Studying openings is highly UNDERrated!

we can have this conversation all day and night.  some people here will still insist on sleeping with their MCO's and trying vainly to remember dozens of 20 deep lines.

NONE of the which they will fully play (cause their opponents will certainly deviate from theory) and then losing because they didn't see some easy fork or double attack.

then what do they conclude?  dang!  I gotta go and figure out from some chess database what line kramnik played in that opening.  they TOTALLY miss the point.

-- if you can't (with great ease) win when there are critical tactical opportunities- you Will not and can not become a strong player.

in any time control.  IMHO.

We have a winner!

We lowly class players love to memorize things there are no need to memorize.  Why?  because it sounds cool to say you know the <insert opening here> 10...15...20...20+ moves deep.  When in reality, we are out of book by move 5

Really?

Look at young Carlsen playing Kasparov. If they know you're booked up they'll get you out of theory. In other words, "let's play chess".

Yes, I realize that both would beat me.  I also know that I understand exactly the point they are both making.  I also know that apparently a lot of people are not understanding that the problem I have is that it is so poorly worded that the literal meaning of the quote is objectively false.  Those two players are not so much higher rated than me that they understand the english language better than I do.

To repeat, I fully understand what Portisch meant.  I am not dead wrong in my interpretation of the quote.  I "interpret" it the same way they do.  I don't, however, forgive the fact that it's worded in a way that means something entirely different from the interpretation and is, in fact, not true at all.  These types of statements are harmful to learning, in my opinion, and I don't accept them.  No matter how many titled players are willing to forgive them.

Yes, really.

Hmmmm...27 posts for the OP's post to derail into trainwreck status.  Untracked...

lol.  I'm with the other guy.  Untracked.

I'm not as strong as most of the folks posting here, but it's become very clear already even at my lowly level that if you study the 5-10 main variations, you'll almost always play a fairly strong response and at least have some sort of reasonable plan (as opposed to no plan) even if they try and get you out of book. Plus, since the book lines are the 'strongest', it's often easier to out-tactic them, as they're busily worrying about the strategic validity of their position while you can still trot out plans you're familiar with and focus on tactical shots more clearly. At least that's what's happening in my games - my Kings Gambit win ratio went up after I learned just a few main lines by GM Shaw from his book (that seem nothing remotely like the traditional main line but he considers stronger.) And that's despite not playing his recommended 'main line' a single time. 

What I'm finding is that at 1450, I can win games using 1100 level tactics (for real) by using a solid opening and good positional setup.

In fact, I definitely blunder more now than I did when I was 1200 (confirmed by computer analysis), but what ends up happening is that the opponent is either so pressured about their position that they miss the tactical countershot or it's so much easier to calculate tactics from the superior position that you don't need monster tactics to win.

Most of the games I was losing were not because I was missing a tactical kill shot, but because I was getting such a losing position that the opponent had all the tactics, and I had pretty much zero. Doesn't matter if you have 2000 level tactics if you never get a setup to play one. And when I had very little practical knowledge of mainline tabiyas, how to exploit minor piece imbalances, and utilize space, chessplaying sucked - it was literally hope chess, hoping for the opponent to make a blunder, which even at 1150, they stop doing when you don't positionally pressure them.

I used to believe at 1200 that 1400-1500s didn't blunder (in my games analyzed by CPUs against them, they never did), but turns out now that I'm better positionally and can pressure their position, they blunder just as much as 1150s do in these more balanced positions.

It was very eye opening for me to watch chessnetwork's youtube blitz games (not his bullet games) commentary. I can't recall a single game of his many victories where he employed a deep 5+ move tactic to win. All of his tactics seem like 2, maybe 3 move rookie-1100 level tactics, but of course the key isn't the tactic, but the positional squeeze to create those tactics. That was really eye opening for me, and explained a lot of why I didn't make any progress for quite awhile despite studying a lot of tactics.

So what is your goal in the opening then ?  I agree with the Portisch quote completely . 

I completely agree with studying openings can be very valueable.

However, you will be surpised on how when there is short time controls it is tough!

Here is a set of games which might shock you. However, at the same time it is completely strange.

I believe it will amusing you.

The time control of these games were 2-1 which are bullet games.

I resigned in the above game because I am completely lost.

I was playing the white side.

Here is another game.

He beat me several games like this total of like 4.

