Studying openings is highly UNDERrated!

if we CAN get back to more instructive comments.  what do you guys think of my desire to be good enough to follow gm chess?

is this a matter of reading alot of annotations or getting a strong rating?  how strong is strong enough?

to me, a lot of GM chess is endless maneuvering.  what are they SO afraid of? its in the notes of course.  but PC's usually don't make the motifs clear and games don't always come with lots of notes.

NM Reb wrote:

"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 ."

That seems very different from: "... memorizing moves ... is one of the most stupid things to do. ...", written by someone else.

Study well annotated games , this will help . When I look at top GM games I must admit I often do not know whats going on , so you are going to have this problem as well .  Its normal as they are far better ... 

@yb that seems a little off.  clearly reb in not implying memorization.

didn't someone say; go over the games, study any commentary (from books, video, posts), and try to explore how you would play the position; and you will find that naturally you have memorized the variations, but also you understand them.

this is not an exact quote.  but it seemed pretty good.  I have done a few videos. they have been helpful, even for a patzer like me.

@ five.

ok well probably true.  I've been trying to tease some content out of the forum - give me that.

but you did insult the titled players.  if they didn't give much content, than why insult them?   I don't want to be in the middle of this five, and this goes WAY beyond this thread.

btw I'm playing chess before its ridiculously late.  try not to stay up all night arguing.

I study 1. b4 AOO opening because it is the first and my rating is 1488. Before I opened d4 or e4 like everybody, but starting with the beginning seems more logical. 

I enjoyed this article, although I only skimmed it. Skimming is most certainly not sufficient for one not well-steeped in the relevant literature and I was familiar with only 1/3 of the citations.

The issue came from page 1

When PossibleOatmeal did not like Lajos Portisch quote.

The below is Lajos Portisch quote

Your only task in the opening is to reach a playable middlegame.  - Lajos Portisch

The reason why PossibleOatmeal did not like Lajos Portisch quote is because it literally is wrong. "Bascially" The quote is not suppose to be taken literally. Which is the issue PossibleOatmeal has with the quote.

He believes Lajos Portisch should of be clear!

If you was to read and do exactly what the quote says you would be doing wrong in alot of your chess games.

After PossibleOatmeal said the above good old IM Pfren you know him.

Decided to jump all over Oatmeal as if he was going to eat him for breakfast.

He insulted poor Oatmeal said that Portisch was +1500 ranking points higher than him.

Pfren said "Oatmeal you little class player go play on the kiddie table. You don't know what your talking about. Let us title players give chess advice here".

Than the chess Title groupies came and put extra pressure on poor Oatmeal making him feel as if he was wrong. Making him question whether or not he was right or wrong.

Eventually poor Oatmeal gave in under the pressure. The intimidation of everyone else. He decided to leave the thread and didn't mention it.

The fact of the matter is Oatmeal was right. All the other doubters and commenters were wrong.

Its sad because things like this happen in the world and if you don't have the confidence to make a stance you can get bullied into thinking your wrong when you are right.

Oatmeal is 100% right.

I don't care if Carlsen himself came to this forum and said Portisch quote is right because he would be wrong too.

I can even prove it. Watch how easy it is to prove.

Read Portisch's quote again:

Your only task in the opening is to reach a playable middlegame.  - Lajos Portisch

White has a mate in 1 on the board lady's and gentlemen.

Portisch says the task in the opening is to reach a playable middlegame.

If we checkmate black in this position the game ends in the opening and we never reached that playable middlegame.

That is outragious!

Obviously in this position we have to develop a piece because Portisch did not say to checkmate a person in the opening.

He literally said the following:

Your only task in the opening is to reach a playable middlegame.  - Lajos Portisch

Are you going to checkmate black in this position and go against what Lajos Portisch has said!! How dare you!!!

He is +1500 higher rated than any of you patzers IM Pfren has already said this.

Do you see how Oatmeal is right in his stance against Portisch thegreat_patzer?

The reason why Oatmeal is right is because the quote can not be taken literally. It is leaving out stuff. The "stuff" which is being left out is considered to be understood among higher level players.

However, to a beginner they are not going to be aware of that "stuff" which is being left out unless someone tells them.

Which is the problem PossibleOatmeal has with what Portisch said.

Portisch should have said " Your only task in the opening is to reach a playable middlegame unless your opponent hangs a piece, or lets you checkmate them in 1, or lets you steal a pawn.

Do you see how the beginners are not confused now. When you add that extra stuff into the quote.

However, yeah I like this forum. It makes me laugh. I am amused.

Portisch was not dismissing elementary tactics. If you think he was, show me the game where elementary tactics gave him a loss in the first fifteen moves.

Show me evidence where a beginner who does not have elementary tactics will not get confused on his literal quote?

Yes but PossibleOatmeal agruement was based on what a beginner might interpret the quote to be.

Which a beginner may take it literally.

Some people take the advice from high level players to heart!

People take this way to seriously. If you put these forums into perspective with another sport, the highest titled players that contribute here are waterboys, or sparring partners that fighters don't take serious. Sure, they can beat us down with no problem, but no one here is even close to the actual "good" mark.

My fist win against a class 1900 came from a tactical shot I learned from a completely different opening. One I didn't even knew existed in my own opening. But he made the mistake and it was mare in 2. Mind you this was a skittles game!

But openings are by far the easiest to look up, they have tactics in the, they teach you how to plan things out (if actually *studied*).

I said before that I play the Falkbeer. The line I play has a shot for white many would call a refutation. The thing is, I've out played many people who find the refutation because -get this- I know the position better, I know the plans. But literally, all I can really study is openings.

Studying them correctly will help more than titled players here are saying.

Now if someone here wants to tell me how to study endgames on a crappy walmart smartphone as easily as I can openings, I'm all ears!!

"... the way i interpret the portisch quote is ..."

Does anyone know the original context? I have a possibly incorrect memory that the comment was in a book, about four decades ago, with a title something like: How to Open a Chess Game. Can anyone check this?

I don't. A ten second search via Google turned up this as the best hit:

Reb wrote:

in chess, things are never easy.  thats what makes it yet, a truly intriguing game in the computer age.

I thank you for your detailed.  as I said to 5swords, I read and think about what is written.  you have detailed posts and I appreciate that.

I think "playable" does not include situations where you opponent has unstoppable checkmate or huge material advantage.  (or for that matter even positional issues like uncoordinate peices or losing the right of castling with strong threats on the board).

wow. CJ.  i don't look at IM's as water boys.  perhaps like minor league baseball players.  I still think titled players deserve some respect.  but there's been of eating "oatmeal" like breakfast around these parts.

speaking of that. its practically so late here I should be making breakfast. Never mind sleepin' its overrated. lol.

Ziryab wrote:

"A ten second search via Google turned up this as the best hit:

Reb wrote:

'The middlegame is my favorite phase of the game and I find it the most fascinating .  A few famous quotes concerning this phase of the game : 

...

Your only task in the opening is to reach a playable middlegame.  - Lajos Portisch

...'"

I think we need the original context. I suspect that what we need is to hear from someone who has that book from four decades ago. I've seen USCF Sales selling it recently.

Do they deserve respect? To a degree, yes. But, these guys are not minor league ball players. That would be the 2500 - 2550 gms.

Who is that 2500-2550 GM? Portisch?

FYI the man had disqualified Spassky in a WC match, and lost to Petrosian with the lowest possible margin (6-7).I never had the luck to play the man, but I have lost one game to his younger brother, Ferenc (an IM).

So, it's quite natural that a born genius like X_PATZER_X is not impressed by his quote...