People say on the forums that you should not "waste time" reading opening books to get better.
but i don't understand why not. can't i just memorize the moves and then play like a GM?
to get to a destination you need to know how to get their by making the first steps
Sure! And I guess you could memorize everything in like 10 minutes! Easy peasy!!!!
Yes, you should know the ideas behind the openings, but since most games leave the books before the 10th move, the advice minimizing openings is saying you should aim at reaching a playable middlegame where you can use the tactics you're most comfortable with and open/closed positions you like best and a lot of different openings will get you there.
I've followed some opening books only to have my opponent suddenly make a non-book move that left me wondering how I would be able to gain equality.
Of course, I don't play those variations anymore, but I mainly make my moves according to the general ideas behind the opening than follow a prescribed move order. For example, if I play the French Defense, I know I better be thinking about counterattacking with ...c5 as soon as practical. If I play the Bishop's or Vienna Openings, I know I want to play f4 before Nf3 if possible. The order of moves is determined by the position on the board, not a memorized script.
They do matter!
most openings are simply a fight for two central squares, either e4 and d5 or d4 and e5.
People say on the forums that you should not "waste time" reading opening books to get better.
but i don't understand why not. can't i just memorize the moves and then play like a GM?
You can. but it will only work if you play a GM who sticks to book, and even then he will trash you once he goes off book. Play a game on here where someone goes off book on move 3 and what will you do then ?
Learn the thoery and principles of openings but learning all the variations is both pointless and likely to send you to an asylum.
I study openings because I want to learn about the strategy behind the early game. I can't memorize openings, not at my age. I really can't recite the moves in the Caro-Kann or anything else. I just try to understand the strategic logic behind the first few moves.
"... Overall, I would advise most players to stick to a fairly limited range of openings, and not to worry about learning too much by heart. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2008)
"... Once you identify an opening you really like and wish to learn in more depth, then should you pick up a book on a particular opening or variation. Start with ones that explain the opening variations and are not just meant for advanced players. ..." - Dan Heisman (2001)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140626180930/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman06.pdf
"... To begin with, only study the main lines ... you can easily fill in the unusual lines later. ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)
"... I feel that the main reasons to buy an opening book are to give a good overview of the opening, and to explain general plans and ideas. ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)
"... If the book contains illustrative games, it is worth playing these over first ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)
"... the average player only needs to know a limited amount about the openings he plays. Providing he understands the main aims of the opening, a few typical plans and a handful of basic variations, that is enough. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2008)
"... For inexperienced players, I think the model that bases opening discussions on more or less complete games that are fully annotated, though with a main focus on the opening and early middlegame, is the ideal. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2010)
"... Everyman Chess has started a new series aimed at those who want to understand the basics of an opening, i.e., the not-yet-so-strong players. ... I imagine [there] will be a long series based on the premise of bringing the basic ideas of an opening to the reader through plenty of introductory text, game annotations, hints, plans and much more. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2002)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627055734/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen38.pdf
"The way I suggest you study this book is to play through the main games once, relatively quickly, and then start playing the variation in actual games. Playing an opening in real games is of vital importance - without this kind of live practice it is impossible to get a 'feel' for the kind of game it leads to. There is time enough later for involvement with the details, after playing your games it is good to look up the line." - GM Nigel Davies (2005)
"Every now and then someone advances the idea that one may gain success in chess by using shortcuts. 'Chess is 99% tactics' - proclaims one expert, suggesting that strategic understanding is overrated; 'Improvement in chess is all about opening knowledge' - declares another. A third self-appointed authority asserts that a thorough knowledge of endings is the key to becoming a master; while his expert-friend is puzzled by the mere thought that a player can achieve anything at all without championing pawn structures.
To me, such statements seem futile. You can't hope to gain mastery of any subject by specializing in only parts of it. ..." - FM Amatzia Avni (2008)
"Yes, you can easily become a master. All you need to do is some serious, focused work on your play.
That 'chess is 99% tactics and blah-blah' thing is crap. Chess is several things (opening, endgame, middlegame strategy, positional play, tactics, psychology, time management...) which should be treated properly as a whole. getting just one element of lay and working exclusively on it is of very doubtful value, and at worst it may well turn out being a waste of time." - IM pfren (August 21, 2017)
"If you want to improve in classical ( slow ) chess you have to work on all 3 phases of the game . ..." - NM Reb (August 30, 2017)
"... A remark like 'games are rarely decided in the opening' does not really do justice to the issue. ... even if an initial opening advantage gets spoiled by subsequent mistakes, this doesn't render it meaningless. In the long run, having the advantage out of the opening will bring you better results. Maybe this warning against the study of openings especially focuses on 'merely learning moves'. But almost all opening books and DVD's give ample attention to general plans and developing schemes, typical tactics, whole games, and so on. ..." - IM Willy Hendriks (2012)
"... anyone who is just starting out should not dive into the vast ocean of theory that is the Najdorf. For beginners, the time invested in studying even minor lines can be more productively used solving tactical puzzles and basic endgame technique.
...
... In some lines, a good understanding of basic principles will take you far, while in others, such as the Poisoned Pawn ..., memorization is a must, as one wrong move can cost you the game in the blink of an eye. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2006)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140626175558/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen87.pdf
"... what is good at world-championship level is not always the best choice at lower levels of play, ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2008)
"... Overall, I would advise most players to stick to a fairly limited range of openings, and not to worry about learning too much by heart. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2008)
"... the average player only needs to know a limited amount about the openings he plays. Providing he understands the main aims of the opening, a few typical plans and a handful of basic variations, that is enough. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2008)
Is anyone advocating that a player ignore tactics?
