Studying openings is highly UNDERrated!

Someone once heard that a false appeal to authority is a logical fallacy and then jumped to the conclusion that all appeals to authority must be logical fallacies.

   I am reminded of some of the awful guff that IM Jeremy Silman used to get around here.

   Personally, my hat is off to anyone who becomes a titled player. They have shown a tremendous amount of determination and skill to get there.

Note that a strong chess player is not necessarily an authority on teaching chess.

Free chess knowledge given by titled players is always appreciated.  

PossibleOatmeal wrote: "Note that a strong chess player is not necessarily an authority on teaching chess."

   True. But some are. What's the point? Those who may not teach very well, still play very well. And their opinions about chess should be gladly received.

   By the way, Jeremy Silman has written some excellent chess books. Yet, he was heckled here...by losers.

Then, someone corrects your spelling:

Spelling errors and wrong word usage is not the same thing .  I hate when people misuse : there , their, they're for example and then simply try to dismiss it as a spelling error when they obviously don't know when to use which word . This bothers me from native english speakers most and I usually am far more lenient to people who are not native english speakers .  In this thread I shouldnt have said anything about the misuse of loose/lose because the OP is Portuguese , but I only noticed that after my remark .  

I agree that when native English speakers commit these basic errors differs from when someone does who is writing English as a second or third or fourth ... language.

I am a bad player. There, I said it.  I want to be better, but I don't want to be better enough to spend hours studying theory, past games, or openings .... etc. etc.....

I play to to have fun.  I know there are many who will consider that just being lazy.  Maybe so.  But I do think through my moves, I simply don't have the knowledge of specific openings and how to respond in a given opening with the optimum response. 

I realize this will limit my rating.  I am ok with that. 

What is worse than my opening knowledge?   My end game of course.

The point is that appealing to the authority of a strong chess player on the subject of teaching chess can still be an appeal to authority fallacy, especially given no evidence of expertise at teaching chess.

! or !!!!

If playing chess brings you joy, and happiness then keep on playing, it is a great game.  Ignore those that think you are lazy because you dont make a passion of it.  Im in the same boat you are, i play purely for the enjoyment.  My days of long hours of studying...having to win...worrying about a rating...basing my self worth on how i did in a tournament are long gone.  Now i get to watch friends worry about that stuff :-)

IM pfren wrote:

"... memorizing moves ... is one of the most stupid things to do. ... I did realize that the 'brilliancy' was nothing more than a cheapo, since it was not justified positionally. To have a good positional instict, you definitely don't need memorizing ANY moves, and that is that."

I think this is the origin of much of the recent conflagration. I have noted:

"... all good opening play is part memory and part understanding. ..." - GM Andrew Soltis (2010)

Back on track though , I never advise anyone to not study openings . If you want to improve in chess you need to improve all 3 phases of the game and that means studying all 3 phases . I do think some people go overboard though and spend too much time on openings and neglect the other 2 phases and this isnt good . I think its best to spend more time on the weakest area of your game and less time on the strongest area of your game . My split for decades was about 40% openings , 40% middlegames/tactics/problems and only about 20% on endings . So , its no surprise that endings are the weakest part of my game .  

Also: "... nobody can wholly escape the dire necessity of compiling variations and of examining and memorizing them. And therefore such a compilation is correctly included in a manual of chess." - Lasker's Manual of Chess (algebraic edition)

I've also included a few other players that impress me and I think are pretty strong.

48,65,125,136,138,173...

but in a way, five this isn't fair.  I've appreciated MANY of the posts through this thread.  I can't follow all the chess.com chatter (as well  as most modern GM games) about openings; and sometimes I think this needs to be a future goal of mine.

I need to be strong enough to comment on the perils and plus's of the Moran variation of the semislave.

I use this variation as a good example of my opening weakness.  given my opening reportoire I Know I face the semislav.  but I have no idea exactly what that variation is- I know its deep in the semislav, sharp and positional. 

so do I memorize what it is and what anand and kasporov play (no idea if either GM plays its actually) when it occurs?  is that a waste of time?

---

I do consider and will consider the strength of the player as ONE (and not the only or even the most important) factor of how relevant their advice is to my own improvement planning.

there another good one thank you.

five add 216 to my list.