Adapting to changing theory and plans (Openings)

Sort:
1heJ0k3r

Hi

I am sitting around 1650 Fide (Standard) and 1700s for Rapid/Blitz. I have changed from being E4 player to D4 to avoid theory (since I work full time). I have found systems provide a good opening (minimises blunders) and lets me play middle/end game without being booked out by my opposition who may have more time than me to study.

I wanted to get some feedback from others who have decided to play d4, c4 (Queens gambit lines) for the main weapon.

Do you have any books/courses on chessable/youtube to get a good understanding. I use to play the London/ and later Jobova over the last 2 years with white.

I am comfortable with my black lines, and looking to drastically improve my white results (I get a lot of draws or slow losses).

Cheers,

Justin

crazedrat1000

It makes sense you're avoiding mainline theory. In my experience with the Veresov (similar to the Jobava) ... while you do succeed in getting the opponent out of theory, once you reach move 8-12 and both of you are out of theory... the position can sometimes be a little less forgiving of white because you have the knight stuck on c3 in some cases. You can mitigate that problem by memorizing the theory in even more depth... in the process you might throw your opponent for a complete loop. But if you just want to play casually you can't as easily cash in on your superior theory knowledge like that. But I still think the chigorin in general is a great opening.... but it's also worth experimenting with other things

One thing I will say in favor of the QGD is... once you reach the point where both players are out of theory - whenever that happens - whites position is very natural and easy to play. Especially in the QGD exchange, that position is pretty much the dream for white. It can get difficult in the tartakower or lasker variations, so I don't play those. 
QGD would be great but then there's always the prospect of facing some black player that knows the theory out to move 30. And QGD is the most common defense to d4. So...

While I do think it's necessary to keep the opponent out of book... I think "best by test" ultimately has to be part of this process as well. And combine that with examining the winrates at different elo levels and time controls... it also depends on what your elo target is. If you're just aiming for 2000 maybe worrying about getting out-theorized is over worrying.

So maybe you just need a set of openings that are candidates, openings that aren't mainline theory and seem decent... and then spend maybe a few weeks learning them / playing them and just focus on how they feel, and look at their winrates at your target elo / time control / think about the positions. So here are some candidates I'd consider-

- nimzo larsen attack
- trompowsky
- russian slav or breyer slav (lines within the slav but still not common / will throw off black)
- QGD exchange, even though the exchange is mainline theory it's just such a natural position for white I think it's still worth considering. But I definitely would not play any other QGD lines
- jobava and regular london should still be on the table probably 
- reti opening / kings indian attack
- vienna falkbeer gambit + something against the sicilian
- Torre attack, possibly combined with the Colle (you can also transpose from the Trompowsky into the Torre)
- Ponziani opening
- neo-catalan or pseudo-catalan (sam shankland has a course on a repertoire for white based on this)
- others?

I leave the veresov / the bird opening off the list cuz I think to justify them you need to invest more time in theory.

I've had my eye on the nimzo larsen for a while but haven't really messed around with it yet. But I hear only good things about it. I think it can turn into a system-like game with the fiancetto but it can also be sharp in a few variations.

I'm not sure I can give up the chigorin though, I can't tell you how many wins I get from people transposing unknowingly into a french or pirc. Check out the byrn variation of the pirc where you push e5 if you haven't already - 1. d4 g6 2. e4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bg5 Bg7 5. e5 - easy wins and not alot to memorize really

Another way to approach this, which is maybe more sophisticated, is to find a rare sideling within a common opening... sometimes with this approach you can get the opponent out of book but not make some major positional concession. One example of this I'm aware of ... as black I play the nimzowitsch sicilian. On it's face it's a sicilian, which is the most common response to e4 ... but only 1% of black players play the nimzowitsch. Pretty much no one I encounter knows how to punish it, so it's basically an improved alekhines defense... I think I've gotten 2 games of people who played the main line, like 1% of players reach that line, and it's still a viable line. The same is true with the four knights sicilian... it's another line I play, very rarely do I run into the mainline, I almost always am able to push d5 in the sicilian by move 5 and the game is easy from there. Point is there may be some other lines like this in the QGD or elsewhere - sidelines within common lines you can find... you'll just have to search around for them. And when you find them be sure to tell us about them...

