Hi.
Giving the apparent disagreement about what studying openings means, I better clarify my use of terms in what follows.
- by “learning” I mean some skill and knowledge that can be acquired with practice
- with “studying” I refer to a more punctual, systematic work, implying more awareness and deeper comprehension.
Given the above, I “know” a number of openings because time ago I memorized the first 4-5 moves of some of their variants. Obviously, I’ve never understood much. Just realized that this is useless, I stopped insisting on this path.
Now I’m learning ( in the sense above, that is practically ) just a few openings. How ? Simply playing always those, also playing them against bots, focusing on developements instead of moves : I try to remember middlegame plans ( my plans ), the ones that worked best.
I don’t know if it’s a good method at my level, or if it will also prove useless. Just to share my esperience as a beginner. I feel quite good, I postponed the study to a later time.
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?
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.
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.
Agreed.
Blundering pieces is more important than studying openings.
And yes, I do believe, all other things being equal that a person that studies the London opening will win 51% of his games up to 900.
A person with some opening knowledge VS someone who "doesn't study openings" will win more than half the time.
Key phrase "all other things being equal"