IM Greg Shahade on Studying Openings

SmyslovFan mentioned IM Shahade's USCF articles in one of Chicken_Monster's topics. I've read them too and they provide the best recommendations for opening study I've seen anywhere.

Not only is Shahade an IM but more importantly he is the founder of the US Chess School and is deeply involved in teaching chess.

Greg on Chess: The Value of Studying Openings
http://www.uschess.org/content/view/11692/665

Greg on Building an Opening Repertoire
http://www.uschess.org/content/view/11634/675

Shahade says so many great things that could move the usual opening discussions here to a higher level:

I’m sure you’ve heard the cliché that “Studying the opening is not very important, you should study tactics/endgames/the middle game before worrying about the opening.” Though I agree that studying tactics, positional play, endgame ideas is very important, I think studying openings is very valuable and should be an important staple of every chess player’s study regimen.

The best reason to study openings is that when you do it right, you aren’t only studying an opening. You pick up many important strategical/tactical concepts in the process. When I study an opening, I almost always learn a few common themes that transcend just one opening.

I like how all his example are middlegame examples.

Maybe he doesn't realize when low rated players talk about studying the opening they mean memorizing the first 10 moves of a main line... and even if a move is bizarre or interesting it doesn't matter, they memorize it and move on.

The "Move by Move" series is quite good in this respect. Rather than being actual opening books they are more like annotated game collections where all the games have the same opening. The opening part of the game isn't really prioritised over the middle game. Another way to study openings is to read a book like Pawn Structure Chess which shows you what ideas you should look to use in different pawn structures.

I like how all his example are middlegame examples.

Well, Shahade's an IM and his examples of learning ideas from the opening will obviously be later than the early opening.

But a new player encountering, say, the Nimzo-Indian will not only learn a QP defense, but also the trade-offs between doubled-pawns and the two bishops -- a theme that pops up in other openings and other phases of the game.

So you could read a book on chess strategy or the middlegame or you could learn it straight from the Nimzo, the Exchange Ruy or the French Winawer.

The opening has more undeveloped pieces on the board, but it's still chess. You encounter the same issues of tactics, strategy, pawn structure etc.

The key, of course, is to understand what you're playing rather than rote memorization.

Maybe he doesn't realize when low rated players talk about studying the opening they mean memorizing the first 10 moves of a main line... and even if a move is bizarre or interesting it doesn't matter, they memorize it and move on.

I keep hearing about these guys but where are they? Do they post on chess.com?

Or is this a strawman so some commenters can be the Big Dogs who growl, "Kid, you don't get to study openings. You ain't earned it."

Ultimately I agree with Shahade's idea, I'm just poking fun at the way he's saying it.

As for players who memorize without understanding, I assume that's most of us. If I'm wrong then I'm wrong.

Wake up me for one of those guys then.

The posts I keep running into are of the "OMG, there is so much opening theory, where do I start?" or "What's a good book on the French for a beginner?" sorts.

And then the Big Dogs growl, "Kid, you shouldn't even be studying openings. Stick to your tactics and endgames."

Bang! Right on point!

@leiph15: As for players who memorize without understanding, I assume that's most of us. If I'm wrong then I'm wrong.

I'm sure we don't understand all the moves we play -- certainly not as grandmasters do.

The Najdorf's 4...a6 might be such a move. It doesn't develop a piece. It doesn't fight directly for the center. It doesn't threaten anything immediate. It doesn't get Black closer to castling. In other words it's not a move amateurs would come up with on their own. From what I can tell it's not a move grandmasters played much until the 1940s.

So point taken that amateurs play some moves because that's the way a particular opening is played. But that doesn't mean that we play all our opening moves without understanding.

When I was starting out my grandfather explained the first several moves of the Ruy and I got it, not perfectly, but afterward I wasn't playing those moves like a telephone number I had memorized.

All that said, I do think memorization gets a bad rap as well in these discussions.

According to Shahade memorization does have a place in opening study, though he's talking about students who aren't learning the Nimzo or whatever for the first time and who are serious about chess.

