Yes i saw both panov and Marshall once in a game. But for example i have no clue of the French, i know maybe 5 moves in the advance variation.

And Pfren, im not FFM (fictional fide master) in few days anymore, i fullfill all requirements for the title and paid the money so they just need to "update" it.

And what are u guys arguing about? About taking this Portisch quote too literally? Lol

I don't agree with the criticism of the Portisch quote. I doubt that he intended it to be dogmatic to the extent that basic checkmates etc are overlooked. It feels like unhelpful pedantry to qualify the statement futher just to ensure that people don't take it too literally and in complete isolation of any other chess knowledge or commonsense.

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

I agree Mr. Portisch but how I am gonna do that when I choose to play openings with a lot of theoretical possibilities? How am gonna reach a playable middlegame if I am not prepared to answer correctly what is necessary from the position to do and when. We are in the 21th century, computer preparation, houndreds of theory books, opening Novelties....madness! The opening has become a science. Every time I play the Gruenfeld I feel that I give exams, the Catalan , the Najdorf, the Ruy Lopez.

You know Mr. Portisch it was good time back in 60's and 70's. The flexibility of the chess player to play an inaccurate move in the opening was not punished immediately from the opponent. Now if you play one inaccurate move there is no playable middlegame. Your position becomes instand weaker.

True - but you can also lose the game pretty quickly in the opening, and I'm not even talking about via some unfortunate blunder - you can play perfectly reasonable moves and have an essentially lost position in quite a few lines, or reach a good position where you have no idea what the ensuing plan is. Sure, masters can likely figure out plans on the fly, but for class players, it helps a LOT to have seen most of the major opening plans already in the systems you play.  

I'll also add that you can't not learn a lot about good opening and middlegame play by studying openings if you're doing it right. And you get the plus of having it relevant to your systems of play. General learning in chess is never bad, but it really is much higher yield, say, if you study the plans and setups for say your Kings Gambit lines than you play day in day out, rather than spend most of your time studying closed systems like the Stonewall as white. (Even though it's not a bad thing to learn those closed systems even if you're an open game player, just not as immediately useful.)

I just got the John Cox book in e-book format on "Dealing with d4 sidelines" and from just a few hours with it, it's going to hugely improve not only my black response to d4, but my understanding of the plans behind these anti-common d4 (london/colle/tromp) setups which I've been totally randomly playing up to now with not so good results.

WOW.  The Stonewall. I gave up on that one. It was in the book "Chess in a Nutshell" and it was the 1st chess book I ever read.  It had the older (AND BETTER) descriptive notation (1. PQ4 PQ4 2. PQB3 ....).  I had to abandon it though.  It just not flexible enough.  Chess.com's study guide suggests learning the 1st 5 moves of a few openings.

I don't play the Stonewall, but I've watched this and it's pretty good

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8owlkaNFlI

It's by Will Stewart. He's one of the best video instructors out there, imo for us class players. Enteratining style, clear presentation, and absolutely knows what us class players struggle with so he addresses our issues straight on. I bought his Nimzo-Bogo series videos from Empire Chess, and they're excellent. 

The only drawback has been that nobody wants to play the white end of either the Nimzo or Bogo against me at my lowly rating! However, I'm gonna be ready for those Colles, Londons, Tromps, really soon with Cox's book...

PossibleOatmeal disagrees with the 12 words below.

He believes the 12 words below can confuse a beginner.

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

If you guys wish to agrue with me on this point. I assure you. You will not win because PossibleOatmeal is right all day here on this subject.

All you have are 12 words.

If you read anything esle into it. It is because you are taking knowledge from your own experience.

The problem people on this forum are having is they understand from their own experience that Lajos Portisch is a good player.

They know he would not carelessly hang a piece or blunder into a scholars mate.

However, This is outside information being brought into the quote by some other persons own experince. Yet it is not the literal quote which has been written.

People can try and agrue it is "understood" or "common knowledge"

If that is the agrument you wish to proceed with. Than I will say common knowledge to who?

