and another reason why focusing on openings is stupid, opening theory changes, tactical patterns don't . alpha zero already showed us that we may be completely off in some of our opening assessments, and that was with less than a day of training, so what happens to all the time you spend basically memorizing hundreds of variations that are already fading out of popularity. what happens when chess 960 becomes more popular than chess? I guess all is not lost because you could relate similar plans to similar structures...but there won't be these huge upset games because the lower rated player was more prepared (unless they show the position well before the tournament) but even still the long-term value of memorizing specific lines will only decrease as we plunge into the future.
HEY NOOBS! Forget Openings, Study Tactics (The right way)
... I see you in every thread spongey promoting literature and books, but really your audience should be ignoring you, getting off the forums and spending that time on the tactics trainer for fast tangible results.
As you know, somebody or other commented, "You can pick an opening as white and a couple of defenses as black to stick with, and you can look at master level games in that opening on chessgames.com ...".
So would there they be anything wrong with (for example) pointing out that such games (along with explanations) can be found in books?
When Fischer Random Chess becomes more popular I will return to hunting&fishing and pool ... wait , I already have . 
... I see you in every thread spongey promoting literature and books, but really your audience should be ignoring you, getting off the forums and spending that time on the tactics trainer for fast tangible results.
As you know, somebody or other commented, "You can pick an opening as white and a couple of defenses as black to stick with, and you can look at master level games in that opening on chessgames.com ...".
So would there they be anything wrong with (for example) pointing out that such games (along with explanations) can be found in books?
Yes, we live in an age of information overload and most of the time the information people are given is not the best information available. Like you said everyone is different, and everyone learns in different ways, yet you are throwing around dozens of book suggestions with quotes and links, Everyone has their own strengths and weaknesses and different things they should improve upon, but EVERYONE needs to work on or stay sharp with tactics (if chess is a real interest or hobby, and more than just a casual game to pass the time for them)
Interesting claims by a not so master level player.But at the least being familiar with a few lines in the opening helps,otherwise the your so called 'NOOB' or 'street urchin lowlife'-beginners will be blown out of the board in the first 12 moves,before they know it and it will be painful when they have done nth level tactics to the infinite times.So claims like tactics will take you there is false.A pure beginner wont even recognize a basic pattern, let alone tactics.So to learn tactics rather than openings first is like lifting ones legs before you put your ass on a chair,sure to fall,tada!
Forget Openings, Study Tactics
I don't know if that's the best way to go... but tell you what: I can meet you halfway. I can forget openings.
Paul Morphy never studied openings ...
"... Morphy possessed the most profound book knowledge of any master of his time, ..." - Steinitz (1886)
Which openings did he study? Which chess literature did he study? ...
I am not aware of detailed records of Morphy's studying, but one could perhaps get some idea by looking at his games.
... I think the main reason why it is extremely pointless for a 1200 to study openings extensively is, a 1200 wouldn't know how to punish his opponent for deviating from the mainline anyway so what is the point in memorizing the main lines.. Even IF the opening went perfectly for the 1200, he wouldn't know what to do with his .3 pawn advantage once the phase is over..
What about sometimes managing "not to ... fall into ... lines that result in difficult positions"?
Since this guy loves Heisman so much I thought I would stick the dogs nose in it Chess isn't 99% tactics, it's just that tactics takes up 99% of your time" -- Dan HEISMAN
Kindaspongey I think I have had enough Dan Heisman quotes for the day, can you please stop, lol. We already went over this, everyone is different but everyone has the same type of neural network pattern-based learning mechanisms in their brain. ...
As I recall, AntonioEsfandiari wrote: "Sure, everybody has ABILITIES in different areas. Some are going to be able to learn chess faster than others simply because the algorithms in their brain's neural network are more efficient at indexing geometrical-spacial information. The other person might be brilliant with language and communication. We ARE all different. ..."
Consequently, when someone tells of what has worked for a person, I see nothing inappropriate about raising NM Dan Heisman's comment about something not working for another, as well as NM Dan Heisman's notion of sensible general advice.
Interesting claims by a not so master level player.But at the least being familiar with a few lines in the opening helps,otherwise the your so called 'NOOB' or 'street urchin lowlife'-beginners will be blown out of the board in the first 12 moves,before they know it and it will be painful when they have done nth level tactics to the infinite times.So claims like tactics will take you there is false.A pure beginner wont even recognize a basic pattern, let alone tactics.So to learn tactics rather than openings first is like lifting ones legs before you put your ass on a chair,sure to fall,tada!
Spartan I looked through your games and couldn't find any for you, if you could, would you please show me a game of yours that was decided by your opening and not by tactics? I'm itchin for some evidence!
I think some of these people are just frustrated with tactics or they don't have the patience for them. That's why I wrote this! Check out the original OP you probably are doing them wrong! Pretty much every master has done thousands of tactics puzzles! If puzzles aren't working for you, you either haven't done enough, or you aren't doing them right. Most likely you aren't analyzing the puzzles after you fail, so you aren't maximizing your learning of new patterns and correction of miscalculations.
... Nobody is going to be a master level player while they are 1200 in tactics, it just doesn't work that way.
Is anybody advocating the idea of trying to be a master level player while being "1200 in tactics"?
I have heard many masters say not to memorize opening moves/lines, but I have yet to hear one say ‘do not study openings’ or ‘you can become a master without study the openings.’
