don't study openings until level 2000? - Chess Forums - Page 4

WeakChessPlayedSlow

Apr 10, 2017

0

#61

kindaspongey wrote:

kindapspongey wrote (in #32):

The_Chin_Of_Quinn wrote:

... Books are written because they sell, not because they're appropriate. ...

Is selling perhaps easier for books that are not denounced as inappropriate?

kindaspongey wrote (in #54):

The_Chin_Of_Quinn wrote [in #47]:

... you asking whether it's harder to sell opening books due to there being so many recommendations against studying the opening. ...

I was not asking that. I would not make any reference to "so many recommendations against studying the opening".

The_Chin_Of_Quinn wrote [in #47]:

... you suggesting non-opening books are easier to sell. ...

I was not intending to suggest that. I was trying to suggest a possible motivation for writers and sellers to aim for the appropriate.

The_Chin_Of_Quinn wrote (in #60):

... Re-read #32 this is where you make that suggestion.

My post #54 (like your posts, #47 and #60) reproduced #32, and it is reproduced again above, enabling anyone (who cares) to decide for themselves what #32 does and does not suggest.

The_Chin_Of_Quinn wrote (in #60):

(I'm not saying you believe, it, I realize it's just a throw away hypothetical.) ...

In your post #47, it did not seem clear to me that you regarded yourself as having only a hypothetical notion of what I believe. Consequently, it seemed appropriate to me to notify you (and anyone else who might be following the discussion) that

"I was not intending to suggest that" non-opening books are easier to sell,

and that I WAS "trying to suggest a possible motivation for writers and sellers to aim for the appropriate."

Let's be entirely clear in that quoting masters is not a definitive argument. There are many masters, and not all of them agree with your viewpoint. Now, I am saying, as an expert, myself, that studying openings before 2000 is utterly meaningless. I am dabbling a little bit now because I'm stagnating somewhat, but before 2000? Forget about it. u2000 players don't have a firm enough grasp on chess that being supremely booked up matters. Toss that out, play a basic system (for me, London with white, Philidor/Old Indian set-up with black) and work on the middlegames of said systems, work hard on endings, do a lot of tactics, and play 960 to strengthen your knowledge of unfamiliar positions. It took me just over 3 years to go from 800 to 2000 (OTB, of course) that way. No deep opening knowledge needed.

kindaspongey

Apr 10, 2017

0

#62

WeakChessPlayedSlow wrote:

... I am saying, as an expert, myself, that studying openings before 2000 is utterly meaningless. ... u2000 players don't have a firm enough grasp on chess that being supremely booked up matters. Toss that out, ... No deep opening knowledge needed.

Where did someone advocate "being supremely booked up" and having "deep opening knowledge"?

WeakChessPlayedSlow wrote:

... play a basic system (for me, London with white, Philidor/Old Indian set-up with black) ...

If one is going to play (for example) the London System, what would be wrong with playing over some of the examples from a book with annotated London System games?

WeakChessPlayedSlow

Apr 11, 2017

0

#63

kindaspongey wrote:

WeakChessPlayedSlow wrote:

... I am saying, as an expert, myself, that studying openings before 2000 is utterly meaningless. ... u2000 players don't have a firm enough grasp on chess that being supremely booked up matters. Toss that out, ... No deep opening knowledge needed.

Where did someone advocate "being supremely booked up" and having "deep opening knowledge"?

WeakChessPlayedSlow wrote:

... play a basic system (for me, London with white, Philidor/Old Indian set-up with black) ...

If one is going to play (for example) the London System, what would be wrong with playing over some of the examples from a book with annotated London System games?

So, your argument is that playing basic systems with both sides, and picking up knowledge from practical experience, as well as looking at how masters play your system is "studying openings?" Come on.

solskytz

Apr 11, 2017

0

#64

Teach us, then, O wise one, how it is that the opening game is studied??

WeakChessPlayedSlow

Apr 11, 2017

0

#65

solskytz wrote:

Teach us, then, O wise one, how it is that the opening game is studied??

