0-1000, so i am one.
What is a beginner
Sort:
I'd say under 1200 is beginner.
A euphemism for noob/patzer... no offense.
You also have true beginners, but since even people who study for a couple of hours a day focusing on basics for a few months are oftentimes still under 1200 there's still a considerable overlap between them.
Feb 22, 2014
0
#5
Actually I would say that studying opening theory can be put off until one is 1800+ perhaps even as high as 2000. Lev Alburt in volumn 2 of his comprehensive chess course says that the information that he gives in the first two volumns should be enough to get a player to the class A level. He covers tactics and a few basic endgames. As an (older) 1800+ player myself I still find myself betting superior players without extensive opening study or preperation. I would make the case that at the class player lever and even candidate master, i.e. expert level if you can achieve success with limited opening study. I subscribe to the philosophy that as long as one achieves a playable middlegame position then your opening ability is sufficient. However if someone is always losing miniatures or getting inferior positions out of the opening then some analysis of why should be in order. That analysis will most likely pinpoint thinking problems and/or violations of good general principles. Studying minuatures in e4 and d4 games can give you an idea of the tactics involved in the opening as well as learning how weak/bad moves/ideas can get punished. So if you really don't want to use alot of time to study opening theory I really don't see that it is necessary.
There's no point knowing theory if your opponent never plays it. its fine to know your favourite openings to 10ish moves but don't bother more unless you can pinpoint that a loss was due specifically to not knowing the opening rather than you just missing a tactic.
You can study the opening so long as it's done right. Look for a book that explains ideas, principles, pawn structures, plans, frequent imbalances, etc., and how to best take advantage of them. If it's reams of theory with a cheap copout like, "And white has a slight advantage" without explaining why then forget about it. Endgames and middlegames are where most of your time should go. Technique also matters and "It isn't what leaves that matters but what stays on" is the golden rule here. If you can exchange queen for rook into a won pawn ending then do it! Technique is how to win hard to win won positions.
You wouldn't want your calculation into a winning position to be for naught, would you?
I often hear that beginners should focus on tactics and not spend a lot of time studying openings. In that context, what level of ranking is considered, to be a beginner (let' say using standard game online rating.) Another way of asking is at what level should opening study begin?