Here's something like that for white that's interesting - 
1. e4 c5 2. d3 
If black screws this up it can be surprisingly punishing, and almost no one plays it. You can followup with f4 in some positions - a closed sicilian. Or you can play Ne2 / c4 / Nc3 and play it like a botvinnik.

If you can avoid making major positional concessions but still get the opponent out of book I think this is the ideal scenario, from there your instincts can take over. So that's also the sort of thing I think you have to look for.

tygxc

@1

"I have changed from being E4 player to D4 to avoid theory"
++ 1 d4 has no less theory than 1 e4. ECO B-C treat 1 e4, ECO D-E-A treat 1 d4.

"I have found systems provide a good opening" ++ OK

"minimises blunders" ++ Blunder check before you move.

"my opposition who may have more time than me to study."
++ They may have less time than you to study, but may be better players.

"Do you have any books/courses on chessable/youtube to get a good understanding."
++ The best book is... a data base.
Look at recent top games and study whole games, not opening lines.

"I am comfortable with my black lines" ++ Then as white play reverse systems.

"looking to drastically improve my white results" ++ Practice against a strong engine.

"I get a lot of draws" ++ Can you draw against a strong engine?

"or slow losses" ++ A loss is never slow. You get into a lost position by one single mistake. The actual win after that may be slow, but inevitable. Identify your decisive mistake and work on it.

tygxc

@2

"You can mitigate that problem by memorizing the theory"
++ 'Chess should not be memorised' - Lasker

"you can't as easily cash in on your superior theory knowledge" ++ You never can.

"the chigorin in general is a great opening" ++ It is not.

"experimenting with other things" ++ It is better to stick to your guns.

"facing some black player that knows the theory out to move 30" ++ So what? Think!

"it's necessary to keep the opponent out of book" ++ No.

"examining the winrates at different elo levels and time controls" ++ Useless.

"what your elo target is" ++ As high as possible.

"worrying about getting out-theorized is over worrying" ++ True below grandmaster level.

"spend maybe a few weeks learning them" ++ No, just play and analyse losses.

"look at their winrates at your target elo / time control" ++ Useless.

"think about the positions" ++ Yes.

"I've had my eye on the nimzo larsen"
++ Fischer played it 4 times and won all four. Andersson played it a lot after he lost to Fischer.

"I think it can turn into a system-like game" ++ Called the Hedgehog.

"give up the chigorin" ++ You should.

"easy wins" ++ You should not aim at easy wins, but at avoiding easy losses.

crazedrat1000

You seem completely unaware of the fact that most of your claims here are opinions. You really seem to believe they are fact... it's odd how oblivious of this you are.

I can quote chess masters too though, here are some -

"The Jobava is a great opening" - Hans Niemann
"I recommend avoiding mainline theory" - Hikaru Nakamura
"Play many different openings" - Magnus Carlson

Btw... I took a look at your online games. Looks like you play the same set of opening moves pretty much every game, no variation - closed sicilian, italian, normal french... out to move 10 or so there's almost no variation in your repertoire. Please explain to us (without false pretense if you can manage it) how you were able to do that without memorizing the theory of your repertoire, just not worrying about theory and thinking about it over the board as you're advising us to do now.

tygxc

@5

"Looks like you play the same set of moves pretty every game, no variation"
++ Yes, that is what I recommend. Accumulate experience.

"there's almost no variation in your repertoire."
++ Yes, that is what I recommend. It is also what Fischer, Kasparov did.

"how you were able to do that without memorizing your repertoire"
++ Just play and analyse lost games.

