Understanding the Playability of Openings

I'm trying to study openings at the moment because I want to improve. I'm around 1200 at the moment but this is a poor ranking because I'm better than this, I just fail to understand simple opening usage. 

When trying to learn openings I often get discouraged by ideas of how these openings aren't playable or smth when looking at chess forums. I tried learning the KIA but some people told me its always a draw and showed me stockfish proof of this. 

Can someone explain to me how I can understand which openings are good and which ones aren't?

@1

"I'm trying to study openings at the moment because I want to improve"
++ If you want to improve then study endgames, not openings.
'just forget about the openings and spend all that time on the endings' - Capablanca

"understand simple opening usage"
++ Lasker formulated 4 common sense opening principles:

1. Only play your d- and e-pawns
2. Play your knights first, then your bishops
3. Do not play the same piece twice
4. Do not pin opponent's kings' knight with your queen's bishop before he has caslteld O-O

"how these openings aren't playable"
++ At lower levels and/or in fast time controls everything is playable.

"I tried learning the KIA but some people told me its always a draw"
++ King's Indian Attack is good.
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044267

The KIA is not a good idea if your intention is to use it against everything. The first thing you need to do is UNDERSTAND THE POINT behind the Opening.

For example, the KIA works against the French and 2...e6 Sicilians, but is lousy otherwise. This is a fact, but if nobody tells you why, and you cannot figure out why, what good does that do you? Should you believe them?

I, on the other hand, will explain to you WHY the KIA works against the French and 2...e6-Sicilians and not against others, like 1...e5 or 2...d6-Sicilians.

The Kings Indian Attack is typically a light square attack on the kingside. Often an attack on h7 with moves like exd5 and Be4 or e5 and bringing the queen and knights to suffocate black while his key defensive pieces, like the LIGHT-SQUARED BISHOP are stuck in LA LA land on a6, or if it sits on c8, it is stuck BEHIND the pawn chain, unable to defend f7, h7, f5, etc.

The Kings Indian Attack is RELIANT on Black not having his LSB to defend the kingside, and hence why you play it against the French or e6-Sicilians, and not, say, 1...e5 or 2...d6-Sicilians, where the Bishop can come outside the pawn chain.

This type of nuance holds true for many openings.

The Catalan. The reason the Catalan is good against the Nimzo and QGD is once again the LSB being blocked behind Black's pawn chain. It is inferior against the Slav where the Bishop can come out, to say, f5 or g4, and cover the light squares around the king.

Another such opening is the Colle System. 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 e6 4.Bd3 and the possibilities of the Greek Gift Sacrifice and the kingside attack rely on Black not having his LSB to defend the kingside. In fact, 3...Bg4 or 3...Bf5 instead of 3...e6 is actually called the "Anti-Colle" and the only decent move for White is 4.c4, which after 4...c6, you have the slow slav (same position as 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 Bf5).

This is why 1200s should not be studying opening theory and need to learn concepts first, like the one I explained about Black's LSB being hemmed in behind his pawn chain, and why certain openings (KIA, Catalan, Colle System) rely on that factor, and cannot be played as an all-exclusive opening for White.

A Colle player often also plays the London or Torre for defenses without an early e6, like 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bf4 or 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.Bg5, while 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6, they will play 3.e3.

A Catalan player needs something else for the Slav, QGA, KID, Benoni, and Grunfeld

A KIA player needs something for 1...e5, Caro, Sicilian without 2...e6, Pirc, Modern, etc.

"The KIA is not a good idea if your intention is to use it against everything."
++ Carlsen diasgrees
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1883445

And here is more proof why UNDERSTANDING is so critical. Let's compare 2 lines of the French Defense. The Winawer and the KIA vs French.

In the KIA vs French, ases mentioned in post 3, Black's problem is the light squares on the kingside. Black can ill-afford, in most cases, ro play ...f6 because while it chips at White's center, it opens the e-file for Wwhire, which already features a Rook, and Black cannot hold on to e6. In this case, White should take the pawn on f6. So if Black cannot break in the center, and must rely on the queenside attack, the light squares remain blocked.

