Studying openings is highly UNDERrated!

Ziryab wrote:

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

Is it safe to assume that Magnus Carlsen would say that others should try to do what he does? Has truth changed on this sort of issue since the Kasparov days?

Fischer played 1.d4 just once in his entire life, and that was a blitz game.

You'd better stick to cockroaches, where you seem to be the ultimate authority.

e4 is very strong. Tal also preferred d4 to e4. I think e4 is better, honestly, but people don't know how to play it. That's the thing: e4 rewards you more if you really know what you're doing. But you have to be willing to think agressively. Like, really aggressively.

That's completely subjective. Everyone has a different viewpoint.

That's just it.

Carlsen plays the way he does because he's so much better than everyone else. As White, he can play garbage because he knows that he can outplay almost anyone from an even position. 

But as Black, Carlsen plays main lines. He recognises that he isn't quite good enough to play garbage against elite players as Black. He does play garbage against ~25xx rated players occasionally, especially when he needs to win. Some of his most famous losses came as a result of his underestimating some of his opponents in this fashion. 

For the rest of the elites, it's probably a good idea to have deeply prepared openings ready, as Nakamura and Giri demonstrated the other day. 

But there really has been a revolution in chess theory over the last decade or so. More and more strong GMs are playing offbeat openings. One of the most fun players to watch in this regard is GM Jobava, but even Nakamura will occasionally play really strange stuff. 

Amateurs still need to study the opening. Good writers break the rules all the time, but they know what the rules are and why they are breaking those rules. Good chess players are very similar. 

Learn the rules of the openings, learn tactics, memorise a few key lines that keep showing up, and have fun! 

Portisch's advice is important to remember: if you get a playable position out of the opening (playable for you, not an engine, or a GM), then your opening has done its job.  If you lose from a playable position, don't blame your opening!

And Tal preferring 1.d4 to 1.e4 is even more subjective. Perhaps he preferred it, but never knew it.

Hans Berliner, a world champion correspondence player, tried to create a completely objective opening system, which he called "THE system". 

He argued that 1.d4 is objectively best because it develops towards the center and opens up lines for more pieces than 1.e4. He argued that 1.e4 e5 2.f4 would be the strongest possible opening except that White's K gets too exposed. By contrast 1.d4 d5 2.c4 is actually strongest because the White Q enjoys the open lines created by the Queen's Gambit.

Of course, not everyone agreed with Berliner.

Uh, what? I said 2500-2550 were the amateur ball players in perspective to other sports.

I said nothing of Portisch, his abilities, or his quote.

pfren wrote:

CJ_P wrote:

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...

Chess.com needs to change how mobile quotes work :\

It is true that in correspondence chess, the opening has an elevated value.

I would say the same regarding vote chess which can be similar to correspondence chess.

This nonsense would have been clearly refuted in a thread on the Spanish opening if it, too, had not been overrun by nonsense.

5oS, Fischer never played 1.d4 in the 1972 match. Your statement was that Fischer played 1.d4, not that he transposed into the QGD.

RJF played 1.c4 several times, and 1.Nf3 even more. But he publicly opened 1.d4 just in one blitz game, against Hort (who was utterly shocked, but nevertheless managed to draw), plus 202 more games which he exclusively confessed to 5oS.

Two wins and two draws with 1.c4 in the most important match of his career is an impressive 75% score, but this is not "better by far" than his roughly 72% record over the whole of his career. Rather, it's mathematically as close to his average as is possible over four games.

He also scored 100% with 1.e4 in several Candidates matches leading up to the WCC.

This simply isnt true . 

bb ,  I'm not disagreeing with you but am disagreeing that 1 d4 opens lines for more pieces than does 1 e4 . 

It is utterly moranic to imply that because I have a different style of play than Portisch that means I think I am a better player than Portisch.

http://en.chessbase.com/post/a-talk-with-legendary-lajos-portisch-part-i

http://en.chessbase.com/post/a-talk-with-legendary-lajos-portisch-part-ii

I glanced over the interview and didn't spot much that would be helpful here. At one point, Portisch was asked, "You say you were more of a practical player. Does that mean when you did opening preparation, you looked more for decent solid positions, playable positions?"

The answer was, "No, I mean I never analyzed openings that I would not play. For example, I never analyzed the Alekhine Defense, the Philidor, or the Scandinavian. I don’t want to be bothered. I studied only what was of use to me in tournament practice. There are certain players, for example, who want to know everything. I was not that type. That is what I mean by practical."

Opening selection is surprisingly complicated and nobody can realistically do it for you. "You find your path by walking it", seems to be very appropriate here. Openings for Amateurs by Pete Tamburro looks like a reasonable place to start.

http://kenilworthian.blogspot.com/2014/05/review-of-pete-tamburros-openings-for.html