Either I lose in the opening or I win the game. Only by memorizing tons of opening moves have I been able to rise from 1300 to 1700. It's not possible to get over 1500 without pretty much knowledge about openings. Probably, you have known so much about openings that other parts of the game have been what has kept you down.
HEY NOOBS! Forget Openings, Study Tactics (The right way)
Sort:
I saw your comment similar to this. And I saw the game you posted where you claimed the game was decided in the opening. I'll post the link now:
So what you're saying is you memorized all of the moves including 11. .. Nc7 12. c5? Why would you do that? And why from such an innocuous opening? I am going to say that I don't believe that you have as much memorized as you think you do. Or you would have a more mainstream opening theory.
Let me ask you. Is it more possible you are not actually memorizing opening theory, but rather getting information of set ideas? Because I know literally upwards of 20-30 openings on JUST ideas alone. And this does help tremendously with move order. And a lot of people confuse memorizing ideas from an opening with actual memorization of opening lines.
This position in particular is atrociously riddled with beginner problems like "un-necessary" pawn weaknesses, not finishing plans, bad planning, tactical inaccuracies. How can you claim you memorized this and have so much problems? How can you claim this was decided in the opening when the opening "for white" is basically over? Do you know when the end of an opening is? Do you know the definition of when an opening is completed? Why would you claim it's decided in the opening when black basically gives you a piece like a 700 beginner?
In my last message I wrote that I am over 2000 in USCF. The national rating system. I have a FIDE rating but it's basically provisional. So I don't use it till I obtain over 50 games. I don't play here enough yet to claim a rating. In Lichess I am over 2100. I GOT there without memorizing openings. I understood the systems I played. I never memorized a long line going to 2000. I simply studied the base pawn structure and learned the mechanics of where my pieces go. That is completely different than memorizing opening theory. So I am wondering if you are confusing the ideas. I know tons of masters that tell me specifically that it is impossible to memorize tons of theory and that it is a waste of time to do it. So why argue about it with people who have achieved higher status consistently?
I understand the idea of sticking to your guns. It's good when it comes to learning. However, it's bad juju to be so stuck on an idea that you don't listen to the actual points people are making. 1300 - 1700 is good. It's a decent 400 point jump. But you're not the only one who has done a 400+ point jump. You can look at my uscf profile if you want. I can give it to you in PM. I did a literal 1100 point jump total. And my biggest jump was back near 2005-2009 when I did a 600 point jump. It's not unheard of, and people do it as soon as they figure out what is holding them back as an individual. Some people do better with memorizing small theory. Some people can memorize and entire book, (these are usually people with photographic memory or close to), some people can't memorize ANYTHING opening theory wise. So last questions: Why be so animate about 1300-1700 when it's still possible there is easier ways? And why supply games that seem like they are basically an average class player game that doesn't really have testing theoretical battles?
Not trying to insult anyone, just I am trying to point out things that look obvious and I am asking honest questions that either should clarify my understanding of where you come from, or give basis for getting closer to mutual understanding. I hope to take it that way.
Monster_Melons wrote:
Either I lose in the opening or I win the game. Only by memorizing tons of opening moves have I been able to rise from 1300 to 1700. It's not possible to get over 1500 without pretty much knowledge about openings. Probably, you have known so much about openings that other parts of the game have been what has kept you down.
The text editor in this sucks. I can't figure out how to change the area quoted. So the areas before, "Monster_Melons wrote:" where it still quotes is just regular and the text editor from chess.com isn't very intuitive. And those quotes are just me typing what I can.
Aug 4, 2020
0
#285
Being good at tactic is useless if you always mess up the openings like I do.
Looks like the confusion (or disagreement) is about words and phrases only. You need to know where to put your pieces in the opening. Most people call it opening theory. You seem to call it ideas instead of theory, or something like that. I'm not talking about knowing exactly each and every half move, but to know how to organize your own pieces. They have their known places, like bishop on g2.