I am merely saying what I do isn't studying openings. I learned basic systems, analyzed my games I played OTB (nothing to do with opening study in general, just something all players should do) and occasionally look at master games to get middlegame ideas out of the systems. It is quite obvious, especially at expert level, that this is not considered studying openings

solskytz

Apr 11, 2017

0

#66

I agree with what you write, but I'm still in the dark as to what you personally DO consider a study of the opening?

Surely the best way to learn is a mix of experience (playing the game) and theory (looking for improvements, studying how better players handled the positions you ran into). Not so?

WeakChessPlayedSlow

Apr 11, 2017

0

#67

solskytz wrote:

I agree with what you write, but I'm still in the dark as to what you personally DO consider a study of the opening?

Surely the best way to learn is a mix of experience (playing the game) and theory (looking for improvements, studying how better players handled the positions you ran into). Not so?

That's a different matter, as I have never set out to study openings. I wouldn't have a firm definition, as I have never sunk much of any time into working on my openings. All I can tell you is that what I do certainly isn't. I only study master games for ideas, not concrete lines. I mean, for me, almost all the u2000s at my club know multiple main-line openings, and play all of them often. I see that as meaningless. That's my only point, I don't wish to get into the details of what, precisely, studying openings is. What I do know is that playing a basic system, analyzing your games, and looking at a master game for ideas every now and then isn't opening study.

solskytz

Apr 11, 2017

0

#68

That's a bit nebulous, but to each his own.

AIM-AceMove

Apr 11, 2017

0

#69

I find it very painfull to punish opponent and get better position out of opening but later to blunder like an beginner...or you dont know how to continue and lose..

WeakChessPlayedSlow

Apr 11, 2017

0

#70

AIM-AceMove wrote:

I find it very painfull to punish opponent and get better position out of opening but later to blunder like an beginner...or you dont know how to continue and lose..

This right here is the problem with being too focused on openings. I know, as I have been on the other side of this countless times.

solskytz

Apr 11, 2017

0

#71

<AIM-AceMove>

I feel the pain! Happened to me a million times - and also (of course) the other way round.

On another note - isn't it about time that you unblock me? I never understood why I was blocked in the first place...

AIM-AceMove

Apr 11, 2017

0

#72

You were unblocked half and year ago.

solskytz

Apr 11, 2017

0

#73

Yes - you are right!! I didn't notice :-)

kindaspongey

Apr 11, 2017

0

#74

WeakChessPlayedSlow wrote:

... So, your argument is that playing basic systems with both sides, and picking up knowledge from practical experience, as well as looking at how masters play your system is "studying openings?" Come on.

It does not make much sense to me to argue about the meaning of "studying openings". As far as I know, there is no authority in charge of specific definitions. What seems sensible to me is to discuss possible courses of action. As I previously indicated, I see nothing wrong with playing over some of the examples from a book with annotated games in some opening. If you also see nothing wrong with that, we probably do not have much of an argument. I suppose you can, if you want, argue that people generally know what YOU include in the notion of "opening study", but I suspect that not much will be gained by such a choice. In post #22, I mentioned this 2005 GM Nigel Davies quote:

"The way I suggest you study this book is to play through the main games once, relatively quickly, and then start playing the variation in actual games. Playing an opening in real games is of vital importance - without this kind of live practice it is impossible to get a 'feel' for the kind of game it leads to. There is time enough later for involvement with the details, after playing your games it is good to look up the line."

One could discuss whether or not GM Nigel Davies correctly used the word, "study", but it seems to me that the important question is whether or not he described a reasonable activity.

kindaspongey

Apr 11, 2017

0

#75

zac_howland wrote:

... your opponents will be studying proven lines so if you are not, the game can be decided simply by your screwing up in the opening (where at the lower levels, a pawn advantage is not always decisive, ...

"... A remark like 'games are rarely decided in the opening' does not really do justice to the issue. ... even if an initial opening advantage gets spoiled by subsequent mistakes, this doesn't render it meaningless. In the long run, having the advantage out of the opening will bring you better results. Maybe this warning against the study of openings especially focuses on 'merely learning moves'. But almost all opening books and DVD's give ample attention to general plans and developing schemes, typical tactics, whole games, and so on. ..." - IM Willy Hendriks (2012)

bong711

Apr 11, 2017

0

#76

Playing unorthodox openings is not wise use of time. Your opponent later avoid your system or research the refutation. Or becomes too boring. Play the popular openings even if you dislike studying theory. Plenty of room for imaginative and exciting play.