People say on the forums that you should not "waste time" reading opening books to get better.
but i don't understand why not. can't i just memorize the moves and then play like a GM?
to get to a destination you need to know how to get their by making the first steps
Why don't you "just" give it a try then ?
Don't waste time memorizing long lines of openings because your opponent NEVER plays the way book/video states but try memorizing some short and simple openings. For example, I've always wanted to play the Sicilian Dragon but my opponent never moves the proper way. So I decided to memorize the 2 move Sicilian HAD. Most openings try command center square like King Pawn, Queen Pawn, or English. You will learn that all you have to do is not hang your pieces around the board and develop all of your pieces and that is the equivalent of a "good opening". However, you can look at the theory behind common openings which can help. Also, think about it, Carlsen probably uses the same openings as you do and he still has a rating 2000 higher than yours. It's mainly about how well you do in the midgame.
Of course, they don't realize that tactics don't appear on their own, but are a consequence of the previous play. As a result, they –may– stop hanging pieces, but –will likely– keep on losing games... and still not knowing why.
...or they will say they lost because they played a 'immature' aka "superior" opening wrongly....and therefore just need to study tactics even more. Such is the bullet generation.
For someone seeking help with openings, I usually bring up Openings for Amateurs by Pete Tamburro (2014).
http://kenilworthian.blogspot.com/2014/05/review-of-pete-tamburros-openings-for.html
https://chessbookreviews.wordpress.com/tag/openings-for-amateurs/
I believe that it is possible to see a fair portion of the beginning of Tamburro's book by going to the Mongoose Press site.
https://www.mongoosepress.com/catalog/excerpts/openings_amateurs.pdf
Perhaps coldgoat would also want to look at Discovering Chess Openings by GM John Emms (2006).
"... For beginning players, [Discovering Chess Openings] will offer an opportunity to start out on the right foot and really get a feel for what is happening on the board. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2006)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627114655/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen91.pdf
For someone seeking help with openings, I usually bring up Openings for Amateurs by Pete Tamburro (2014). "
And if someone is looking how to play basketball, I would recommend 'How to play basketball for dummies'. ...or is that title too insulting in today's world?
I never said you should master tactics and then move on. I merely said that there are building blocks that are concrete and can easily be internalized that should be attended to first. After that it's about eliminating the most common reason for losses. I don't believe that you can go on studying while ignoring why you lose and expect your performance to improve... simply makes no sense at all.
See, some believe that they lose games due to tactics, namely oversights. Which is the main reason people tell others to works on tactics and forget about anything else, at least until they stop hanging stuff.
Of course, they don't realize that tactics don't appear on their own, but are a consequence of the previous play. As a result, they –may– stop hanging pieces, but –will likely– keep on losing games... and still not knowing why.
Chess isn't a one–dimension game, where one skill makes all the difference. Several skills are required to achieve consistent results. Calculation is a must have, tactical eye also, but preparation is no less important. Why? Because, as some better players have already written, tactics flow from a superior position.
your patience is amazing...
Chess openings don't matter. Neither do middle games or endgames. There's nothing at stake in a chess game so it doesn't matter what you do. Just shuffle the pieces around, have some fun (if you find that fun), and when the position looks complicated, agree to a draw. Here in almost 2018, nobody has time for Chess.
but there is always time to fill the forums...
I never said you should master tactics and then move on. I merely said that there are building blocks that are concrete and can easily be internalized that should be attended to first. After that it's about eliminating the most common reason for losses. I don't believe that you can go on studying while ignoring why you lose and expect your performance to improve... simply makes no sense at all.
See, some believe that they lose games due to tactics, namely oversights. Which is the main reason people tell others to works on tactics and forget about anything else, at least until they stop hanging stuff.
Of course, they don't realize that tactics don't appear on their own, but are a consequence of the previous play. As a result, they –may– stop hanging pieces, but –will likely– keep on losing games... and still not knowing why.
Chess isn't a one–dimension game, where one skill makes all the difference. Several skills are required to achieve consistent results. Calculation is a must have, tactical eye also, but preparation is no less important. Why? Because, as some better players have already written, tactics flow from a superior position.
your patience is amazing...
He actually comes off as highly egotistical and wrong. He argues against points I never made. But you probably masturbate to anyone with a rating over 2000 so... whatever
thanks for reminding me why I shouldn't waste my time on the forums, on the other hand for as much funny as it could be I happened to found some of the over 2K rated's comments and analysis useful and sensible, I mean... life it's not fair isn't it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
have nice day Meow!
... There is a reason all of our great positional understanding fails to brute force machines, it's because our arrogance lead us to believe that positional concepts were a premium when, in reality, if you were able to become good enough at tactics and calculation with enough patterns stored in your mind you would be able to blow the best players off of the board without ever learning what the term "positional" means in chess. ...
Is it realistic for a person to hope to play like a brute force machine?
People say on the forums that you should not "waste time" reading opening books to get better.
but i don't understand why not. can't i just memorize the moves and then play like a GM?
to get to a destination you need to know how to get their by making the first steps