Now let's look at the Winawer. 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 c5 and now 7.Qg4.

But wait! I thought we were attacking light squares because of the hemmed Bishop? Here, Black's Dark-squared Bishop is gone, and with a knight eliminated, pieces arranged differently, a target for Black (c3), things change for White. Black will likely be able to play f6 eventually, and often times e5 later on, opening up the light-squared Bishop. But the dark one is GONE! This now screams dark square attack for White. Target is now g7, not h7!

See? Even within the French itself, different lines lead to different ideas. This is why you can never rely on any "catch all" system and take a lazy route. This is why at 1200, you learn opening concepts and focus on middle games and endgames. Focus on opening theory when you reach OVER THE BOARD 1800 strength.

No, Carlsen doesn't disagree for multiple reasons:

1) look at the move order - certain commitments lead to this position and black has certain weaknesses that he wouldn't have after say, 1.e4 e5 2.d3.

2) Carlsen is not gospel. Often times, GMs do not play the best moves against other GMs because they know the correct theory like the back of their hand, so GMs have to take risks that are completely unnecessary for amateurs

3) One game does not invalidate the truth. If you don't understand that, go take college level courses on statistics like I did.

4) Carlsen DOES NOT USE IT AGAINST EVERYTHING, what you claim he disagrees to. He does not open every game the same, so your claim is complete bogus!

@6

"One game does not invalidate the truth"
++ There are many games with the King's Indian Attack and no ...e6.
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=2285054 
Fischer played the King's Indian Attack more against the Caro-Kann than aginst the French.

And a message to the OP - one responder has given you legit strategically sound information with a true understanding of the opening discussed. The other responder takes a single game by the top player.

Carlsen has lost chess games

Michael Jordan and LeBron James have missed free throws.

Nolan Ryan has given up home runs.

Which are you going to believe? The question I asked in my first post on here. Do you believe them? Responses with explanations that make sense and are true fact? Or an incapable statistician that thinks the laws of statistics show a legitimate sample size to be 1. By the way, the magic number is 30 in statistics.

Just because games are played does not make it good, and just because you can cherry pick a win also doesn't prove anything.

Here - source is chesstempo.com

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d3?! -Black outscores Whitw by over 10 percentage points across 501 games, a VALID sample size.

Again, YOU ARE WRONG!

@9

Do not impose your own dogma on an 1100 rated player.
There are thousands of King's Indian Attack games, some with ...e6 and some without.
The sure way to play the KIng's Indian Attack is 1 Nf3, 2 g3, 3 Bg2, 4 d3.

Nearly all openings are "playable".

The main point of the opening is to develop your pieces logically, and to get your king safe. Once that is accomplished, you simply ... "play chess" from there on out.

Overall, it's just a matter of preference which opening or defense you'd like to play. It's like tying the laces on your shoes - it doesn't matter how you do it, as long as it you're able to get your shoes securely on.

Also, someone telling you that the KIA is a "draw" doesn't mean anything, because all the top openings and defenses are a draw with perfect play.

But humans aren't perfect - we all make mistakes along the way.

indeed. Totally agree with both (tygxc & Thrillerfan)! Heh. They have valid points for either side. Thing is, one is speaking from experience (his own respectfully) and the other from his experience (as an analyst respectfully). I say, play the KIA vs anything. For you... despite what anyone says. You're the one on this journey of self discovery. In my day, I never had this much resources available to me when I was playing ~either competitively or otherwise. I just strive to be the best in chess I could be. Wins or losses was the excitement, the challenge. And you know what? Until you reach that "peak"... nothing you learned in 2024 will be the same 1-2 years from now. That's a guarantee. As far as openings are concerned, heh. You'll know. Just keep playing cuz for me, playin's always the thing! ✌🏼

Thank you for this explanation, it'll really come in handy later. So you suggested that I should just not really focus that much on opening theory until I reach 1800+? I'm just not really sure how I can reach 1800 without knowing any openings or playing any. What would you suggest?

