When You Study Openings

I have never much studied openings until recently.  I am wondering whether a weakish intermediate like me should be troubled about being first to "leave book" and even what it means to leave book.

I should note that I actually am paying much more attention to strategic concepts like where pieces generally go and what is the general plan for a position, but still...there's this concept of leaving book and people seem to consider it.

For example, let's say it's move five and your opponent has a move available which has been played 3,000 times by master level players including all the big names.  There's another one with 1,000 plays, also including many of the big names.  The third move has 52 plays, none of the big names, though several 2400ish players have tried it.  Also, it scores decently well the times it was tried, and Stockfish doesn't hate it.  So, is that a deviation from theory by your opponent?  Does it matter?

Then, you make the "correct" reply and your opponent makes the "correct" reply to that, after which you make a move that is not in the database (no master-strength games).  So, that's a novelty, right?  Though there are some 1600s who played it before so maybe not.  For sure, you can see nothing wrong with this move.  Stockfish has it ranked second, by .02 centipawns.  And you went on to win.

Should you regard this as a deviation and try to follow theory to the extent you can?  Or alternatively is it your own opening research innovation?  Or how do you look at this?

Thanks!

usually those kind of deviations are slight inacuracies that become apparent if you know the opening very well. I wouldnt really worry about deviations as long as it is not a serious mistake, just learn the ideas of the opening and keep trying. over time you will learn more about the "book" or "theory" of the opening.

I have a totally different way of studying openings... SO different in fact that I can't even offer an answer to your question.

Instead of memorizing sequences of moves or humbly asking Stockfish for its opinion, I collect some Master games that were played in the opening line that I want to learn. I play over these complete games, from move 1 to "Resigns", and I analyze them with my own mind, not with a computer.

So I end up learning not just the sequence of opening moves, but also the typical middle-game formations, the typical plans and tactics... and even some of the typical endgames that come out of the variation that I'm interested in.

That actually is useful, and I even do make a point of selecting a couple games and playing through them. But what I'm wondering is really, suppose you have been making a move 5.Bd3, and it seems fine to you, and you are winning games with it. But you notice that Kasparov, Carlsen, etc., never play that move--they always put the bishop on c4. Do you go with what has been working for you, or do you start putting the bishop on c4?

I generally stick with what works for me... until I have a reason to give it up.

You can study openings 2 ways:

1. Memorize moves.

2. Learn and understand the "why" behind each move.

#1 is like being given the answers to a test.

#2 is actually studying.

For me, I didn't stress out about learning specific move sequences until ~1800-1900 where I had the level of play to actually understand why I was playing what I was playing. Before that I would play principled developing moves and focus more on a middlegame play as a +.2 advantage won't matter and white is at worst 0.00 if they don't fall for a trap.

@1

"I have never much studied openings until recently." ++ You do not need to.

"whether a weakish intermediate like me should be troubled about being first to "leave book"" ++ No

"what it means to leave book"
++ There are 2 different meanings.
Objectively it is a move that has not been played before i.e. is not in any data base.
Besides one player may be out of book, i.e. on his own, while his opponent is still in his book, i.e. following either a previous game, or his own analysis.

"strategic concepts like where pieces generally go and what is the general plan for a position" ++ Good

"So, is that a deviation from theory by your opponent?" ++ No, while played before

"Does it matter?" ++ No

"So, that's a novelty, right?" ++ Yes

"Should you regard this as a deviation and try to follow theory to the extent you can?" ++ No

"is it your own opening research innovation?" ++ Yes

"how do you look at this?" ++ Except at super GM level opening theory does not matter. The first player to be out of book is not at a disadvantage. He reaches a deeper state of concentration and a better understanding of the position while thinking over the board instead of remembering analysis.

I present a few examples where the player out of book wins.

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1139797 
On move 19 Honfi had used 5 minutes and thus was still in his book, Tal had used 90 minutes, so had been finding his own moves.

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1095025 
Marshall had studied his novelty 8...d5 for years, Capablanca was taken by surprise but felt honour-bound to accept the pawn.

