What I think many object to isn't so much studying openings but the memorization of deep lines that:
a) They don't really understand &
b) That they are very unlikely to get.
study or not study opening? (1st category)
Sort:
Most Recent
Forum Legend
Following
New Comments
Locked Topic
Pinned Topic
Some ideas in the opening were only discovered centuries later. Some of the strongest players in history did not respond with the best move (theoretically speaking) in some variants of the Sicilian or Queen's Gambit or Nimzo-Indian, etc., right?
In this case, how a 1st category like me would find a move in complex positions from siciliana or king indian defense and so?
Moreover, opening phase is very logic, there is very smart reply which I cant find in too limited time. In some variations if you dont play the best move or, at least, the right move in the right time, you lose in few moves. One would be crushed against benoni or sicilian, etc..
I must say I do not know the difference between study opening and middlegame. When I study some opening it is not because I do not know how to develop my pieces, but because, in the light of the basic ideas of some opening, I want to learn how to play the resulting middlegame (besides preparing myself for this middlegame in the best possible way, with the best setup).
Why the people talk for no study opening? I learn a lot about outposts or most pawns or space or pawn majority when I study an opening. b4-c5 in king indian defense for white, d5 square in sicilian, e5 square in stonewall, e4 square in indian defense, etc.