HEY NOOBS! Forget Openings, Study Tactics (The right way)

I do not take instructions from you because, for now, it seems to me to be sufficient to call attention to such things as your numerous posts and the number of times that you have reported specific results from your own research.

I think it depends how beginners learn openings. Learning without understanding is useless. If beginners are interested in openings I advice them to learn a basic opening repertoire, 5 to 6 moves, not more, but also some to check some whole games with the system.

I explain them the difference between 1.d4 and 1.e4. Usually I show how to play against some common mistakes in the system they like (QGA / Damiano Dfence), and show opening principles using some interesting games, from Max Euwe’s books or from the classical Logical Chess. 

Aftermthey decide which system they want to play, I give some suggestions of opening repertoires, usually from Chessable.

But I have to say that most beginners are not very interested in training. The few people who really want to improve I show how to analyse own games and give further recommendations on books (tactics, endgames).

In my experience people who invest in training will improve faster, even if they train only 20 minutes daily. 

I am not trolling.

Above, one can see what Chesslover0_0 wrote. Perhaps DeirdreSkye and I agree that it is possible that a not-at-the-higher-levels player might usefully read about annotated games for some opening. Here, by the way, is a quote from the Gambits section in the first book:

"... [After 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4 Nf6 3.d4 exd4 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.Qxd4 Nf6 6.Bg5 Be7 7.Nc3] Black should delay castling and first bring the other pieces into the game. For example: 7...c6 8.O-O-O d5 9.Rhe1 Be6 10.Qh4 Nbd7 [with compensation] or 7...Nc6 8.Qh4 d6 9.O-O-O Be6 10.Bd3 Qd7 and Black now even has the choice of which side to castle. …"

Neither of those whatchamacallits took place in the game under discussion.

I give up,clearly the guy is a broken record and a hopeless cause,I'm probably going to ignore him from here on out,he's one of those stubborn human beings that thinks that everything he thinks/says/does is right and you're wrong and he wants to quote quote quote every little thing you say here and call you out on it.  

I mean it's one thing to have a discussion but clearly this guy is wacked in the head and ........

Chesslover0_0wrote:

I mean it's one thing to have a discussion but clearly this guy is wacked in the head and ........

kindaspongey:

I am not "wacked in head" I'm a troll,don't you get it,I don't have nothing else better to with my time then to quote err-little thing you guys say and uh quote quote quote quote quote quote quote. 

Someone needs to quote that your brain is kinda spongey,you're a full blown troll.  Say what you will,I'm ignoring you from here on out.  I know your type,you're looking for attention and I'm sorry kiddo but I'm not going to give you what you so desperately want and that's attention!,see if you were respectful I wouldn't be saying this but you have clearly disrespected me and my opinion.  You refuse to let it go,you won't do the research I told you to do because you're afraid you'll be proven wrong,so what's left for us to discuss,nothing.  So you keep on quoting quote quote quote and I quote you Mr. Troll keep studying your little Openings and I quote you sir wait ..........wait wait I got ..........no wait I got it........

I quote you .....damn it..........someone quote .............quote this guy................wait ..............I quote .........quote quote.   .........Yikes! 































































Pss pss: I forgot to mention something,don't forget to quote me! 

Proven wrong about what? Do you have in mind something specific that I actually wrote? Something that you think that I slightly implied?

I think calling people a noob is incredibly patronising. It's not like you're Bobby Fischer.

Has there been any noob-calling here since July 18?

Probably. What's special about July 18?

The last I could find here.

I see SO MANY people chasing this chimera - that is why it is not unusual to see people scoring 2300 or more in the play pen (uh...tactical exercises) and their actual games be filled with bad play of both a tactical and positional/strategic nature.

The truth of the matter is that EVALUATION of positions that exist only in your head (analysis) as you go thru a game is what is most important. Think about it: what good is calculating long (usually forcing  when it comes to 'tactics') lines if you don't evaluate them well? That holds true for looking 5 full moves deep or 1/2 move.

Calculation itself is what you have do to as you PLAY a game...it is what I call CALCULATING INTO UNCERTAINTY (as opposed to puzzles where there IS an answer... ). This is what actually happens as you PLAY a game of chess: I go here, he goes there, I go here....how do I evaluate this position that exists only in my head?

THAT however is a lot harder to master than merely solving puzzles. Beware beginners, beware...

