Sounds like some sort of shifting curve of usefulness. How many moves in does it have to be before we've gone from helpful to wasteful?
Frankly, after at most six to ten moves in as white, my recall of lines from a book or a tree isn't even possible. Though for what I'm playing as white I go back and read parts on a particular variation after getting confounded during a game in the hopes that I'll "know" what to do next time.
My thought is that any serious player has to decide on what their long term goal is and then the appropriate method will be clear.
If a player's goal is to win the class B prize at the World Open, then they will want to master some offbeat, trappy stuff that gives them a good chance for quick points. An alternative is the De la Maza method, where you avoid theory, only play for tactical shots and otherwise shuffle pieces waiting for a mistake. Both serve their purpose.
On the other hand, if their goal is to become a master. Then opening study falls into a long term project (imo). As an improving player, the real benefit of opening study is that you are seeing lots and lots of positions that are semi familiar in their characteristics. The fact is, modern GM games are extremely complex and sometimes impossible to decipher since they are built on layer and layer of previous master games. By studying an opening (and I guess this is more like what IM Pruess suggests) you are limiting the information down to one type of pawn structure, endgames with a lot of similar characterstics etc. This makes things much more intelligible to an aspiring player. Realistically, a typical class B player is not going to know their openings past move 10 or so, won't know how to proceed in the early middlegame except in their most cherished lines and won't be able to evaluate transitions into the endgame very well. It is not a question of if they can convert a += it's that they at least get to positions that they can then experience and improve on later.
Club players get shell shocked into learning endgames somewhere around 1800-2000 (depending on their style of play) when they find that they aren't coming out of the middle game with a piece or double passed pawns. By having a fixed set of openings and variations they know well this presents them with often similar minor piece endings etc that they can gradually build on.
Lastly, time controls are getting shorter and shorter- it seems game in 90+30sec will stick for a lot of Fide stuff. You no longer have time for a 30min think on a position and good opening preparation buys you extra time for the endgame.
just my thoughts.
A rule of thumb I have is that I (or anyone) shouldn't be playing a move if I don't really understand it. When I play 1.e4, I know that I'm gaining space, occupying and controlling the centre, and opening lines for my queen and bishop. Even an 800 player can understand this much, so I have no problems with them "preparing" 1.e4. When I play 3.Bb5 in the Ruy Lopez, I know that I'm putting indirect pressure on e5 and preparing to castle kingside. I also know that until I castle, I'm not really going to be able to take the e5 pawn (due to Bxc6 dx Nxe5 Qd4). I'd say a 1200 player could understand that much, so I wouldn't have a problem with them "preparing" 3.Bb5. When I play ...a6 going into a Benko Gambit, I understand that I'm going for pressure down the long diagonal and from the major pieces on the Q-side along with a slight development advantage in order to compensate for my pawn... or do I? In theory, I understand that, but in practice, I'm probably not strong enough or experienced enough to really deeply understand it. I would probably have a problem with most players under ~2200 (possibly even higher) "preparing" the Benko Gambit - but not all; some players have the strength in their games to understand the particular aspects of the game needed to study a particular opening before other players of a similar rating. In turn, those other players will be stronger in other areas. In principle, one should try to shore up weaknesses rather than concentrating on strengths, but in practice, things are not so cut-and-dry.
Certainly specific opening preparation for games in the vein that you guys talked about on the show shouldn't occur before, oh, roughly the IM level. On the other hand, if I know who I'm going to be playing in a round ahead of time and I know their opening repertoire, I can probably guess, based on my repertoire, how the game will go (i.e. I play e4, he generally defends that with the Najdorf, I play the Be2 variation, and he plays with ...e5) and brush up on that line - sometimes this means expanding my knowledge, but probably more often it's simply refreshing myself on things I've already studied.
I do believe that some Opening Theory study should start around the 1800 (USCF not Chess.com -- which is more like 1500 USCF/OTB Level in most cases).
Do you mean start at around 1800 so that you don't have to start from a blank slate when you get to 2300?
bsrasmus -- It isn't that you could ever start with a complete blank slate anyway... you will have had to have some knowledge of development, pawn structures, basic plans in most main line openings, etc anyway to have even gotten that far.
I mean that 1800, in this advanced information age where everyone and their cousin is "booked up" more than they ever were 20 years ago, is a good place to start studying openings from a theoretical point of view...
David and I slightly disagreed regarding this topic:
DAVID: Not useful and doesn't help anyone's game until 2300 rated. Not to confuse anyone, David is a strong believer in learning Opening Formations, Structures, Plans, etc but not in regards to memorizing variations or theory.
DANNY: I agree that Formations, Structures, etc should be first priority, and any opening study should be done "through that window" first, and only then consider how the variations and theory makes sense -- based on those features. SO many players waste time memorizing variations in positions they don't even understand yet. However, I believe that as the internet seems like it is here to stay
, information is available to so many players at lower levels then it ever was before. Although I agree that a player probably isn't capabale of fully executing the advantages that opening theory might give them until they are rated around 22-2300 -- I do believe that some Opening Theory study should start around the 1800 (USCF not Chess.com -- which is more like 1500 USCF/OTB Level in most cases).
Thoughts?