Aug 4, 2020
0
#287
I have to disagree with op a little. General opening principles can carry you pretty high, but that’s the exception. I know some 800s who have a repertoire while when I was 800 uscf I didn’t even know what the four knights was called (I just called it “the opening”). I broke 1000 by improving calculation, yes, but when I studied openings I was able to improve quickly as well.
Very good. I was thinking that was the issue. The reason I am doing it how I do it is because memorizing theory is literally that. You are memorizing move by move specific variations. And messing up those variations could mean death. This is generally necessary in highly tactical lines like a Smith Morra or Najdorf. Now I believe it's very important to distinguish the difference between the two because something simple like this can easily be confused between parties. That is why I use the verbiage I did. Which is, Understanding of an opening, rather than memorizing opening theory. All understanding and memorizing specific theory is indeed opening theory, but saying you memorized it is not correct. And especially in your quote in my previous message specifically stated you "Memorized tons of opening moves". That is completely different than saying you have studied several opening theory, and that it was a must for you to do so.
I would agree which I stated previously in my first interjection to this topic that some people need this. The main example is when I point to the opening theory section in my first message. I specifically state that a lot of people need a "Framework". And from our discussion it looks like you do well with a framework method.
Monster_Melons wrote:
Looks like the confusion (or disagreement) is about words and phrases only. You need to know where to put your pieces in the opening. Most people call it opening theory. You seem to call it ideas instead of theory, or something like that. I'm not talking about knowing exactly each and every half move, but to know how to organize your own pieces. They have their known places, like bishop on g2.
SNUDOO wrote:
I have to disagree with op a little. General opening principles can carry you pretty high, but that’s the exception. I know some 800s who have a repertoire while when I was 800 uscf I didn’t even know what the four knights was called (I just called it “the opening”). I broke 1000 by improving calculation, yes, but when I studied openings I was able to improve quickly as well.
----------------------------------------
Let me say that I have training a little in this understanding of general principles. I noticed you said, "General opening principles". And I believe this is a misnomer. General opening principles really are not principles at all. They are guides for complete beginners to use as memory aides to get out of the opening. IM Silman I believe correctly coined them as "Profound platitudes" because they tell you what to remember. Not what to do. I speak of the ones everyone knows like, "Knights before bishops, put one or two pawns in the opening, don't bring your queen out early, etc etc" To me those are not principles. They are just memory aides. When you understand them you get rid of them.
To me principles are things you use throughout the entire game! So for example. The extreme of the most famous examples is the principle of the center. This a lot of people don't truly understand. They think "The principle of the center means I control the center". But again that statement is a profound platitude, ala Silman. Why do you control the center? How do you control the center? When does the center become something that you don't pay attention to? When is it important to integrate the center into your considerations? These are what is called active thinking questions or critical thinking questions. I will give an example of this, but please note.. That doesn't mean that is the end all be all of this idea.
One of the key features of the principle of the center is pawn levers.. or pawn breaks. You use them in instances of determining it is important to change the pawn structure. Or in times when you determine you need them as a counter attack measure. A real popular one is when you find yourself under attack on the wing. If the center is still not closed most people know that they should counter attack with a pawn break in the center. This is just one idea inside the umbrella of the principle of the center. There are several other ideas some are attack based and some are defense based. A lot of the time when it is attack, you are learning that the center is a great base for quickly repositioning your pieces.
I know personally 2 schools of principled chess. They are actually very specific and I think they build on each other. One I first learned from the books written by GM Yasser Seirawan. And I also heard later in my life that GM Larry Evans also taught this method maybe earlier than Yasser. It's the base idea in his "Play winning chess book" which brought up the ideas behind Force, Space, Time, and Pawn Structure. It was one of my most enlightening courses. And I didn't even realize it till recently how enlightening it really was. After I realized it, I use to call his "Play winning chess" his "real opening book" because you could use the ideas in that book to play any opening competently. And I said it AFTER reading his newest, "Winning chess openings" which I coined as just a reference manual at best. And I stopped recommending it.