"thinking about it over the board" ++ Yes, and after a lost game.

crazedrat1000

You: "chess isn't supposed to be memorized"
You: "You can never cash in on your opening theory knowledge"
Me: "You have memorized your repertoire"
You: "Yes I recommend that"

Blatant contradiction but okay, moving on.

Fact is most top players spend quite alot of time memorizing theory, they know the moves, including many odd sidelines, out to move 12 or 15 typically... this is why they are constantly striving to throw their opponent off with obscure moves... if the main moves weren't played out they would just use the main moves. This is why Magnus is playing a3 on move 1. That is just the bottom line, they have the theory memorized, it's what they do.

tygxc

@7

Remembering past games and past mistakes is not the same as memorising theory.

crazedrat1000

When it coalesces into a repertoire of moves that you play every game it is at that point an opening theory that you have developed (with the help of an engine). It isn't mainline theory, that's true - it is your theory. Which is just exactly what we've been talking about - finding ways of getting the opponent out of book, perhaps by playing odd sidelines - that's what the conversation is and has been about this entire time. 
And btw - you play the mainline italian. You haven't created your own theory in the italian, have you? 
Carry onward

1heJ0k3r

Thanks for all your comments, yes I tend to mix it up online (don't take it to serious) so I can practice being in different positions (keeps my brain warm).

I think the E4 variations just been learnt from brute force and what feels right from tactics more than memorisation. ibrust thankyou for your time and comments.

tygxc

@7

"top players spend quite alot of time memorizing theory"
++ None of us are top players.

"This is why Magnus is playing a3 on move 1."
++ If he can do that at his level, then we should not worry about theory either.

crazedrat1000

Me: ...what your elo target is
You: ++ As high as possible.
Me: top players spend quite alot of time memorizing theory
You also: None of us are top players

Yet more enigmas and contradictions from you.

When Magnus plays a3 on stream he actually transposes it into many different openings that utilize a3... his knowledge of theory is so vast that he can weave in and out of it fluidly. And he even narratives this process for his viewers on stream as he does it. So no, your statement there could not be further from the truth actually. 
This borrowing of many different ideas, taken from mainline theory, is also why Magnus advises that people "play many different openings", something else you have advised against.

tygxc

@12

"You: "what your elo target is" ++ As high as possible.
You also: None of us are top players"

If you aim to become a top player, then first work on blunder prevention, tactics, endgames and only then start thinking about openings.

'just forget about the openings and spend all that time on the endings' - Capablanca

'Memorization of variations could be even worse than playing in a tournament without looking in the books at all' - Botvinnik

crazedrat1000

Those are all old quotes, chess has changed alot since Capablanca. And it's better to know people by their actions than by their words. All the top players memorize alot. You also memorize alot. This is just the inescapable fact, so what more needs to be said? To play chess well in modern times you must memorize the opening. The opening is the first thing you do, you do it every game, so it's very easy to practice it. Memorization of a repertoire is an inescapable and essential part of chess. If you can get out of mainline theory you can reduce the need to memorize. That's something I recommend but it's something you scoffed at earlier...

You're correct, there is more to learn than openings, and a person can over emphasize openings while neglecting other aspects of their play. However, this thread is about openings. And once you have your opening repertoire figured out... after some period of experimentation and refinement, you can move on to other things - that is another way of doing it. Ultimately to be a top player you will need to master all of the aspects of play, and all of them will require considerable, concentrated effort - the order does not especially matter so long as they all get done at some time. Besides, the OP is already 1800 - he knows how to avoid blunders.

Carry onward!

tygxc

"OP is already 1800"
++ OP is 1840 you are 1946, I am 2100. So what?
I do not understand the adversity. I give good advice for free.

"top players memorize" ++ They are top players, we are not.

"there is more to learn than openings"
++ Blunders, tactics, endgames take priority before openings.

