Why study openings?

i have been playing so long and have tried all the openings out there. the problem is that they all have answers and that makes them usless!!

smoke wrote:

i have been playing so long and have tried all the openings out there. the problem is that they all have answers and that makes them usless!!

---

I think your problem may be that you have played them all(which I actually question.  Unless you are saying you have played one game in all of them).  You should try and stick with one opening for at least a couple of months exclusively imo if you are looking for improvement.  While each opening lends itself to a different style of play and it is important to know how to play different styles.  It is also important to remember that the more you play one opening the better you get at that style.  Why just be marginally good in a bunch when you can get a lot better in one (if you focus on just one)

You've probably played them all, but none of them very well. Also, I dont know what you expect to get out of the opening but there isn't one opening out there that will guarantee you a win. At the most you should hope for equality or maybe a slight advantage as white.

?? what about the opponent ??

there are at least 70 openings or variants listed in "modern chess openings" by walter korn and this was back in 1972. i know i haven't tried tham all, have you? openings won't guarantee a win(nothing will !), but good playing using good strategy and tactics backed by experience will certainly give you an edge. your best bet is to find several openings you are comfortable with,and learn their responses and how to counter them!

Or, don't play an opening that you know.  Just play based on theory and keep an eye on the solidarity of the moves.  I used to know several openings, and have forgotten them all...when I play here lately it has all been based on theory and chess "do's and don't's" (of course, even with the theory EVERYTHING HAS EXCEPTIONS so don't just blindly play theory and expect to be tactically sound, you still have to look with a critical eye at your moves).

Smoke, your goal in the opening is to reach a playable middlegame where you have reasonable chances. Most openings can do that for you. If you're looking to consistently win in the opening they will all disappoint you.

smoke wrote:

i have been playing so long and have tried all the openings out there. the problem is that they all have answers and that makes them usless!!

---

Do you expect to find one opening that gives you a winning position every time? If so, then chess may not be the game for you. I, myself, play with someone who has been at it for almost 10 years now and shares your opinion. This person has tried at least 25 different openings over the years (without doing any serious study), hasn't become proficient in any of them, loses about 95% of the time, and then complains that everyone else gets "lucky" in these games. You'd think anyone with a brain would be able to see what's wrong with this picture. Anyway, I digress...

 

Let me just say that if you don't bother to learn and stick with any openings, you'll probably find yourself in bad positions (with lots of losses) most of the time.

just make your own strategies... it really helps.

Do Not expect any Opening to give you a Winning game. Openings are just lines of play employed by masters and acumulated over the years with subsequent inprovements discovered in later years.  They are then collected in a treatise like the MCO, BCO and NCO etc., etc. If you expect to win by playing "all the Openings", you will be terribly disappointed! It is more fruitful to concentrate on the middle-game and the endgame. After all  Emannual Lasker, Capablanca (2world champions) and Sultan Khan from India who held his own with the best players of his time did Not bother much about the Openings.  Emannual wrote in his "Manual of Chess" ......" If need be , I can improve my chess. I do not have to remember eveything!" ....... Chess is NOT a Memory game my friend!

Any comment Batgirl?

Batgirl, I would really like to play a game with you!

Thanks for you kind words. if you would, check my past games and comment if you may 'cause i think that my openings a rather weak.

You have only lost 1 game here and in that game you had a big advantage in the opening (which doesn't mean there wasn't room for improvement). Then when your opponent threatened mate in 1, you didn't stop him.

i was not outplayed

edited moderator AndrewSmith 

Like it or not ... he highlighted a truth.

All openings 99% of the time if the opponent knows what they are doing equalize.

The role of all opening prep is to get to a middle game position you are comfortable playing.

In the day of chess engine analyses.. I'm not buying into one having to play the latest theoretical novelties from the most popular main line openings to compete over the board. Even at my club level, I can expect my opponent to play something theoretical. So chasing theoretical novelties only will get harder as I clime the ELO ladder.

That doesn't mean I don't prep my openings.

With Chess Engines... I don't think one is now forced to play the latest and greatest main lines. I think you can craft an opening repertoire that suits your needs and wants using a chess engine.

Here is another "ponder" moment.  Before WWII they didn't know if 1.d4 2. c4 and 3.Nc3 was better than 1.d4 2. Nf3 and 3.e3. With todays Chess engines, I'm not sure the previous matters anymore.

I'm into the Chess era of 1880 right up to WWII the Classical era of Chess.

Lasker, Pillsbury, Marcozy, Grenfeld, Ewue, Colle, Koltanowski, Flore, Capablanca, Marshall, Alekhine that era. those are the games I look at and enjoy.

They played 1.d4 2. Nf3 and 3.e3. seriously. (as well as 1.d4 2.c4 and 3.Nc3 ) After WWII openings with 1.d4 2. Nf3 and 3.e3. became more and more unpopular. Yet, they were never refuted!

It started with my love of the Colle... then spread to the QGD. I have crafted an opening repertoire based on 1.d4 2. Nf3 and 3.e3. (i.e what that era played... and have used the latest Stockfish to modernize the lines. I've found I get about same amount of +/= as so called modern mainlines. To me it's the best of both worlds. I get to play openings of that era, and don't have to worry about theoretical publications.

The rise in popularity of the London.. shows in full effect

All openings 99% of the time if the opponent knows what they are doing equalize.

The role of all opening prep is to get to a middle game position you are comfortable playing.

So when I play QGD by way of 1.d4 2. Nf3 and 3.e3. & then play the pawn to c4 against the Chigroin or the Slav, etc... yes those lines are old and not novel, but the advantage I'm striving for is just as real as the advantage sought in modern lines. (with the help of Stockfish, probably just as dangerous)

That is my opening philosophy

"All openings 99% of the time if the opponent knows what they are doing equalize."

This statement is completely false. Grandmasters have around twice as much wins with white as with black. If what you said was true you would expect them both to be about equal. In fact the higher up you go in rating the more of an advantage playing as white is.

Chess openings are about getting a lasting advantage - not a win but an easier game for while and a harder game for black. The Colle, London - every opening.

Also I can assure you Alekhine, Euwe, "Grenfeld", and Capablanca did not regularly play 1. d4 2. Nf3 3. e3, only maybe occasionally as a surprise.

Actually, the statement is a hundred percent true. Objectively, all sound openings are completely equal.

The real question is how human it is to play these "equal" positions properly- with either color.

You have no understanding what you're talking about.

Read what I said again.