@13

"I should just not really focus that much on opening theory"
++ 'forget about the openings and spend all that time on the endings' - Capablanca

"how I can reach 1800 without knowing any openings"
++ You can even reach GM without. Just play and think.
'Memorization of variations could be even worse than playing in a tournament without looking in the books at all' - Botvinnik

I'm 2300+ and my knowledge of opening theory is extremely basic and bare.

A lot of times I'll just play 1.nf3 and 2.b3 and then wing it from there.

I rely on tactical vision, and general positional ideas. Try to create tactical opportunities, or jump on them when they arise. And try to place your pawns and pieces on squares that maximize their potential.

The opening phase is just like the rest of the game - you try to make logical moves, based on the strengths or weaknesses that you see in the position ...

You should never refer to engine evaluations to decide about the playability of an opening.

Just keep it simple, and try to get positions that can be understood by you.

On "the confusion with artificial intelligence",

a : From memory, in a tournament in 15m+3s per move Nepo drew against Carlsen in an endgame K+Q vs K+R (which I saw in youtube channel chess24, ok it is in this Youtube video https://youtu.be/IDeCPljW9ko?list=PLAwlxGCJB4NdHqUUUbCgS83FTIek3SkVa 5h02).

This endgame is a win for a strong bot and this is really clear because the strong bot can demonstrate it even by playing bullet against any opponents by reproducing the forced victory as many times as we wish.

I haven't checked but there must be banter blitz with Nepo showing that he is also strong at very fast time (3 or 5m) by winning almost all the time players who are not masters or grandmasters (What I'm trying to say is that if we are "noobs" who haven't studied endgames, let's think at the speed of a snail etc. This is not at all the case for Nepo who is one of the best chess players among humans).

In simple terms, bots manage to perform well (whether in terms of calculation, speed, memory, the ability not to make mistakes or to tire, constant etc.) than humans can't manage so we can't compare everything with a strong bot because the difficulty of the chess game is not necessarily the same and we simply do not have the same abilities which creates a different reality.

b : As an amateur player, the human player we will face won't be a chess champion and his maximum level should be below 2300 elo of the Shredder or Hiarcs program so when we do tests by playing the maximum level Stokfish bot against another bot, this other bot must not be too strong compared to a human amateur player otherwise it won't be relevant.

For strong bots, the position evaluations if it is not + - or - + it has almost no value.

In short = or other means (but not + - or - + of course) that the bot knows nothing about the position and based on the data from its algorithm, bot gives a standard evaluation directing to play this or that move (If the bot has played lots of games it can use its memory to improve its evaluation system by making probabilities that one variation is better than another in relation to the results obtained in relation to the opponents that bot played).

c : by rapid time test with bots I can affirm that contrary to "what human arrogance can assert" or "the power of chess clichés that a human can believe like if they are empirical truths", full of openings even if not the best are clearly playable and even able to obtain victories.

The KIA would necessarily be a bad opening choice because this opening would lead to forced draws against bots below 2300 (of the Shredder or Hiarcs program) , strong human amateur players etc. we are in a complete joke.

d : if I play this position against Stockfish I will win :

If I play this position (1.e4 e5 2. Bd3) against Stockfish or a GM I won't win :

And the opening for White is not good and to give an worse opening for White 2)...Nc6 3) Kf1 :

the opening is catastrophic for White and I am almost sure that Stockfish will still win with White against a strong amateur player.

Conclusion for us the opening is not at all something so determining leading us to lose or not to win in chess, the determining element is our playing strength which is not strong enough compared to the opponents that we almost never manage to beat and therefore it is training in tactics, endgames, strategies etc. that will allow us to get there.

If you want other people to follow you train of thought, you should make all your sentences shorter and simpler.

Maybe it's just me, but these terms are more confusing than simple.

Every Chess player learns and plays different.

—————————

Some people don’t need to study openings because they have natural chess ability.

They play on feelings and intuition.
————————

Some people need to study opening because they learn by using a process.

They play by using steps or mental check list.

————————

Whether or no you need to study openings depends on you as an individual.

I am a methodical learner.

I like to study things in order and I try to be very thorough.

Winging chess games didn’t help me get better because that isn’t how I learn and Improve.

I actually needed to understand why each move was being played to improve.

I just want to put that information out there because sometimes people forget that people learn differently.