Yes, I learned openings early too.
Then I learned some tactics, middlegame, strategy, and endgame.
Then I learned some more openings.
And some more tactics, mid-game etc.
What I didn't do is buy 5 openings books from everyman chess and read them for years without improving my rating or play...
I think that the concept of lower rated players not studying openings has to be taken with a grain of salt. I don't study openings per se. But, I go over my games, compare them with games in databases, try to figure out why my moves are inferior, etc. Guess what? I am indirectly studying openings and after enough repetition, I have gained some opening knowledge.
What I think would be a waste of my time would be to buy books devoted to a single opening or a single opening variation.
From #17: After you play over, say, 500 or so GM games and analyze them yourself you'll have a pretty good idea of how to approach the opening without having formally "studied" them.
I'm going to learn an opening, I keep saying and I'm soon to do it. Need to pick one. Not a problem to memorize the moves, but how far into the game does one stick to theory? If the opponent is making novel moves, doesn't one adjust accordingly?
I've enjoyed your conversation. I lose in the opening because I don't have one.
You can't pick just one opening. That's of little use. You have to have a complete opening repertoire if you are going to look at openings and that is a huge task.
Thx a lot!
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
What IM Shahade points out in the first diagram is a middlegame theme. Without even studying openings, and having gone through some of Igor Smirnov's stuff, you know that Nb1 is the correct move.
It follows the principle of the least active piece. Places the knight on a better square, controls a square, and activates the bishop. You dont ned to know the opening to know this stuff.
Q: How do you eat an elephant?
A: One bite at a time.
There's a vast amount of chess information for a player to absorb, whether it's openings, middlegames, endgames, tactics or strategies. However you do it, it's going to be by a tiny amount at a time.
There's nothing to do about this but start digging in. Unless you have a coach, you will have to decide your priorities and methods for learning.
Yes, you can just pick one opening to start with. Learn the first four or five moves. Go out into the world and try it. Come back and study what happened. Learn some more. Each time you go a little deeper and a little broader.
You are missing the point. The point is that you get a lot of that type of thing through opening study, not that specific idea. The fact that that specific idea can be obtained in a different way is irrelevant.
Also, these middle game ideas that you are learning this way will actually come up much more often in the games you actually play since they are a result of the opening you are studying. If you came across this idea by studying just middle games, it wouldn't be connected to the games you actually play, necessarily. Learning these concepts through opening study is a much more cohesive overall approach.
zealandzen
If your approach to the opening is to memorize line after line, let me save you some time and say stop now. What you need is to realize that the goal of any opening is to get you to a playable middle game. It's the ideas that you try to develope after the opening is completed that you need to focus on, not tons of theory. If you don't understand the basis of the play you'll never be able to take advantage of the other guy when he plays a move/line that isn't in the books. You'll just be left out there dangling saying, "What do I do now?" It's the middle game you're trying to get to, so it's a good idea to know what you want to do when you do get there. The ideas matter so much more; the move order is only critical when you're playing masters and above. The bonus is that knowing the ideas lets you get away with not having to memorize everything--you already know the positions you are trying to get to.
From #17: After you play over, say, 500 or so GM games and analyze them yourself you'll have a pretty good idea of how to approach the opening without having formally "studied" them.
I'm going to learn an opening, I keep saying and I'm soon to do it. Need to pick one. Not a problem to memorize the moves, but how far into the game does one stick to theory? If the opponent is making novel moves, doesn't one adjust accordingly?
I've enjoyed your conversation. I lose in the opening because I don't have one.
Forget memorizing moves, forget "theory", forget about memorizing openings. What you need to learn and understand are the ideas behind the opening moves. You dont lose in the opening because you dont know the opening, you lose in the opening because you dont understand the moves, and ideas behind them.
"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."
--IM Greg Shahade in the article this entire thread is about.
"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."
--IM Greg Shahade in the article this entire thread is about.
Its not nonsense, but to each his own.
I actually learned openings first (Italian, Ruy Lopez, Semi-Slav). I'm doing quite good nowadays. Experimenting with them was quite useful in my experience.