Cybord2000 wrote:

unorthodox chessopenings is a good one by schiller

Think the "mafia defense" would be hard to throughly study and perfect.

kindaspongey

Apr 11, 2017

0

#77

zac_howland wrote:

kindaspongey wrote:

... "... A remark like 'games are rarely decided in the opening' does not really do justice to the issue. ... even if an initial opening advantage gets spoiled by subsequent mistakes, this doesn't render it meaningless. In the long run, having the advantage out of the opening will bring you better results. Maybe this warning against the study of openings especially focuses on 'merely learning moves'. But almost all opening books and DVD's give ample attention to general plans and developing schemes, typical tactics, whole games, and so on. ..." - IM Willy Hendriks (2012)

... Plans, schemes, and strategy do not matter when you drop a piece in the opening because your opponent either played a line you did not know or played an inferior move and you continued with a normal line that blunders a piece.

The response to this, still seems to me to be the IM Hendriks quote.

fieldsofforce

Apr 11, 2017

0

#78

Shakespeare-Voltaire wrote:

Hey everyone, So I was reading a post on here where someone said that it was not recommended for anyone under 2000 to study openings. Now I know that that has to be false because there are so many books on openings for beginners and I doubt these beginners are level 2000. But is there a certain level that it is generally expected someone will begin to take openings very seriously, and anything under that you just employ basic principles like bring out your pieces etc? I currently am reading Yasser seiriwan book on openings and it does not seem like it is for someone higher than me, and I am quite low

______________________

The sooner you change your perspective of what chess is and how to play chess the sooner you will begin playing stronger chess.

There are certain members here that advocate building you opening tree by hand by default by posting references to many websites and making them clickable. It takes 8-10 yrs. to build your opening tree by hand

Since the age of computers, it is possible for the computer to build your opening tree in 2-3 years.

The confidence of understanding the correct perspective of a chess position and the understanding of why you are making the move you are making will go a long way to curing your jitters.

fieldsofforce

#6 1 hr ago

There is a lot of new information in this post. Read it slowly and carefully. Anytime you don't understand or have questions. Just stop and either message me or send me a note.

Purpose of development - why beginners shouldn't study openings

Purpose of development - you will learn that the purpose is to gain advantages in time, space and material by using the strategies of restraining, blockading, and executing the enemy to gain control of the center (the squares d4,d5,e4,e5). Piece moves are direct development. Pawn moves are aids to development, therefore they are indirect development moves.

beginners shouldn't study openings

Almost all strong players would disagree. The reasons they disagree are contained in 2 books that will change your perspective of how to play chess. The 2 books are: "My System" , by Aaron Nimzowitsch. and "Pawn Power In Chess", by Hans Kmoch.

I have learned the basic fundamentals, like develop your pieces, protect them, castle early, don't move pieces twice in a row etc.

Those are NOT the basic fundamentals.

In order to learn the basic fundamentals you must change your perspective of the game of chess in 3 ways. First chess is Siege Warfare in game form. There are 3 basic strategies in Siege Warfare. They are: Restrain, Blockade, and Execute the enemy.

The second change in perspective has to do with pawns. The principle that you must learn is: Winning chess is the strategically/tactically correct advance of the pawn mass.

The 3rd change in perspective has to do with control of the center. There are 2 theories in chess regarding control of the center:

Classical center control theory - control the center by occupying the center (d4,d5,e4,e5 squares) with pawns and pieces.

Hypermodern center control theory - control the center with the power of your pawns and pieces. This avoids your pawns and pieces becoming targets of the enemy pieces because they are not physically occupying the center (d4,d5,e4,e5).

Once you learn what the basic techniques of restrain, blockade and execute the enemy are, and combine them in your brain with control the center, develop your pieces, etc. you will understand opening books. You will understand how using the strategies of restrain, blockade, and execute the enemy together with control the center, develop your pieces, etc. combine to increase or decrease advantages/disadvantages in time, space and material.

