No Openings for Beginners

Yes the definition(s) of study are a major cause for disagreement. Even people from the same side of the two camps don't agree on it. So that doesn't make it very easy to find common ground.

There's a good suggestions from both sides in this. I've done a fair amount of study on openings and I'm not so far removed from my beginnings to have forgotten what mattered and what didn't. What was difficult and what wasn't. Quite frankly, opening study isn't a lot of fun. But if you approach it with a realistic expectation, you will find that at the beginner level, you really don't have to study much past move five to seven. In numerous discussions I have seen people almost always say they are typically out of book by then. Now that may not apply all the time but on average that's pretty much it.

I play e4. On the black side I study lines against e4. Most typically e4e5 stuff. From the white side you have to be ready for a number of openings but you really don't have to study them all that deep. Most people do, and I would say that it teaches you what to do later in the game even if you didn't arrive at it through your particular move order. Meaning you might be out of book by move four, but that doesn't negate the little bits of knowledge you picked up about some of the later game ideas.

Do not kid yourself, you cannot learn all the variations. You can't even learn a small percentage of them. That isn't the point.

The underlying message from the people who say you shouldn't study openings is that they believe the time spent playing the opening is an exercise in teaching your mind how to think in chess. And it's a valid point. I simply happen to think there are more effective ways of training your mind that didn't exist when they trained theirs. Chessable has altered the face of chess. There's an absolute Army of underrated players out there. It's no wonder with the site gaining a new member every one or two minutes. I can pick them out when I play here. I see them when I watch streamers, lower rated players playing fantastic games. It's just not that uncommon. Not that long ago it was rare to see.

I didn't look at your games but I suspect the people who pointed out that your problem isn't in the opening are probably correct. LOL. They pointed out that you missed a lot of tactics in your games. I caught bits and pieces of the World speed chess championships match today and they missed them right and left also. Just sayin...

Here is a interesting thought exercise:

I would bet that a brand new chess player who only studied the London Opening would win 51%+ Games (probably slightly higher %) from 400-900+ ELO, without studying anything else.

After 1000 the % would probably go down, but from 400-900+ I bet he does just fine.

Agreed?  Or not?

I only study e4. If it starts with anything else I quickly lose intentionally so I can learn from my mistakes.

I'm not 500, it's just fake rating that chess.com has given to me when I created my account in September this year.

What level are they? 

I looked at your games, you are losing to 500s.

edit: huh for some reason i thought the op was 1200 but my point still stands

What? That is absurd. After you play the first few moves of theory, you will still have to play chess. What about tactics? Or simply not blundering pieces? How will knowing 10 moves of opening theory help you there? Not to mention that the london system is a drawish opening regardless. Even if you mean knowing the plans and ideas in the london, there's no way that will help someone who blunders pieces and basic tactics every other game. 

The other 400-900 person is going to be blundering an equal amount of pieces, and missing an equal amount of tactics so that is a wash.

And the person who studied the London will most likely not make a blunder in the first 10 moves, so that will give him an advantage over time.

400-900 rated players don't blunder an equal amount of tactics / pieces. Not blundering in the first 10 moves would not get you to 900, you would just  blunder after that. Also, what if your opponent doesn't play theory? You could still blunder then, and 400-900s aren't going to play theory

" you would just  blunder after that"

So might the other person.

This is a wash in this hypothetical example.

900s are far better in other aspects of the game. A 400 would get crushed after obtaining an equal position or even a better one after the first 10 moves. 

Much seems made of opening blunders vs middle game blunders.  Some want to say they're the same thing, and if you miss one, you'll miss the other.  Well, they're not the same. When players get caught in opening traps, it's rarely something the opponent found, it's something they learned.  That's very different from a middle game tactic where that they did have to find it.  In the later example, both players are on equal ground.  If they still found it, ok I tip my hat to ya. Good job, gg. 

That's the difference between the very avoidable trappy opening bs vs someone playing a good tactical game.  If they play such things 12-15 or more moves into the game, welcome to the big leagues. 

In your hypothetical example you are comparing a 900 VS a 400.

In my hypothetical example I am comparing a 400 VS a 400.  Or a 900 VS a 900.

That is the disconnect.

What? Yes, a player with more opening knowledge where everything else is equal would win a small percentage more. But why not fix the more glaring issue in a 400's play, blundering pieces or simple tactics instead? It would be much more helpful, and probably wouldn't even be as large of a time investment as learning an entire opening. But yes, you phrased it as if you expected a 400 to learn the london system and be able to go to 900 with only that extra knowledge.

@79

"Much seems made of opening blunders vs middle game blunders."
++ If a player depends on learned opening theory to avoid opening blunders,
then that player will be at a disadvantage to unaidedly prevent middle game blunders.
Moreover, if a player has found the first 10 moves himself and his opponent has reeled off those 10 moves of opening theory, then the player who has found the moves himself is at an advantage as he better understands the position and as he has reached a deeper concentration.
The player who has reeled off 10 moves of theory is more likely to blunder on moves 11 or 12.

"When players get caught in opening traps, it's rarely something the opponent found, it's something they learned." ++ It is OK to fall into an opening trap from time to time, as long as you take it as a lesson and do not fall for it twice.

@tygxc

There's a couple points to make.  First, the context of this thread is an 800 online rapid player.  It's not to say there's nothing valid about your suggestions, but it's almost like you think there's no learning can take place unless they lose games and go figure it out later.

Where I find hypocrisy in that, is the same people who say "don't study openings" have absolutely no problem telling people to "study endgames" ??  Huh, why is that different? Why shouldn't they just go lose games and go try to figure it out for themselves?  Ah, let's go "memorize" libraries full of crap that we can watch Super GMs miss literally on a daily basis.  Not to mention, people even go so far as to say study endgames first!  Lol.  Like you're going to get to one if you don't survive the opening and middlegame?  

It's easy to see why this debate is never ending. 

T