Do I say to NOT solve puzzles? No. Learn the basic mates and tactics and then do these puzzles in moderation and properly as it does help. But if you want to PLAY THE GAME better, spend a lot more time on things like 'Solitaire Chess' (as simulation of sorts) and practice daily simply noticing the connections of the pieces (Sadler champions this) - not 'solving' anything, just getting quicker and quicker at noticing the relationships of the piece... and play more slow games where you look to put into practice what you have learned about chess. Remember, you DO NOT need to learn more and more and more (the myth sells a lot of chess books though! IM's/GM's who do not play so much any more have to eat you know...) early in your chess career - a good general endgame book, a good general middlegame book...and a fairly simply to learn opening is what you need... and as you play more and if you are thinking properly about the game, you will be able to make use of what you learn as the secrets of the game unfold in front of you.

But...do yourself a favor and don't be fooled into chasing chimeras.

Good post 

#2 So relatable lol

"... The game might be divided into three parts, i.e.:- 1. The opening. 2. The middle-game. 3. The end-game. There is one thing you must strive for, to be equally efficient in the three parts. Whether you are a strong or a weak player, you should try to be of equal strength in the three parts. ..." - Capablanca

Study...rather, get better AT calculating/evaluating - that will serve you better as far as playing the game better.

I still feel beginners should study mostly tactics and endgames,or so they say,I wouldn't disagree,most games I win is via some tactic or another,I haven't ran into any specific endgame,although I did study Lucena's position and Philidor's position for a bit but that was a while back.  

Capablanca was also quoted as saying something along the lines of:  The Opening and Middle game must be studied in relation to the endgame but the endgames can be studied in and of themselves,it was something like that. 

True but anyone under I think 1900 or so is considered an amateur,a noob is a term from fighting games lol,yeah it essential means the same thing but still,I'd hardly call someone who is 1800 an amateur,more like an intermediate but I'm a Grand-Patzer so what do I know  

This makes sense, but it also makes sense to have fun, so do what you enjoy the most. If you like the tactics trainer better than memorizing opening moves, then do tactics!

I'm not a fan of memorizing opening moves because the point of chess is to make your own decisions, not to spit out moves you have memorized. You should play the game yourself, and you don't do that as long as you make memorized moves.

Reading this thread has been interesting, and I would like to thank you all for contributing. So many viewpoints, and they are all interesting. I really think everybody has a point here. Example: It was interesting to read SteamGear's story, but I still think that AntonioEsfandiari's opinions are relevant as they might be true for many people.

So here is my story:

Two things could happen when I played chess. I could lose in the opening or I could win the game. Because the opponents were not clever self thinking people, they could only make the moves they had memorized. This rule had A LOT of exceptions: I could forget the time (lose on time), make a big blunder, play too fast or too slowly, etc. but in general it was losing in the opening or win the game. I was frustrated because I couldn't meet opponents of my own strength because of constantly losing rating because of openings. I concluded that memorizing opening moves was the only thing that could help. So I did, and I gained 100 rating points and got into the same problem again because higher rated opponents could even more opening moves. So I memorized even more opening moves, and I gained even 100 rating points more and got into the same problem again because higher rated opponents could even more opening moves. They weren't much better at playing, they just had more opening moves. So again and again, increase the rating by 100 and crash into more opening issues. This thread has inspired me to accept a loss in the opening and try to win the game anyway, although I know it's not always possible. I haven't read books, I have just improved my openings by looking at my own games. Unfortunately, I have only played 3 and 5 minutes games because of limited time for chess.

Well, if I can step in for Spartan, I don't need to look any further than the last game I played. I normally lose in the opening, but recently I have started to win sometimes as well:

After 17 moves my opponent had to choose between checkmate or losing the queen. He wisely pressed the Resign button.

And how a beginner study tactics is also an important factor on his progress. Rather than solving random tactics problems, a beginner should solve puzzles arrange by themes. With this method, it will be easier for a beginner to learn these different tactical patterns and then later on, when they already improve their pattern recognition, they can solve random puzzles.  They should also not only solve checkmate problems. They  must also solve puzzles that win materials by way of pin,fork,discovery,decoy,removing the guard etc. Solving only checkmate problems, they might develop a habit of only looking for a mate. In a game of chess, there are more tactical opportunities to win material than a checkmate combinations.