"a person can over emphasize openings while neglecting other aspects of their play"
++ Many do that and it is the main reason for not making progress.

crazedrat1000

Considering you play the opening every game, giving you a perfect opportunity every game to practice it, and it forms the basis for your strategy in the midgame, both of which in turn lead into the endgame - I do not see a strong argument that one must necessarily, unquestionably learn the endgame before the opening. I know you're claiming that, but I see no reasoning provided to justify this. I understand that Capablanca said that a hundred or so whatever years ago.... back then there were no computers, and while the endgame was possible to make into a science there was no means of making the opening into a science at that time, hardly relevant nowdays when modern engines enable us to craft our own opening theory book on practically any move we wish... do you have any thoughts of your own on this matter? You told me to think for myself earlier - now it's your turn, why don't you try justifying these arbitrary opinions of yours instead of dictating them as if they are fact and just deferring to a statement from one particular famous player at some time in history, a statement which for all we know the player may have modified now 100 years later but isn't alive to tell us, meanwhile plenty of other top players have different methods and different feelings ...

I am aware that to get good at chess you need to practice the endgame, and many other aspects of the game. You really should know the opening as well - you're gonna have to learn them all, can you explain why you believe the order especially matters...?

tygxc

@16

"why you believe the order especially matters...?"
++ The order is:

  1. Blunder prevention: as long as you hang your queen,
    it does not matter how good you are at tactics, endgames, or openings.
  2. Tactics: as long as you get tactically toppled, you do not even reach an endgame.
  3. Endgames: as long as you cannot convert an opening advantage of +1 pawn in the endgame, it is futile to even think about smaller opening advantages.
  4. Openings: if you and your opponent are proficient in blunder prevention, tactics, and endgames, then the opening is where you can make a difference, however small. Take the white side of a very bad opening: 1 e4 b5?, 1 e4 f5?, 1 d4 g5?. Can you win it against a strong engine? If not, then work on your weaknesses that make you lose that against the engine, as it clearly is not the opening.
crazedrat1000

1 and 2 are obvious and already established, talking about 3 vs 4. Your argument regarding 3 vs 4 is once again arbitrary - if you don't manage to reach the endgame with an advantage there's nothing to convert. Again, you have to have both to win. Besides, why is winning in the short term your goal? Shouldn't it be to establish the necessary foundations for skill to develop? The opening sets up the middlegame... knowing the opening allows you to understand the themes in the middlegame you're playing - the middlegame is the most complex and probably the most important part of the game, the earlier you start wrapping your mind around it the better. Endgame and opening can both help you understand the middlegame in certain ways.

Not a good argument I'm afraid - still don't see a strong argument for ordering here.

BigChessplayer665

@tygxc the only advice your giving are for a small subset of people that have the attention span for it what if they have a normal attention span what if they are a beginner what if they are 1200-1600 or have ADHD or OCD or anything else for that matter advice needs to change depending on the person but you say the same advice for everyone ps:I tried to prove him wrong multiple times lol and he just completely ignored me

begginers should play rapid ex(they need the pattern recognition) and once they are more of an intermediate I would recommend blitz(honestly it depends tho) only because the pool is stronger but if you can't focus do that it all depends on playing style ex how fast you play,if your positional or good at tactics ect, he only person that can really know how to improve is the person playing (aka the one asking for help) (I usually just say how I got to 2100)

What I recommend instead is to try to mimick what the top players are doing while having your own playing style

BigChessplayer665

@txgyc the actual order is

1endgames

it doesn't matter how Good you are if you can't convert you won't win and converting correctly limete blunders

2.pattern recognition

Important for everything it teachers you openings

2.opening blunders

You hang free peice less you win more

3.defence if you can survive down a piece and make your opponent blunder it doesn't matter if you blunder

3.midgame/endgame blunders

This is the hardest but a good player rarely blunders

4.opening theory

Not always needed but can be fun

5.whatever other nonsense

6.everyone learns differently so this doesn't even matter hehehe but this order is the most helpful for me