Studying openings is highly UNDERrated!

I know how much opening theory is included in Capa's "chess fundamentals" which is still a great (and free) book to learn chess.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/33870/33870-h/33870-h.htm

You can count moves. Well, what? NO OPENING THEORY AT ALL?! Who's the patzer who scribbed that pulp?

Pfren, at your highest peak, did you know much opening?

More than necessary.

About the article and the 100.000 moves: Agree or disagree, psychology is a science. Science has it's own language for a reason. You understand such articles only in their research context. Iiuc the context is the knowledge base of mastering a field like a profession. Chess is complex enough and at the same time well defined to be a good research material. Expert level in chess is beyond expert level in the sense of this research. Now coming to the move numbers. Ask any FM what's the mainline of the Spanish Marshall. He will give you the first twelve moves even if he neither plays 1.e4 nor 1.e4 e5. Why? Because he studied enough games and played "for him unfamiliar" openings in blitz games for fun. I'm around 2000 FIDE and never played open sicilians in 50 years. But I know the Lasker-Pelikan, the dragon, the accelerated dragon and some more. If I want to get really stronger I must study all areas of chess. My guess is that openings come behind endgame and middlegame. But maybe studying openings is a good way. Afaik there's no serious research about this, because it is very hard to do longitudinal studies with several treatments. As certified C-trainer and as psychologist I recommend train tactics, short games and under motivational aspects start with what you like. But life is short. Take the best books, the strongest opposition, the best teachers you can get. If you like it!!!!

I am FM and dont know most main lines except the ones I play.

Grandpa: "After move 15, they'll be playing on their own." --Unknown coach to unknown famous player about to play a blindfold chess exhibition match against multiple opponents

I like to study openings, but the return on investment isn't there.  I found my rating and 'visibility' of the board got better when I started refusing to play too fast and managing my time better (I finally got above 1100 again).

But i also have an entire book on just the Scotch opening that I would love to devour.  However I am forcing myself into a more regimented study program here this week.  8)  I may never see USCF 1800 but I'll have fun trying. 8)

See... that's why I respect ratings.  I was drawn into 'study the openings' traps.  I still love openings and oh, man, given the time to study a few games from them you really can see the beauty in some of the openings.  I'm on a recent streak up to 1100 from 1000. 8) Yay!  However that happened after i started studying an endgame book (How to beat your Dad at Chess).  Which I wish my kids would read so they can beat me one day. 8)

how to beat your dad at chess is checkmate patterns not an endgame book.

IM pfren wrote:

"I know how much opening theory is included in Capa's "chess fundamentals" which is still a great (and free) book to learn chess.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/33870/33870-h/33870-h.htm

You can count moves. Well, what? NO OPENING THEORY AT ALL?! Who's the patzer who scribbed that pulp?"

Capablanca also wrote a Primer of chess, and, if I remember correctly, wrote that he intended to cover openings in a subsequent book. Never got to it as far as I know.

Its crap compared to the game of chess by tarrasch

"'The Games of Chess' has three major sections, on the endgame, middlegame, and opening, followed by illustrative games." - IM John Watson (2000)

http://www.theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/looking-back-part-1

Kasparov had some involvement with Batsford Chess Openings. Nunn had some involvement with Nunn's Chess Openings.

Or, most probably, even more than that: An FFM (Fictitious FIDE Master).

"For players with very limited experience, I recommend using openings in which the play can be clarified at an early stage, often with a degree of simplification. ... you will have to get used to playing with open lines for both sides' pieces ... teachers all over the world suggest that inexperienced players begin with 1 e4. ... a commonly suggested 'easy' repertoire for White with 1 Nf3 and the King's indian Attack ... doesn't lead to an open game or one with a clear plan for White. Furthermore, it encourages mechanical play. Similarly, teachers sometimes recommend the Colle System ..., which can also be played too automatically, and usually doesn't lead to an open position. For true beginners, the King's Indian Attack and Colle System have the benefit of offering a safe position that nearly guarantees passage to some kind of playable middlegame; they may be a reasonable alternative if other openings are too intimidating. But having gained even a small amount of experience, you really should switch to more open and less automatic play." - IM John Watson in a section of his 2010 book, Mastering the Chess Openings Vol. 4

One can see a memorable quote from a 2001 book at https://web.archive.org/web/20140626223637/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen27.pdf

"... let us make it clear, first of all, that White has no advantage in the Nimzo-Larsen. ... Anyone who likes to win their games in the opening should therefore look elsewhere."

"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

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

pfren: "To have a good positional instict, you definitely don't need memorizing ANY moves, and that is that."

   This I liked. Especially coming from an IM.

    We chess players are each individuals. At the same time, some things work and others don't...regardless of what we may like.

   It seems to me that pattern recognition, memorizing lines and speed chess have become the mainstay of the majority of young chess players at this period in time.

   Whatever happened to good, old-fashioned thinking? Well, I'm old school and naught but a club player, a hobby player. But I do alright by playing only games where I can think...at least 15 minutes per side (10 is doable). Sometimes I can move as fast as my old right hand permits (still pretty fast)...so I'm not one of those guys who takes forever to move (you know who you are! )

   But am I so old and oddball that I still like to thimk?

That last word was intentional.

"How to beat your Dad" is indeed, an awesome book. (Highly recommended) but I would not call it an endgame book.  every single position ends in a spectacular tactical checkmate.

i'm sure I'm being picky.  Carry on.

oh sorry. post 144. right. Keep up, got it.

Not all 50 positions. Most. Chandler promised the publisher 50 checkmates, but had to fill in with a couple tactical themes to get to 50.

My "Checklist of Checkmates" has 37 checkmate patterns, including some that you won't find in Chandler's book. See my coaching profile for purchase information.

To have a good positional instict, you definitely don't need memorizing ANY moves, and that is that. -- pfren

And that's why mere masters have memorized 100,000 opening moves and GM's probably a million. They are just stupid.

And that's why pfren never became a truly strong player. He spent too much reading ECO and the like.

Oh, custard.