When you start studying an opening that you seem to face a lot.........

AND THEN IT NEVER GETS PLAYED AGAIN!

I swear Chess.com has cameras in every users house and just does that to amuse itself.

(I kid of course, but it just seems that way lol)

That is the problem with openings:
What you study does not happen.
When it finally happens, you will have forgotten.

Clearly you have no concept of studying openings, which is no shock because you are the same one that preaches the way to first learn an opening is a database. When you are well versed in an opening looking for that new novelty on move 17, that is when you use a database. Not to first learn an opening.

And if you learn an opening properly, you won't forget it because memorizing openings is already your first mistake! Studying openings is not about memorizing reams and reams of lines. Every move, both yours and your opponents, you must fully understand WHY that move and WHY NOT another move? For example, after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Qb6 5.Nf3 Nf6 6.a3 Nh6 7.b4 cxd4 8.cxd4 Nf5 9.Bb2, WHY is 9...Be7 a move and WHY is 9...Bd7 a move? What does White do against each of them (idea, not just the 10th move)? If you cannot answer those questions, you don't understand the French at all. You just memorized a bunch of useless lines.

The center is closed and stable. This enables advancement of pawns on the wings. Thus far, White's moves have been reactionary to Black's attack on d4. White would like to alleviate the pressure. He has 2 ideas. 10.Bd3, to remove the Knight on f5 and wreck the pawn structure, or 10.g4, to drive the Knight away to a passine square, h6 or e7.

Black cannot stop both ideas. 10.Bd3 is possible if Black does nothing because after the third capture on d4, Bb5+ wins the Queen. So the move 9...Bd7 prevents this idea as the lack of the discovered attack being a check makes 10.Bd3 bad, and so White should play 10.g4 to remove pressure off of d4. We'll, what if I hate the idea of you driving my Knight away? If I play 9...Be7, I can answer 10 g4?! With 10...Nh4, removing your Knight as well that guards d4, but now due to Bb5 being check, 10.Bd3! Is both possible and best, goal being the same - remove pressure from d4.

This is the type of exercise you must do when studying openings. Now this line has been superceded by 6...c4 because of White's latest idea of 8.Bxh6 instead of 8.cxd4. This is what keeping up with theory is all about. Again, understand, do not memorize!

@3

"the way to first learn an opening is a database"
++ Yes, and study whole games, not just first moves.
It puts the emphasis right on what is most played.
It discards lines that already have been refuted.

And when it's played again, I stumble into the next cursed trap line.

You are sadly mistaking.

You are assuming games in a database are perfectly played. I don't deny complete games are better than a theory tree for a beginner, but you cannot just pick some random Najdorf game from a database and assume it is doing you any good at all. Someone needs to actually explain what is going on. Explain why other moves are wrong. Point out which moves played in the game were wrong. If the game was perfect, it would be a draw every time.

This is why a database is useless early on. You are better off gets books analyzed by IMs and GMs that contain complete games, whether it be on an opening (The Caro-Kann, Move by Move by Lakdawala) or a game collection (My Great Predecessors Volume I by Garry Kasparov or My Best Games Volume 2: Games With Black by Viktor Korchnoi, for example).

Many books that give complete games that explain strategy like the Lessons From a Grandmaster series by Sneed and Gulko or Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy by John Watson.

All of that is FAR MORE EFFECTIVE than picking random, unannotated games with ECO code B90 (Najdorf w/ 6.Be3).

Yeah, that's why you gotta learn a lot of openings and revise them once a week. Studying any specific line very deeply is not worth it imo.

Such an entertaining discussion lol.

My main post is very tongue in cheek. I'm of the opinion you learn the first 6 or so moves and why the moves are set up that way and what the general idea is, and then go from there.

I'm studying maybe 2 or 3 lines from the Tari Sicicillian and then it just never gets played lol.

Admittedly it HAD gotten played recently

Agree. Studying openings is a way of studying chess itself.

Even if all of chess got replaced by Fischer random tomorrow it would still be worth studying openings of the conventional game - to learn structures and techniques.

And I would add transposition between openings too. Example: the QGA can lead to the Slav, the Qc2 anti Slav, Semi Slav, or even the open Catalan.

Or the four pawns attack in the KID is the same position in the Mikienas attack of the Modern Benoni.

I think there's even a variation of the Petroff that becomes a Ruy Lopez.

@6

"You are assuming games in a database are perfectly played." ++ No, but more recent games are usually played better, as they profit from knowledge about earlier games.

"complete games are better" ++ Yes

"you cannot just pick some random Najdorf game from a database"
++ Not random, look at recent games by top players.

"Someone needs to actually explain what is going on."
++ You can find out yourself by studying the games. Study is not mindless and fast replay.
The grandmasters took like 4 hours to play, so you should at least spend the same time.

"Explain why other moves are wrong."
++ You can find out yourself, with or without engine help.

"Point out which moves played in the game were wrong."
++ You can find out yourself, with or without engine help.

"If the game was perfect, it would be a draw every time." ++ That is correct.

"You are better off gets books analyzed by IMs and GMs"
++ No. Books are obsolete while being printed, because new games are played every day.
What was right yesterday is wrong today.

"The Caro-Kann, Move by Move by Lakdawala" ++ Worthless. https://ratings.fide.com/profile/2001756

"My Great Predecessors Volume I by Garry Kasparov" ++ Great book, but not for openings.

"My Best Games Volume 2: Games With Black by Viktor Korchnoi"
++ Great book, but obsolete for openings. He is 8 years dead.

"Lessons From a Grandmaster series by Sneed and Gulko"
++ Can be good, but not for openings.

"Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy by John Watson" ++ Can be good, but not for openings.

"picking random"
++ I did not say random, I say recent top games. E.g. from the Toronto Candidates' 2024.

"unannotated games"
++ Annotated is easier, but you can annotate yourself, with or without engine help.

Can you give an example?

When I started playing chess, the move 6.a3 in the advance french use to be called novelty.

The main move at the time was 6. Bd3 Barry Attack or something like that.

Amazing how things change

I mean, just in general. Start studying QGD Janowski and nobody please 2.c4 for like 5 days. Start studying Tari Sicillian and nobody plays c5 lol.

They eventually do, it's just right after studying anything then I don't see it in real games lol.

The only thing I DO see consistently is 1.e4 c6 2.Nf3 d5 3.exd5 cxd5 4.Nd5 - whcih I love and Andrew Martin has a wonderful chessbase 60 minute course on it.

Same way all the way up the rating scale, same thing happened me with the Meran. I read about it and studied it and realized noone played it against me or if they did didn't know the main lines. But when I get over 2000 in blitz (I'm not always playing seriously, sometimes I play casually while listening to a podcast or something to give me something to do with my eyes), I notice a huge upswing in people playing the Semi-Slav and that also know the main theory. It can be a good motivation for getting better. But it's also bad because chess is supposed to be a game for fun and to make sense how they are playing it. I feel like chess continuously throws up these carrot-on-a-sticks where you are never quite playing and understanding it it "right" until you are like IM level, and by then you're so far in there is no turning back.

The Petroff can also turn into the French!

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d3 Nf6 6.d4 d5 (I have seen this happen and I had this happen in round 5 of the 2014 US Open against a 2150 - I was black and won.

Also happened twice in the candidates