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1026276The late IM Basman in the British Championship played the provocative 1 e4 g5? against the strong GM Speelman, who could not refute it over the board and loses.

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1026344Here Basman played the provocative 1 h3 2 a3 in the Lloyd's Bank Masters tournament.

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1068157The late GM Tony Miles defeats the reigning World Champion Karpov with the provocative 1 e4 a6.

Hi!

All improving players should study openings according to their level. In your case, it is important the opening choice, the knowledge of its fundamentals, and general opening principles. If you are interested in improving your opening play, you might check out my posts:

https://www.chess.com/blog/maafernan/openings-for-beginners

https://www.chess.com/blog/maafernan/instructive-games-i-opening-principles

Good luck!

Alright, guys, thanks.

I do believe studying openings is benefiting me, though I hear it doesn't much. Not only because sometimes I get better positions early, but also because these should be the strategically best moves, right? So it's also studying strategy (at least it seems to me).

Especially if there's any planning advice included in the annotations (which oddly seems to start with "as is well known" half the time). Like, "as is well known, Black's object in the Caro is to eventually make the c5 break, and White acts to prevent him." I'm like--"oh, that kinda does explain a lot of these moves, never heard of it but I'm glad you mentioned it."

Anyway, thanks again!

opening study makes huge improvements in my games, especially learning new openings, but sometimes, just studying a particular line that I keep having trouble with.

if you like playing gambits, you're almost always "out of the book"

The OP should be following this person's lead.

There are numerous flaws with the OP's logic:

1) Computer assessments in the opening are crap. They will tell you the Kings Indian is +1.2. They will tell you some offbeat QP opening after 7 moves is -0.3 and after playing the 6 best moves according to the computer, after 13 moves, it is sennedly +0.6? Or take Stockfish and Fritz and give them the same position. Stockfish says +0.7, Fritz +0.15.

Computers are best at finding long, forcing combinations. Not strategy. Many computers still give K+R+N vs K+R as +3 when, barring an immediate tactic, it should be 0.00.

I study Korchnoi's Games, Uhlmann's Games, Moskalenko's Games. I don't do stupid garbage like open Stockfish, plug in the moves 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 c5 7.Qg4 and just make frivolous claims that 7...Qc7 is best because of game count or 7...cxd4 is best because it has the lowest number of +0.37 as opposed to +0.44 or that 7...Kf8 is best due to results. All of that is hogwash. You need to understand what you are doing, not have Stockfish due the work and rely on frivolous numbers spit out at you.

Whether the most popular move must be played to survive or if many sidelines work depends on the position. Important is to understand why the moves are played.

Like after 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Qb6 6.Be2 cxd4 7.cxd4 Nh6, the move 8.O-O is a serious mistake as 8...Nf5 wins material for Black.

But 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3 Qb6 6.a3 Nh6 7.b4 cxd4 8.cxd4 Nf5 9.Bb2, both 9...Be7 and 9...Bd7 are playable, but both have their warts, and white must act correctly or Black winds up better. 9...Bd7 should be answered by 10.g4! And 9...Be7 by 10.Bd3!

And yes, I purposely put in no diagrams. If you truly care about improvement, you'll get out a board and go through the moves yourself. If you are too lazy to put in the work and want everything spoon fed to you, you are not the type of player I care to help. I help those that want to put in the hard work!

2) Quantity does not equal Quality. Most played move does not always equate to best move!

3) There is no such thing as "the correct move" except in only move situations where all other moves lead to a far worse result. One move being +0.64 and another being +0.57 does not make the first move "correct" and the second one "wrong".

The list goes on and on.

This. And if the less strong move makes sense to you, and you know how to follow it up, then play it.

Alright guys, thanks again. Back from Thanksgiving and gonna study a bit. I am taking most of ya'lls advice already in that I'm not just memorizing--I'm trying to learn the reasons behind the moves and the associated plans.

And of course, most of my games come down to tactics anyway, but it definitely is easier to find favorable tactics when your position is solid, so there's still that.