Averbakh and Mikhail Beilin

"... Half a dozen different openings, well learned, are about all the average player needs to obtain good results. ..." - from Capablanca's Primer of Chess

"If you want to play chess competitively, then you must develop an opening repertoire." - GM Patrick Wolff (1997)

-BEES-

Jun 24, 2016

0

#75

jengaias wrote:

-BEES- wrote:

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.

So Capablanca ,Yusupow , Averbakh , Dvoretsky and Shereshevsky are not(or were not) good teachers.

I assume that if any of them offered to teach you, you would refuse.

Fine by me but do you even realise what nonsense you said?

It's clear that you are embellishing and misinterpreting quotes from these players for some sort of ideological crusade. Have fun with that. Now that you've eshewed the clearly wasteful study of openings from your regimen, and you have all this free time to argue on the internet (an integral part of capablanca's training no doubt), I'm sure you'll be world champion in no time.

kindaspongey

Jun 24, 2016

0

#76

jengaias wrote:

-BEES- wrote:

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.

So Capablanca ,Yusupow , Averbakh , Dvoretsky and Shereshevsky are not(or were not) good teachers. ...

-BEES- wrote:

... It's clear that you are embellishing and misinterpreting quotes from these players for some sort of ideological crusade. ...

jengaias wrote:

... Read the Yusupow's introduction in Dvoretsky's "Endgame Manual"

Read the introduction of "Endgame strategy" by Shereshevsky

Read the introduction by Aberbakh in "Comprehensive chess endings".

Read Capablanca's books.

Then we can talk.

Until then try to avoid the unproved nonsense about misinterpretations.

If jengaias chooses not to talk, that need not stop others. Does anyone feel that quotes of Capablanca ,Yusupow , Averbakh , Dvoretsky, and Shereshevsky have been produced, asserting that openings are 100% useless for beginners to learn?

"... '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 exposition involving the Ruy Lopez, the King's Gambit, the Centre Game, the Danish Gambit, and the Queen's Gambit

"... In games between novice chess players, color is not the most important factor, but acquired knowledge is crucial. Without the basics of opening play it is easy to fail, and that's why openings must be learned. ..." - Journey to the Chess Kingdom by Yuri Averbakh and Mikhail Beilin

dfgh123

Jun 24, 2016

0

#77

capablancas chess primer is split into 3 parts

part 1 is for beginners (no opening theory)

part 2 is for average players (some opening theory with a suggestion to learn half a dozen openings)

part 3 is for good average players (complete master games to study)

SilentKnighte5

Jun 24, 2016

0

#78

-BEES- wrote:

Now that you've eshewed the clearly wasteful study of openings from your regimen, and you have all this free time to argue on the internet (an integral part of capablanca's training no doubt), I'm sure you'll be world champion in no time.

I laughed.

SilentKnighte5

Jun 24, 2016

0

#79

I absolutely agree with Aagard that studying pawn endings is great practical calculation training.

kindaspongey

Jun 24, 2016

0

#80

jengaias wrote:

... Any serious teacher will tell you that openings are useless for beginners.Begginers need nothing more than the opening principles , exactly what Capablanca says. ...

"... 'Chess Fundamentals' ... does not deal so minutely as this book will with the things that beginners need to know. ..." - from Capablanca's Primer of Chess

"... 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