OK, Mr. jfiquett what are you going to do in this situation? How can you rely on your opening principles?
How to study openings?
Sort:
If I had a student that brought me this position, I would be ecstatic to know that they played any reasonable developing move like Nf3 or Bd3. Neither of these moves are losing on the spot, both are principled, neither require knowledge of theory to play.
If they played Nxe4, I would ask if they thought first about where their Kside pieces were going after dxe4. If they told me they didn't realize the problem, I would be frustrated and instruct them to just play Nf3 or Bd3 next time (even though Nxe4 is the correct move here). If they told me they did indeed plan to follow up Nxe4 with Bc4, I would be satisfied.
It's not about playing perfect moves. It's about playing good enough moves to get you out of the opening and create a strong foundation for you to improve as a player.
Maybe that means you fall for some traps while using your principles; so be it. The point isn't to win every game you play. The point is to improve. At lower levels, general principles and a focus on tactics grants the improving player much more value than studying random opening theory.
By the way there are only 2 moves you can consider in this position: 5. Nxe4! or 5. Nce2 !? (in order to attack the knight by playing f2-f3). There are a few principles which value more than development: let's say pawn structure and staying aware of what your opponent does. If White would play 5. Nf3?! than Black's response is going to be 5... Nxc3! or even 5... c5!?. Basically I don't recommend having Winawer's pawn structure without compensation or ignoring opponent's really strong knight in order to develop your knight on f3 in the semi-closed positions. Anyway chess is the game of opportunities and even an opening can't be described using a few principles.
I can provide another example. Assume we have this opening - it's called Grunfeld Defence. So according to the opening principles it's a really terrible opening:
Black has lost a tempo and White has gathered the center and developed a minor piece. But why is this opening considered as one of the most promising responses for Black against Queen's Gambit? Because Black is going to crush the opponent's center with 7... c5!
I think it's always better to have a whole picture in your mind than rely on made up opening principles which don't even work if they will be taken literally.
Feb 18, 2019
0
#26
DaniilKalabukhov wrote:
Ghost_Horse0 wrote:
thekokohead wrote:
I've been always told the basics and I'll be fine.
Umm...
thekokohead wrote:
Now, more and more, I find myself behind in the middlegame.
Ok, lets take a look.
This was the beginning of your most recent game had a time control of 30 minutes per side:
Ok, so, I think what you need to know about openings is in the link below (and if you already know it, you need to start applying it in your games)
https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-principles-of-the-opening
I think you're pointing his mistakes to the extreme. As even for me (I'm not common with Sicilian Defence) it's not clear how to deal with the opponent's pawn on e5. Do I need to attack it immediately by playing Nc6, or may be I can play e6 and then advance my d-pawn to d5 in order to put the game on the rails of French Defence? Of course f6 is quite premature in this position because he exposes his king too much. These rules in the link which you've provided are a little bit too general and made for absolute beginners. So may be he is not an absolute beginner, and he needs some more precise theory.
He has zero pieces developed on move 6 and his opponent has 3 developed. He's also lost on move 6. This isn't something that's solved by theory, it's something solved by knowing the basics.
As for e5, a simple way to deal with any early pawn advance is to attack it with a pawn. I think theory says 2...Nc6, but the immediate 2...d6 is sensible and fine. The basic idea is since it's closer to your side, you can (usually) force it to capture, so they lose time in the opening.
Feb 18, 2019
0
#27
But I agree that learning some basic opening moves is good. I don't agree with your suggestion to watch videos and get books, but it's not bad advice. (I'd rather a person use opening databases and play over GM games. Books are way too rigorous for 1000 rated, and some videos give bad information).
Feb 18, 2019
0
#28
DaniilKalabukhov wrote:
I can provide another example. Assume we have this opening - it's called Grunfeld Defence. So according to the opening principles it's a really terrible opening:
Lots of openings break principals, sure.
And as a 1.e4 player I'm used to playing against Sicilians and Frenches where my opponent is sometimes 3 or 4 moves behind in development but their position is ok.
That's why IMO beginners should start with 1.e4 e5 and 1.d4 d5.
I laugh to myself during blitz games against low rated sicilian players. They get behind a bunch of moves then try to open the position. They clearly have no idea what's going on, but because they've been playing openings they don't understand they think it's ok to open things up with no development.