The change in perspective in your brain causes you to shift your focus back and forth from concentrating on the squares the pawns and pieces control to concentrating on the pawns and pieces themselves as you analyze the position. It is difficult at first to do this. But as you practice it drastically improves your analysis of the position in front of you.

The second change in perspective causes you to concentrate on pawn structure. Concentrating on pawn structure will reveal 2 things to you. The first is the 3rd change in perspective which is what center control theory is being applied in the opening that has developed on the board. You will learn that there is a difference in what moves are made if you are fighting for control of the center with the hypermodern method with what is called a small but secure center. Or you are fighting for control of the center with the classical method of occupying the center with your pawns and pieces. Pawn structure is the terrain of the chess battlefield. The second revelation is the pawn structure itself which forms the hills, valleys and mountains of where the war is fought. Your plan of attack move by move has to conform to the pawn structure, Otherwise your battle plan might call for going thru a mountain given the pawn structure of the position on the board. The bird's eye view of the pawn structure of the position on the board makes finding candidate moves much easier. Especially if you know that one the important characteristics that you are looking for in the pawn structure is where the pawn breaks are or will be in the very near future. Pawn breaks are those places in the pawn structure where the opposing pawns are in contact with each other in a formation that permits captures of other pawns or pieces. Also, the execution of a pawn break is almost always the move that signals the first move of the beginning of the middle game.

I struggle at the next moves - the middle game - lack of plan I guess. What can I do in order to get the initiative in the middle game?

Studying opening books teaches you the move that begins the middlegame in that opening. Knowing the exact move when the middlegame begins is a big advantage in itself. Studying the opening books also teaches you what typical middlegame plan(s) of attack result from the opening you are studying. Being familiar with the typical middlegame pawn structures and where the pawn breaks are in the opening you are playing in a game is a great advantage over your opponent. All of this information confirms what you wrote in your post:

I believe, that learning an opening (10-15 moves) could give you an advantage in the middle game, especially at my level, and help me have an actual plan. Am I wrong? What should I do?

What should I do?

Select an opening repertoire that consists of 2 openings as White and 2 openings as Black(one opening against White's 1.e4 and one opening against White's 1.d4). Your overarching goal will be to build a visualization pattern memory bank into your brain of those openings, middlegames and endgames and the typical tactics that are themes or motifs in those 3 stages of the game. As you are studying the openings, the middlegame, the endgame, and tactics your goal in your training is to keep adding visualization patterns to the memory bank in your brain.

I also find it difficult to apply the tactics puzzles I have sold, as there are barely any tactics that can be done, with a bad positioning.

Your chess training system should consist of adding visualization patterns to your memory bank everyday of the following sections:

1. Tactics visualization pattern memory bank

2. Openings visualization pattern memory bank

3. Midddlegame visualization pattern memory bank

4. Endgame visualization pattern memory bank

kindaspongey

Apr 11, 2017

0

#79

zac_howland wrote:

... you fail to understand both what he is saying and what I said. Google helps you find your massive wall-of-text quotes easily, but it will not help you understand them.

It is kind of you to concern yourself with what I understand, but it seems to me that the important thing is what is understood generally. Perhaps it is a point of agreement between us that, for the moment, enough has been written to allow general understanding of the issues involved.

fieldsofforce

Apr 11, 2017

0

#80

kindaspongey wrote:

zac_howland wrote:

... you fail to understand both what he is saying and what I said. Google helps you find your massive wall-of-text quotes easily, but it will not help you understand them.

It is kind of you to concern yourself with what I understand, but it seems to me that the important thing is what is understood generally. Perhaps it is a point of agreement between us that, for the moment, enough has been written to allow general understanding of the issues involved.

_______________________

enough has been written to allow general understanding of the issues involved.

There is one issue where with every post you advocate by default that a chess player build his/her opening tree by hand. I did that before the age of computers. It took me 8 years to build my opening tree by hand. Today's chess player with the aid of a computer can build an opening tree in 2-3 years.