My second "training" or "School" is a private school that made attempts of modernizing Steinitz's laws of chess. Which was part of my explanation up there about the center. It made heavy notes about how understanding "base strategic principles" in a deep way would help you understand chess better overall. And I agree. It has vastly changed my point of view. Where use to think you needing opening to play the opening, I now understand that you need principles to understand the openings. And that you don't "NEED" openings to play the game. You "Play the openings" to enhance your understanding of principles. One of the exercises I use to do was to pick an opening to study. Say, the Ruy lopez. And go to where the opening stopped. (This was determined by principles by the way), then go backwards through the moves and nitpicking the moves for how they follow principled chess. This was a very unique idea for me. I have never really studied openings in this manner before. And it was extremely helpful.
Principles in general are not just profound platitudes. They are verbal explanations of actual chess theory. They even have a section just on attack, correctly termed, "The principle of attack" where you look deep into the ideas that help you determine the function of how to attack.
Personally I think they should just do away with "General opening principles". People overall take them too highly and I think it hurts their progress overall.
ada
Aug 5, 2020
0
#291
Encephalocele wrote:
Personally I think they should just do away with "General opening principles". People overall take them too highly and I think it hurts their progress overall.
Ummm....you kind of need to get good at standing before walking...and walking before running. It kind of follows. Same with chess...one "can" become a slave to 'general principles', but that is not normally the case to anyone with any real ambition.
This is interesting. For my part whatever level you are at say below over the board ELO 2400, I would say tactical training is vital. To me it's the basic language of chess. Along with tactical training that I would say focusing on technical and then complex endgames is the best way to learn chess. Once you have done that middle games can be better understood - to be fair most people will need guidance from a coach to make real progress at that point.
Openings for 1000 to 1800 are simply not that important. What counts is knowing the defenses to tricks and gambits so you don't get blown off the board, and learning a number of model games for each opening that you play that teach the most common plans that arise. Lajos Portisch once wrote the goal of the opening is to reach a playable middle-game. I'll support that. I think a lot of the comments are centered around the idea that studying openings for the bulk of your training time is misguided - I agree. I also have an opinion on what it means to study chess openings - but I'm not going into that here. I will say you will need a good, well rehearsed opening repertoire when you start pushing for titles, but not before.
In summary as Capablanca pointed out long ago - learn chess backwards. Endgame - Middlegame - Openings. If you really want to improves, then tactics and endgames (technical then complex) will lay the foundation for 'getting good'. I should note that I didn't do that and it cost me 30 years! I wish I had realize all that when I was 12 ..... Oh well.
AntonioEsfandiari a écrit :
You can get to the master level without studying openings really at all. As long as you understand basic opening principles. Develop efficiently, control the center, knights before bishops, castle, connect the rooks, pawn storm if opposite sides castled, thats pretty much all you need to know. Tactics are what win or lose games, not which opening you picked. Also it is much easier to learn an opening when you are 1500+ level as opposed to 1000 level. The stronger you get tactically, the more patterns you have solidified and the easier it is to learn openings, because you will actually UNDERSTAND the moves and why they work, and you will be learning the openings instead of memorizing them. Any 1000 level player devoted to studying openings is wasting their time. Again what is the point of getting a perfect opening on move 10 you are +.3!! but then you suck at tactics so you blunder two pawns by move 14 and you are in a lost position.
And I got from 700 to 1300 in 6 months, without doing all your stuff
My tactics (now called puzzle rating) is 2249, but I have no chance against people rated 1500 in the opening. This is my last game:
Any advice on how to study/improve openings? I can't find any of the advices in this thread helpful. The game is lost after move number 6.
Something funny just happened. I played another game, this time against a player rated 1471, and the opening was almost the same. This time I managed the first 6 moves because I remembered what happened in the previous game. But of course, the game was lost after move number 7.