Has anybody met anyone who has tactic’d and generally strategized his/her way to master? What do you do when there is no big material gain or checkmate on the horizon, as is often the case at high club level chess? Hope your opponent hands one to you for free? Hope your tactics and calculation skills are 3 classes higher than your booked up and similarly-rated opponent, who must have only gotten to that level through sheer dumb luck against a succession other booked up tactical idiots? Take the open file with your rook? Oh, but you should have figured out that all the action was on the other side of the board, like the many prior masters may or may not have figured out by now after 70 years of evolving theory, if only you TRULY knew the general principles of positional chess and knew how to assess a position unlike that 1800-level positional idiot, Paul Morphy.
And I didn't mean NOOB in an offensive way, we are all noobs compared to someone. It is the humble mind that learns the fastest as it is prepared to learn a lot and it is fully accepting to change its old ways of thinking.
I will show you a game I won WITHOUT Tactics with one bishop. I will just show how the mate looked. I had no plan or tactic.
We could argue that your opponent lost, because HE didnt know his tactics well enough.
Or more likely his openings. Such a weakening of his kingside violated at least a dozen opening principles.
Interesting claims by a not so master level player.But at the least being familiar with a few lines in the opening helps,otherwise the your so called 'NOOB' or 'street urchin lowlife'-beginners will be blown out of the board in the first 12 moves,before they know it and it will be painful when they have done nth level tactics to the infinite times.So claims like tactics will take you there is false.A pure beginner wont even recognize a basic pattern, let alone tactics.So to learn tactics rather than openings first is like lifting ones legs before you put your ass on a chair,sure to fall,tada!
Spartan I looked through your games and couldn't find any for you, if you could, would you please show me a game of yours that was decided by your opening and not by tactics? I'm itchin for some evidence!
As the way you give advises,the same way you are looking in the wrong places for answers.My games have nothing to do with teaching a beginner to play chess.I said that a pure beginner doesn't even recognize basic patterns to look out for tactics and without recognizing a pattern how will a player make tactical assessment of a position.And if you are considering me as a beginner and taking a jibe at me,its okay i get it.What should i prove? that you are right! ha..never happening from my games archive because i have been playing chess for a while and know most openings and tactics and i mess up in the middle game.And i don't take chess that serious now and play just 1min and 4 player games for fun.So i stand by my point,no evidence to scratch that itch of yours,sorry.
... I recently smashed a NM in 5:0 otb at the local chess Meetup in the Smith morra. I bought Essermans book book but I only got through 10-15%of it. but if I had tried to learn the Smith morra as a 1200 or even 1500 the lines would have been a lot harder to learn as the tactics aren't simple, plus I would have likely failed at converting even a piece up advantage vs a NM as a 1500. also I would have been a fish out of water if for example they declined c3 and all of a sudden I'm in the alapin
Is anyone advocating the Smith Morra here? How often does a 1500 play an NM?
"... I feel that the main reasons to buy an opening book are to give a good overview of the opening, and to explain general plans and ideas. ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)
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.
Now, this is just an absolute lie. You won't get to 1800 without any opening knowledge. Some openings don't allow tactics from the beginning, and what do you do then? Some openings are designed to trap the person who develops according to basic opening principles. You know, when there are no checks, captures, hanging pieces, checks in 2 moves, no queen attacks in 2 moves, no option for controlling open files (since there are none), and or long diagonals (closed game). No knowledge of key squares for outposting, or knowledge of certain middlegame ideas, and attacks. Just knowledge of pins, skewers, deflections, discovered attacks, discovered checks, mate attacks etc? I doubt you will get to 1800 with just that kind of knowledge right there. You need to learn the whole game and quit misleading the noobs. Have a good day.
You are misunderstanding me, let me explain. I am talking about STUDYING openings. You do not need to buy an opening book and read it, THAT is what I am saying. IF you play thousands of blitz games or hundreds of slow games you will LEARN about your openings and all of the basic traps and tactics (hopefully) WITHOUT having to crack open a book that is full of variations to memorize.
I am not recommending that you try to get to the master level without opening study, I am saying it is humanly possible with enough effort and study in other areas. Step 1: Why don't you try to get to the 1600 OTB level first without opening study, as that is still a galaxy away from the master level, and a galaxy above the 1000 OTB level. Is a 1000 level player going to get an opening advantage against a 1600 level player? It's certainly possible, is the 1000 going to convert that advantage into a win while avoiding blundering a tactic for the next 30 moves? Not very likely.
Again this is targeted at NEW players, BEGINNERS, 600-1200 up to intermediate players of 1500. Pick an opening to stick with for a while , look at some top level games played in that opening if you want, get the general concepts, OK, now you are all set, focus on tactics now. Don't buy any opening books until you are playing OTB tournament games and your coach tells you that openings are your biggest problem.
Also, a 51.3% loss rate really doesn’t show that you’re believable.
You can't use loss rates....
You should be pretty darn close to 50% if you play opponents near your rating. Who's better, a person who has a 51.3% loss rate against an average of 800 rated opponents, or a person who has a 61.3% loss rate against an average of 2500 rated players?
What about somebody who has a 0% loss rate against a hundred 800 rated players or somebody who has a 90% loss rate against 2700s? There is really no way to tell...
Compare ratings, but loss rate only shows if a person more plays people who are better than them or more people who are worse than them, not their actual skill