Another common yet annoying saying is "focus on learning the ideas of an opening, not exact variations." That's complete nonsense. Yes you should know the ideas in all openings you play, and in some openings the ideas may be more important than precise moves. The Carlsbad Structure of the Queen's Gambit Declined, the Closed Sicilian or the Giuoco Pianissimo all come to mind. However in the majority of openings you should know exactly what to do in quite a few critical positions. You shouldn't find yourself in a key position thinking "well I know these three ideas in the position, I wonder which one is best".

The ideas over concrete lines is a stupid saying that is misinterpreted by coaches everywhere who constantly repeat it back to me without having any idea what it means, which basically gives kids to be lazy and not memorize anything. If you play the Dragon you better know the ideas, but you definitely ought to know exactly what moves to play against many of white's sharp replies.

 I just lost a game rook and two pawns vs bishop and one pawn.

My opening was flawless. I was winning and I made an oversight, but its hard for strong players to see games like this and sugest that I need to work on my opening

@JGambit: My opening was flawless. I was winning and I made an oversight, but its hard for strong players to see games like this and sugest that I need to work on my opening

In that opening line, maybe so. But if you are a class player, I'll bet your openings are not typically flawless. Mine sure aren't.

As Shahade says:

I agree that studying tactics, positional play, endgame ideas is very important, I think studying openings ... should be an important staple of every chess player's study regimen.

When I first learned how to play chess, all I had was some old copy of an opening encyclopedia.  I thought in order to learn chess you had to memorize the opening moves, so that's what I did.  It didn't get me very far.

Go back and look at all of your losses.  How many of them were lost out of the opening and you never had a chance to equalize or improve sometime later in the middle game?  1%? 2%?

How many times did you lose because of tactics, poor time management, bad thought process or not choosing a good plan in the middlegame.  The other 99%.

I've said on the forums before that there's an appropriate level of opening study for each level, similar to how Silman does his endgame book.  The general problem is someone loses in the middle game to tactics, and thinks the reason they lost is because the didn't know the opening well enough so they go back and memorize more lines.  Only to lose in the middlegame again.  And I know a bunch of 2000ish players who have hardly any opening knowledge.  They know what the name of their opening is, and maybe the first 3-4 moves in a couple variations and that's it.  Yet they got out of class play without memorizing opening moves.

There's a right way for a class player to study an opening, and that's familiarizing himself with the typical ideas and plans that come about in the middle game.  And at a slightly more advanced level, what endgames result from the opening.

"Don't worry about studying the opening" is shorthand for "don't waste your time memorizing lines and reading a bunch of books on the opening".  Yes, we can do better by being more specific with the advice on the opening.  

Using openings is a great way to teach tactics in context of something other than a puzzle book.  Ruy Lopez is great for showing removal of the guard, pins and double attacks in an actual game.  So it builds understanding of what White and Black are trying to accomplish in the opening and why they are making certain moves.  But just memorizing the first 10 moves of the mainline Ruy isn't going to help much if you don't understand what all the jockeying for position was that led up to that.

Sure, because instead of the growling, when they're told to start with, e.g. a french advance variation, they come back a month later with:

And you realize, oh, they dont understand anything, so even if they were to study the opening, the game will just end in disaster again and again. I guess I should tell them it's important to e.g. not bring the queen out early and be sure to see what their opponent's last move threatened before they make their move. What helps people see threats? Tactics.

Or someone says, no, the move is 4.c3 because it defend d4 and goes on and on about central space and the middlegame kingside ideas after ...cxd cxd. Sounds good right? But without basics their next game looks like this:

With openings it seems, you are damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

And as for whether you should or shouldn't (under 2000 say) I think I am in both camps!

By the way some players don't understand the terms either.

To them, if they lose in the first 10 moves, it means they need to work on openings because they lost in the opening.

Similarly you'll see players post about help me in the endgame, when it's move 20... they think endgame means the moves that happen right before the game ends.

Anyway most people asking for help with openings want it to be their cure-all. I don't agree opening study should be ignored, I think you need a little of everything at every level... which is why I'd tell the the imaginary player of the games I posted to work on tactics and opening principals.