You should probably learn theory/strategical ideas/ ideas in a particular openings, plans, etc.. I recommend you choose an opening that fits your style and secure a response to all sane moves from opponent, you don't have to lock yourself in a room and study lines and lines of chess if you don' enjoy it. I also recommend to choose an opening that fits your style, since your style is probably tactical since you have 2000+ tactics, I recommend you not play the Qgd, because when you play it you wanna get a firm position, I recommend the KID, and 1.e4, and then against 1.e4 you can choose one because I love the french defense but not sure if it is good for you
Quote: "secure a response to all sane moves from opponent"
I thought this thread was all about not doing that. Have I misunderstood something?
Well, it;s obvious you have an issue in openings whilst having 2000+ tactics. IMO your rating is too high to say that you can progress without studying openings
I know this is an old post and probably weeded out already. But if it's any consolation I am over 2000 USCF and no real opening theory till after I hit that 2000 benchmark. I know a few masters that play by feeling and never opened an opening book in their lives. I also know some of those masters never studied a tactic puzzle either. I am not saying any one person is right or wrong in this. What I am saying is that when it comes down to it, I agree that you don't need opening theory from ECO to learn basic chess. I also agree that tactics are in the top 3 things you should focus on. Where I separate is that I don't believe tactics puzzles are always necessary. And I don't think all players should always avoid some opening theory.
For example: Tactically you should probably understand that tactics are not different than chess strategy. So saying, "I won a game without tactics just planning" is just simply a misnomer. For one thing checkmate is a tactic. Tactics are just plans. The difference between tactical planning and strategic planning is you know the outcome of a tactical plan most of the time, and you may not know the outcome of a strategic plan. Tactics tend to be more straight forward and concrete. I spend most of my tactical studies looking at games and categorizing the tactics found in them. I themed them most of the time. There is always more than one way to skin a tactic.
Opening theory: I once trained someone from 900-1800 in less than a year before he went to college for med school. He spent most of his childhood and around 2-3 years of his adulthood fumbling around with the 900 rating. When I met him he was 22. I met with him one on one and not once did I show him an opening. I told him, "play 1. e4 and use what I tell you and it will improve your play." And he did. I also told him that he can mimic some of the other club members and the info I told him would pretty much guide him through most openings. I went over the elements of chess, Some basic strategic principles, and we spend a lot of time talking about tactics in games and endgame ideas. We went to tournaments together and compared games and results. The only thing I was a little jealous of was right before he left he played in a local tournament with me that was one of our first CCA tournaments, and he obtained his first USCF CM norm before I got my first. I kind of made a friendly bet with him that he couldn't do it and he did. Most people don't need real opening theory at all. Some people need framework. For example: A player they like they can "copy" moves as long as they put some kind of logical thought to why the moves were played. Or they can study a system opening like the london, or a small opening book you can print onto 3-4 sheets. I have a book right now that I created in lichess. Has basic Ruy Lopez theory and some basic replies for 1. e4. I can literally print that right now and it would't take more than a few pages for all the replies. You can learn it in less than 2 hours if you want to take it seriously, and 30-40 min if you want to just look at it for ideas. This file satisfies the people that need a framework similar to the London or other systems like that. But I guarantee you don't "NEED" to study openings all that much or at all at least from 0-2000.
And since it was brought up prior, I am not stating this as someone who can't reach the level I am claiming. I claimed at least up to my level and I did give mention that yes, I know some masters who have similar training. If you want a follow up to the agree idea? I once spoke with GM Jesse Kraai after asking the question in chesslecture.com about how I should approach learning my openings and even requested a video on the openings I was interested in. His reply was quick and straight forward. "I will analyse one of your games for free and make a video of it if you promise me you will forget openings and study real chess." The video is still in chesslecture.com by the way. At the time I believe I was about 1700 and I was considering serious opening study but couldn't figure out how to study them properly, so I asked the question to chesslecture.com support and they forwarded my email to Jesse. I am going to say, that in combination with that comment, a comment NM Brian Wall said, and the video. It changed my whole outlook on chess study. Not everyone is the same.. So saying one way suits all is just bad education.