IMBacon wrote:
… The problem with telling someone its ok to learn openings. They hear "I have to memorize 20-30 moves of theory" with absolutely no understand of why those moves are made. ... in my experience. Opening Principles has gotten people to USCF A class.
Are you the one who has used the English, Benko, Sicilian, Fundamental Chess Openings, and chess opening wizard software?
Ghost_Horse0 wrote:
DaniilKalabukhov wrote:
I can provide another example. Assume we have this opening - it's called Grunfeld Defence. So according to the opening principles it's a really terrible opening:
Lots of openings break principals, sure.
And as a 1.e4 player I'm used to playing against Sicilians and Frenches where my opponent is sometimes 3 or 4 moves behind in development but their position is ok.
That's why IMO beginners should start with 1.e4 e5 and 1.d4 d5.
I laugh to myself during blitz games against low rated sicilian players. They get behind a bunch of moves then try to open the position. They clearly have no idea what's going on, but because they've been playing openings they don't understand they think it's ok to open things up with no development.
As far as I'm super extra aggressive chess player, and I like crazy positions such as this one which break all the chess principles, but somehow they work fine:
Here is the another example - my king is completely exposed and I'm down a tempo in terms of development, but I have a better position:
PawnstormPossie wrote:
… A decent book for introduction to openings (not sure if spongebob mentioned) is Understanding the Openings by Sam Collins (Gambit). ...
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627031504/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen76.pdf
http://www.gambitbooks.com/pdfs/Understanding_the_Chess_Openings.pdf
I have mixed feelings about this sort of book. Some seem to see value in it, but it can be a pretty dreary task to read about opening after opening, no matter how good the writing. I favor books with an emphasis on sample games.
Feb 18, 2019
0
#32
DaniilKalabukhov wrote:
Ghost_Horse0 wrote:
DaniilKalabukhov wrote:
I can provide another example. Assume we have this opening - it's called Grunfeld Defence. So according to the opening principles it's a really terrible opening:
Lots of openings break principals, sure.
And as a 1.e4 player I'm used to playing against Sicilians and Frenches where my opponent is sometimes 3 or 4 moves behind in development but their position is ok.
That's why IMO beginners should start with 1.e4 e5 and 1.d4 d5.
I laugh to myself during blitz games against low rated sicilian players. They get behind a bunch of moves then try to open the position. They clearly have no idea what's going on, but because they've been playing openings they don't understand they think it's ok to open things up with no development.
As far as I'm super extra aggressive chess player, and I like crazy positions such as this one which break all the chess principles, but somehow they work fine:
Here is the another example - my king is completely exposed and I'm down a tempo in terms of development, but I have a better position
When I played the french (years ago) I played 6...f6 too. The principals are just guidelines for new players, and mostly apply to 1.e4 e5 and 1.d4 d5 openings.
Even so, did black really break so many principals? Material is even, development is even, but black has a massive pawn presence in the center. What I tell beginners is the opening is about 3 things, development, king safety, and a pawn presence in the center.
In the benoni game, sure, white is better. But the benoni is just a bad opening, so that should always be the case 
I didn't break the opening principles (it goes without saying) in both positions, but they were just hidden behind my plans. I can say that I'm breaking principles now in order to gain more advantage in the future 
The problem is that beginners take principles literally but the principles are quite relative.
jfiquett wrote:
… OP could study a line from the Sicilian Najdorf and commit it to memory. ... And what use does that give him? ...
In this thread, is anyone advocating that?
"... I feel that the main reasons to buy an opening book are to give a good overview of the opening, and to explain general plans and ideas. ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)
jfiquett wrote:
… It's not about playing perfect moves. It's about playing good enough moves to get you out of the opening and create a strong foundation for you to improve as a player.
Maybe that means you fall for some traps while using your principles; so be it. The point isn't to win every game you play. The point is to improve. ...
"... Review each of your games, identifying opening (and other) mistakes with the goal of not repeatedly making the same mistake. ... It is especially critical not to continually fall into opening traps – or even lines that result in difficult positions ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2007)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627062646/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman81.pdf
Ghost_Horse0 wrote:
... Books are way too rigorous for 1000 rated, ...
