Capablanca was speaking in a time when openings were inaccurate.
Now that computers have come around and openings have been hammered and fine-tuned, going out of book can sometimes be an instant loss.
Quite the opposite. Going out of the book against players which are parroting computer lines is incredibly effective. Actually this method works even on the highest level- see how Carlsen is treating the opening.
Chess isn't a game of memorization. If GM don't have incredible skill they lose even with 30 move book knowledge
Many thinks that if I control the opening I kan win quick- but what happens if someone meats a guy who is just as good- i used to studi openings a lot in my younger years - but my endgame teknik is lausi and some time my middlegame understanding in certan positions is bad- then i studied the greats of capalancha,Karpov and Kramnik and i have improved on that and still i think is beginning to se thel light . I think you have to play a lot of games at the same time and have helpers of greater strength to show what should be played- That why the russians is soo good - the have 3-4 around them to give them feedback .
@Slapkong.What did you read or study to improve your game
I am a 1200-1300 player and I have a decent knowledge of the openings, in most openings I am comfortable and even have a few favourites ( KID, Spanish ) and I can honestly say that it can really help to have a good knowledge of the opening, although of course tactics and endgame are 10x more important. Both side are usually overrated ( Know all the openings vs Only know the principles ) IMO it pays to find a happy medium.
Openings in chess give you "positioning" on the board where you can get other pieces out easier. As far as "tactics" go, generally that's later in the game.
@Slapkong.What did you read or study to improve your game
to improve my positional play i read - My system by Aron Nimzowith , and old book but relevant for those who want to play postional play- then som years ago i found a very interesting old coach( i think he was involved in training Bobby Fisher when he was young) i think is interesting.C.J Purdys" My search for chess perfektion." i can really rekommend it - i has turned my brain in an other way to look at things- he makes it more understandible for this generation - Aron Nimzowith can be very difficult to choke on. maybe read it more times. i have read til 3 times - still there are things which i think is peculiar-Then to improve and under stand postional play learn from master of today - play through games of Karpov -Kramnik -capablanca . But in the end it is your stil of play which will determine how to play- here is a funny thing Alexei shirov is a very agressiv attacking player - but sometimes he had played very postional- .so i think it is how you are put together as a person .. .. one has to find his own stile - hope that was answer enough
I am being asked this question quite often, so I decided to answer it in my recent Q&A column:
First of all, they are probably mimicking the world's best. However, the top players have walked a long road before arriving at where they are. In their games there are few mistakes, so obtaining an edge from the beginning of the game is important. On the contrary, in amateur confrontations both opponents are usually blundering a few times per game. Why not focus on middlegame/endgame instead of the opening? And, of course, on tactics. Secondly, we associate our openings with ourselves. No one is saying "my middlegame", "my endgame", but you can hear about "my Slav" or "my King's Gambit". Thirdly, studying openings seems to be an easy pastime. Chess players opt for the path of least resistance: they grab a book/software and start reviewing it diligently day after day. This is easier than, for example, working on one's technique of converting winning positions or learning how to avoid time trouble. How should one study the opening? That is a different question.
thx Natalia!
In Italy they teach opening to players who play from a few weeks...
Why so many players are OBSESSED with openings? I see here a lot of posts of <1500 asking for openings.
'Cause if you don't get the logic behind openings you're dead at the start.
So they do the openings without really caring about why and how.
Howewer I never fall into an opening trap. Traps came often from wierd moves in openings, and if the opponent don't fall in the trap you usually have some problems, due to sacrified material or development
Speaking as a 1300-ish patzer, the reason I learn one or two openings is so that I can actually get a game of chess, instead of having my opponent strangle my game in the crib. There's nothing better at making me think I could spend my free time better than sitting at a chessboard and not getting to play chess, but instead act as a punching bag for someone who knows a trap or two. If I have to learn five to ten moves to get out of the opening and into an actual game, well, that's a cheap way to have more fun in my book.
Why not focus on middlegame/endgame instead of the opening?
Why not focus on middlegame/endgame AND opening?
Openings are important, IMO. Playing against a studious KID player, for instance, if White doesn't know what he's doing, he can get mowed down pretty quickly.
The same thing with an accepted Benko gambit and not knowing how to play with the semi-open a/b files.
Or playing the Dragon but not knowing how to play against the Yugoslav attack. Or not knowing the thematic sacrifice of RxNc3 in certain lines.
Opening study doesn't have to be blind parroting. It can involve learning the pros and cons of certain key structures and the thematic maneuvering involved.
The endgame technique of today's elite players is incredible. Yes, I'm sure someone will post a blunder, or a failure to win a won game by an elite grandmaster. But taken as a whole, the technique of world class players now is miles ahead of what Capablanca and his peers knew.
Capablanca's point about opening books may actually be right because most opening books are obsolete within weeks of being published!