To a Grand Master? To a Expert? How about to a beginner who doesn't even know how the pieces move?

Do you expect them to be born with this common knowledge and enter the game already knowing it?

Studying openings is highly UNDERrated!

This forum is about opening's Lajos Portisch quote is completely relevent.

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

How many beginner players read what Lajos Portisch quote had to say and misinterpreted the quote?

Here is another quote for you.

Best by test (on 1.e4).  - Bobby Fischer

Do you believe Bobby Fischer took his quote literally????

He said 1.e4 is best by test.

He also is one of the fewest Grand Masters to have played anything other than 1.e4

He didn't play other moves a lot.

His main move in the opening was 1.e4.

   I used to like the Stonewall a lot but haven't played it in >50 years. 

   I do think Bobby was right about e4, best by test...control the center, develop two pieces and quick castling. But I like to mix it up. Playing the same opening (or just a few) gets boring to me.

    But  when I am playing to be at my best, I go with e4. If I'm black and white goes e4...then Sicilian.

The quote is fine for Portisch if that is what he truly believes.

For myself, I know that sometimes the opening goes directly to the endgame, without a middle game.

Also, I want and try for more in the opening than Portisch apparently does.

I expect to have a winning position or a nice advantage out of the opening.

Maybe you are just better than Portisch Ponz ?  Everyone knows what a hack he was !  

Why are you constantly harassing Ponz when there are several idiots running rampant here that you could put down with your chess knowledge?

There's no such opening.  Yes there's theory that extends into an endgame (I'm thinking some Najdorf and Grunfeld lines) but much of that "opening" theory also covers what qualifies as middlegame positions.  

A winning position out of the opening is downright unrealistic unless your opponent plays something like the Latvian or some Englund lines.  A nice advantage I'm assuming is a plus over an equal sign, which of course is typical although theoreticians frequently find ways of equalizing with black.  

This depends on how you define "endgame".

And, yes, my emphasis is on the opening--so much so that I usually get and expect a winning position or a nice advantage in the opening.

If someone is satisfied with no advantage in the opening or only a slight plus--that is what he will get.  I play to win, even with the black pieces.

My games have mostly been against masters but it does not matter if you are an expert or master or grandmaster, I play to win.

NM Reb wrote:

"Maybe you are just better than Portisch Ponz ? Everyone knows what a hack he was !"

"If you aren't in the habit of searching for the best moves [in the opening], your experiences in the opening aren't helping you to develop as a player. ... how can [White] pose the most sustained and complex difficulties for Black ... ? ... If you don't want to know something about the process and maybe even help in some small way towards resolving it, I think you're missing out on part of our game." - IM John Cox in a 2006 book from the "Starting Out" series

Does it sound like IM John Cox was a Portisch believer?

You apparently don't realize which of these two players has the better chess credentials , you should educate yourself . 

I think that Magnus Carlsen agrees with Portisch. Anyone have better credentials?

Here's the catch to Portisch's quote: what's playable for amateurs often is not playable at the master or GM level.

NM Reb wrote:

"You apparently don't realize which of these two players has the better chess credentials , you should educate yourself ."

I suggest that you consider discussing what is actually said instead of giving advice on the basis of what you erroneously believe to be "apparently" true. While waiting for you to do that, readers here may ponder the chess credentials of NM Reb and IM John Cox and think about who, based on that, might have the better notion of how to react to the Portisch idea. We can also think about this: "As White, he tends to have a very wide repertoire, regularly using all three main opening moves, in search of an opening advantage." - FM Steve Giddins (2003) (writing about Kasparov)

That's a very valid question, but the answer is really easy.

Arguing with ponz about chess has its charm. He will give you some interesting answers, although you wouldn;t accept him escaping from his stereotypes- that is normal, and expected. he is right to a certain extent about the importance of openings for HIS game, but have in mind that he plays correspondence, not OTB, and in correspondence the opening has an elevated role.

But arguing about chess with, say, 5OS or xpatzerx, is like reading poetry to a cockroach.