"... For beginning players, [Discovering Chess Openings] will offer an opportunity to start out on the right foot and really get a feel for what is happening on the board. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2006)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627114655/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen91.pdf
"... The problem with telling someone its ok to learn openings. They hear 'I have to memorize 20-30 moves of theory' with absolutely no understand of why those moves are made. ..." - IMBacon
IMBacon wrote:
PawnstormPossie wrote:
Instead of simply either/or, try both.
Understand the opening moves, the principles and the plans behind them. Develop a process for your thinking. Identify your mistakes, the reasons they were made, and find a way to improve. Rinse, and repeat. ...
IN a perfect world, absolutely! But remember you are on the chess.com forums. Where everything is either black or white.
In THIS world, is it better to see and discuss what is between black and white, or do you want to join in with black-and-white thinking?
DaniilKalabukhov wrote:
By the way there are only 2 moves you can consider in this position: 5. Nxe4! or 5. Nce2 !? (in order to attack the knight by playing f2-f3). There are a few principles which value more than development: let's say pawn structure and staying aware of what your opponent does. If White would play 5. Nf3?! than Black's response is going to be 5... Nxc3! or even 5... c5!?. Basically I don't recommend having Winawer's pawn structure without compensation or ignoring opponent's really strong knight in order to develop your knight on f3 in the semi-closed positions. Anyway chess is the game of opportunities and even an opening can't be described using a few principles.
Well this is just incorrect.
Stockfish gives Nxe4 at +.51, Qd3 at +.31, Nce2 at .15, Nge2 at .09, Bb5+ at .10...
You're telling me none of those moves are playable? There's a huge difference between the best moves and good moves. You're expecting your beginner to have what, ACL of .30?
Much better is to teach the fundamentals and basics of the game. You don't start any art or skill by teaching NARROW lessons. You start as general as possible, and slowly work to more narrow lessons.
kindaspongey wrote:
jfiquett wrote:
… OP could study a line from the Sicilian Najdorf and commit it to memory. ... And what use does that give him? ...
In this thread, is anyone advocating that?
"... I feel that the main reasons to buy an opening book are to give a good overview of the opening, and to explain general plans and ideas. ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)
It's called analogical reasoning friend. It's a rhetorical device to prove a point.
kindaspongey wrote:
jfiquett wrote:
… It's not about playing perfect moves. It's about playing good enough moves to get you out of the opening and create a strong foundation for you to improve as a player.
Maybe that means you fall for some traps while using your principles; so be it. The point isn't to win every game you play. The point is to improve. ...
"... Review each of your games, identifying opening (and other) mistakes with the goal of not repeatedly making the same mistake. ... It is especially critical not to continually fall into opening traps – or even lines that result in difficult positions ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2007)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627062646/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman81.pdf
1.) You're toxic AF for grabbing random quotes as if they're precedent to prove your point.
2.) You're a joke to have to make me respond to you over multiple comments, put it together.
3.) Yes, Dan's quote actually SUPPORTS my position. I'm all for reviewing your games to avoid making the same mistakes. I'm NOT all for spending copious amounts of time in opening theory. That's wretched advice, and unnecessary for beginners.
Umm...
Ok, lets take a look.
This was the beginning of your most recent game had a time control of 30 minutes per side:
Ok, so, I think what you need to know about openings is in the link below (and if you already know it, you need to start applying it in your games)
https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-principles-of-the-opening
I think you're pointing his mistakes to the extreme. As even for me (I'm not common with Sicilian Defence) it's not clear how to deal with the opponent's pawn on e5. Do I need to attack it immediately by playing Nc6, or may be I can play e6 and then advance my d-pawn to d5 in order to put the game on the rails of French Defence? Of course f6 is quite premature in this position because he exposes his king too much. These rules in the link which you've provided are a little bit too general and made for absolute beginners. So may be he is not an absolute beginner, and he needs some more precise theory.
The principles are general because that is the point of principles.
f6 is not a principled move.
OP could study a line from the Sicilian Najdorf and commit it to memory. That would take what, 30 minutes to an hour? And what use does that give him? Well, if he plays down that ONE variation he knows where the pieces belong. While that ONE line he studies could help with other sicilian lines, it might also hurt. Further, how does studying that one line help OP when he/she is playing white? The benefit of studying theory is extremely narrow. Why spend all that time studying for such a small chance of utilizing the knowledge?
Instead, OP could take 5 minutes and learn the basics of opening principles, which apply to all of his/her openings. This is much more cost efficient use of time.