I memorized openings and understood the strategies that goes ahead from playing a lot of it. Of course ratings can you expect a 500 online rated to beat you . Of course you will 100% win all your games because you have better understanding. Very easy.
Just to make sure this isn't a language barrier: Are you saying when you were 500-rated, you were memorizing openings? And when was this? How long ago?
Even at the grassroots level of the GMs, we should probably stick to more basic lines if we are under 2000. This is where it flies over your head and you say don't study openings, because you are trying to eat a whole horse, swallow a whole whale.
Nope.
I wrote three sentences, I don't see how that is a diatribe. One is only three words total. I am getting the impression you are now in the "defensive master throne" realizing your BS has been debunked. You are like Putin looking for a way out.
Also, nope.
@PawnTsunamii Yes I mermorized openings when I was a 200-300 total beginner year 2009.
No tactics, no strategy, no pawn structures. Just opening memorization?
Yes just memorization and 90 mins each side time control. Every day. And most basic endgames like how to mate King and Queen and Rook, King and Queen, and King and Rook stuffs like that.
And were you using MCO for this?
That is why I said it depends on what you mean. For example, suppose you teach them the classical "ideal" setup:
The student can then "build a repertoire" by trying to reach that configuration and deviate when Black does not allow a given move. For example, if they play 1. e4 and Black plays 1...e5, obviously White can no longer play Bf4, but Nc3 or Nf3 can both be played - which do they like? Etc.
I encountered that setup (or something quite similar) in one of the first chess books I ever read, back when I was around 9 years old. It was by Reinfeld, Horowitz, or perhaps Chernev ... I can no longer recall, at this point. Nostalgia.
But yes, that's certainly a logical way to approach the opening. It'll definitely require a lot of trial and error to build a repertoire from that starting point, but it's still a very reasonable approach.
Though, even that, it seems, some players on these forums would discourage. It sounds like they'd prefer players to treat every first move as if it's the first time ever seeing the board - like a brand new Fischer Random position every time.
I think that's asking too much of a learning player, especially when it's not required.
But again, even suggesting something like building a repertoire using one's knowledge of basic "opening principles" seems like it'll still get the "Nope! That's still opening stuff! Not needed until 2000 FIDE!" response, with fingers plugged in ears ... Which, to me, is rather silly indeed ...
If every single beginner followed this terrible advice of studying openings theory then we would just have a bunch of people who would know 10 move deep likes of QGD but they will hang a piece as soon as the opponent plays something else 🤣🤣
I'm 2300+ on this website, and I don't study "opening theory". Too advanced for me.
Though I do study openings, and their general ideas. There's a difference ...
Ofcourse, a 2300+ should study openings yes. I am talking about under 2000 players
@PawnTsunami beat my rating first and I will believe you.
@PawnTsunami why am i going to answer your questions. It is very clear I have better understanding. No need to debate. I will sell all my beach resorts if we play money games. Lol
Feel free to come play me live, OTB. We can even film it.
And if your "understanding" is so much better than mine, it isn't much of a debate - simply demonstrate how I'm incorrect. Tell me how you studied openings as a beginner, and how long ago this was. Should be pretty simple. After all, you are asserting your online rating gives you the credentials to provide advice counter to the prevailing wisdom, so please, educate us poor low-rated souls.