Than he played me in some more mainline stuff. An things started to change lol.

Here is another game.

I think it is kind of funny. When you crush a player in sound mainlines than lose to them in unsound crappy lines.

It happened it was 2-1 games.

Got to love those!

abrahampenrose wrote:

I dont recommend studying openings. I recommend picking one game at time and studying it from start to finish. Either a game of yours, or one by a master. Its even better if you write some notes.

Other methods of gaining knowledge are: reading books or articles, watching kingscrusher youtube videos, doing puzzle of the day, and practicing basic endgames vs a computer. But if u read stuff, u should select those authors who explain why a move is played. Many strong players think an idea is so obvious they dont explain things. That wont help you at all.

I do study near complete games when I talk about studying openings - its just the selected games are usually related lines to reinforce the opening study as opposed to random middlegame positions. So probably along the lines of what you are recommending

It's def not just memorizing a few opening moves.

I do not get this idea that studying opening only means learning just the moves.

For about a year all I couldstudy was openings. And everyone I play otb chess with tell you my opening are excellent.

You look at the moves and what they're trying to accomplish. Not just the move order. Even in openings I don't know, I play them pretty well because you take the principles with you.

This whole "our of book by move 5" idea is bullsht. That's how you learn thegoals of your opening choices. If someone plays a mive that soon that you don't know, you ask yourself why, how does it affect my play, can I take advantage of it.

For instance: I play the faulkbeer counter gambit. I have seen some weird moves against it. But I know my plans. If something new arises, I can deal with it because I have a good feel for the resulting positions. Not because I know it X number of moves deep.

That is how you study opening.

IM pfren wrote:

"The only rating worth talking about is the official FIDE/ National Federation one... chess.com ratings do not count for anything real.

It's quite apparent that you have not understood at all what [Lajos Portisch] said [about reaching a playable middlegame] (and to which the vast majority of GM's and Senior Trainers agree), and it's up to you to figure out if this is natural, or not."

"This book is written for those who want the advantage they are entitled to by virtue of the first move when they are White, and who want near-equality with Black, with chances for advantage if White strays from grandmaster-approved lines." - Larry Kaufman about a decade ago

so what he is saying is that an internet chess players journey to get better is less relevant than a fide chess players.

what a dickhead

"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

dfgh123 wrote:

"so what he is saying is that an internet chess players journey to get better is less relevant than a fide chess players.

what a dickhead"

I fear that some confusion may have been caused by my failure to be adequately clear about the context and who said what. The first two paragraphs (up to "... natural, or not.") were a quote of a recent post by iM pfren. The rest was a quote of Larry Kaufman from about a decade ago. iM pfren was (I think) specifically reacting to someone's claim of being less than 1500 below Portisch.

So you feel that studying tactics is OVER-RATED?

i don't think I can agree with you.  I DO agree even in high level chess; tactics are usually Simple.  but I invoke the "backyard professer" as an example of guy who doesn't understand chess NEARLY as much as he thinks he does.

even in Silmans several excellent book he admits (and proves in the amateur's mind) that rating is NOT strictly a matter of understanding imbalances.  

the ability to calculate and to see tactical and strategic patterns is at the heart of a strong chess player (as well as less blundering and seeing winning attacks and neccesary defense).

---

look , here's is the way I see it- any given guys improvement is personal.  I KNOW i have improved in chess.  my rating is going up and I see more.

I don't read over master games and struggle to understand anything instructive when I have.  on the other hand; I have solved Thousands of tactical puzzles.   I am definitely doing better at the puzzles than I used to.

solving tactical puzzles might not be for you.

I wouldn't insist that it is the ONLY way to improve or even a NECCESARY part of improvement.  I'm not sure capablanca ever did a tactical puzzle, but he sure did know his tactics.

doing lots of tactical puzzles has slowly helped me understand the important of "peice activity","open lines and diagonal" and yet these are sometimes considered concepts of Positional (or even strategic chess).

---

I don't memorize variations.  and when I have done so, only the first several moves have been helpful. Studying Opening principles is Way important, though.  knowing the names is useless trivia. do it only for fun.

sorry about the inevitable tl;dr.

Solving puzzles cannot do harm, of course, yet the meal is half baked. Solving a puzzle you KNOW there is something there, which doesn't apply in a real game- you have to sniff it.