You don't need an opening reportoire until you hit 2000 ELO - ture or false ?

If you want to learn about the Ruy, play the Ruy or ...e5 or both.  But if you play the English, not knowing the Ruy isn't really hurting you.

Everyman has an entire "move by move" series on a variety of openings, the Ruy included.  Even better, the author is Neil McDonald, who wrote a fantastic 5-book series of "move by move" annotated game collections.

I haven't read that book, but I would expect it to be excellent considering the goal of the series and the author itself.

Answer to the thread title: False.

Answer to the thread title --  It's a "Turd"

I still think it's ture.

So many, many, many like the Ruy. I don't And, whenever I see that they have a clear bishop diagonal, I usually push a rook pawn to stymy their endeavor. They become befuddled because Ruy is all they know.

For example, the O'Kelly Variation of the Sicilian Defense. I just don't like getting my N pinned in an opening.

thx silentknight

Really? Because you seem to be the arrogant and bitter one. I'm not the one telling people to post in a certain way. A 1600 player who thinks he can solve the greatest questions with a random answer isn't exactly someone who enjoys humbling himself.

You are willing to go so far to "prove your point" that you want to tell everyone "hey, look at this stupid thread Elubas created!" (or "mr. loobs," or "looby-dooby-doo," whatever makes you, somehow, feel better about yourself) Right, and I'm the one with ego issues. You think you're proving your points when you're really just proving mine.

I really don't think I know all the answers. That's why I encourage debate so much. I have challenged people's ideas here; people have challenged mine, and I think that's great. I actually get learning out of it; if other people don't that's their problem, and I won't take the blame for that. Read only things that you're interested in and you'll find that you won't be bored.

Girls, you are both pretty, ok?

What's wrong with being a girl?

Considering in May of 1956 Fisher was rated 1726 and that at the end of July of 1956 he was probably over 2100 maybe over 2200, so what I am getting it is not whether he read or not (I'll address that in a second) my point is he was considered something of a genius with a natural talent for the game, so his path may not be the rule of thumb for the most... 

As to reading BEFORE HE WAS 2000, what, I assume we are talking chess, (right?) what was he reading?  MCO, Edward Lasker?  Horowitz?  The fact is, we don't know...

As to his avid "reading" as a chess professional, what was he reading?  Don't make me laugh and claim MCO, Horowitz or Em. Lasker... What he read was the "Red Books", tourney bulletins, Shakhmatny Bulletin, 64 Magazine and studied game collections…  This is hardly MCO level stuff, the material is miles higher…  But it is hardly ‘readable stuff’, no?  You go over a chess game’s score, whether mentally or on the board, but you really don’t read it…

How much opening theory did he dabble in?  Well he certainly rarely varied from his favorite lines over the years, until the Spassky match, where he cracked the egg with a beautiful QGD… 

Even iconoclastic players who don't use main line openings much prepare their unusual openings in advance. I have a friend who's a +2200 player who has played literally every legal first move as white and as black in USCF events. But when he faces a player that he respects, he still prepares the opening beforehand. The opening may be trashy, but he usually has some specific ideas he wants to try. 

I don't know of any player who has reached 2000 who didn't study the openings. Most experts don't need much time to learn the basics of an opening well enough to play it.

Again, most class players spend far too much time studying and memorizing the openings, often to deleterious effect. But the openings are still important. If Polgar's advice encourages players to focus more on middlegames, strategy and endgames, then her advice is good.

Thanks for the concise complement.  Aways appreciated.

But I DON'T engage in circular debate, for it's own sake.  Any disinterested reader will pick that up.

To wit -- "The best opening is the one you know, and your opponent doesn't."

But You Must Know Something, at least one universal opening, or have a rough idea how to play the first 15-20 moves of the opening you choose.

This perspective argues against choosing openings with "gigantic theory," or chockablock with transpositions, but ultimately that choice remains a matter of personal taste.

Very Simple.

@SmylovFan has it right in the post above. 

End of Story ?  Hardly.  Onward Christian Soldiers...@Elubas awaits you.  

Wow, 100 points in one tournament.

It was a bit unfair for me to pick that one comment out when I really agreed with your other posts and main point.

Chess seems to be hard to teach.  In my experiance I could be told something, but it didn't really make sense until I saw it enough times in games.  So the coach would have to know what kind of homework will bring it out of the student, but the improvement is up the student... maybe all learning is like that though.

True, but there's something to be said for being concise too.  If you start to repete yourself or say in 10 words what you could say in 2, people (even the ones still reading) may miss your point.

Although many times in this topic it seemed like you were arguing for the sake of arguing, and not bringing up any ideas...

There were others, but off the top of my head I remember one point someone said to focus on your weak area, and you said something to the effect of "but if my weak area is Q vs R then it's not going to help my practical results."  IMO that seems to break two common curtosies of conversation.  1) You took the meaning out of context and 2) you use an extreme case.

Post #326: Well I should clear things up then, because honestly I'm surprised my posts have been interpreted in the way that they did:

First, you're right, of course there's something to be said for being concise. In fact, so much so that people assume that brevity is the only way to go! That's why I am making counter points to that, saying that there are pros and cons to the decision of how much to say. I'm not saying I always say the right amount, nobody is perfect, but if you ask me, in the end, I think my contributions contain good info and in general can make a lot of people benefit.

"Although many times in this topic it seemed like you were arguing for the sake of arguing, and not bringing up any ideas..."

Arguments bring up ideas. As long as the ideas are on-topic, which I think they were, all is good. My off topic posts, I guess, were when people were questioning my motives, so I made a few posts such as this one that are not about chess.

I respectfully but strongly disagree that my example was inappropriate. Now, true, people might misinterpret my point, but I'm not sure that's my fault. My only claim was that you have to factor in the likelihood that the weakness will affect you. I did this with the queen vs rook example to show what I mean as blatantly as possible. That does not at all commit me to saying that the case of openings is just like the case of queen vs rook; it does commit me to saying that in the case of openings, you have to factor in the likelihood that the weakness in that area will affect you, which is an important consideration.

And, I do apply this point somewhat, because I have been arguing that, indeed, one may be able to get away with poor opening knowledge. In that case focusing on that weakness might not be so important after all.

People can argue against that of course, and I welcome them to, because I invite opposing views unlike a lot of people here it seems :)

holy crap you two.

untracked

And that above argument really isn't for argument's sake. It's for the sake of people actually seeing my posts for what they are, so that they may benefit from them rather than see them as, somehow, combative or arrogant.

So I'll stress again. Perhaps unlike many people, I do not need any personal issue with a person to "play hard ball," if you will. That is, relentlessly bringing up counter examples and such to people's points. Whenever I do that, I genuinely believe in my ideas; I'm not doing it just to be annoying.

As I see it, it's better that if I disagree with something I say so, because this is a forum. Other people can come to a forum not looking for their ideas to be objected to, but I'm not sure why they would. Go somewhere where people are supposed to agree with you all the time or don't complain.

Some people don't deal well with adversity to begin with. As soon as someone is completely shrewd and it forces them to either be inconvenienced, think harder than they wanted or are left with the choice between introspection of their ideas and foolishly justifying their ill thought ideas because, they didn't feel like exerting themselves, it stresses them.

I wouldn't even waste my time trying to outduel you in a chessic debate. However, I can still appreciate your exuberance and veracity towards your own opinion. It seems to me that anyone who gets offended by you is more interested in defeating you, instead of sharing with you or learning from you, or controlling you, instead of letting you be free to be you, or perhaps is too busy trying to make sure that everyone else agrees with them and sees you as a threat to their potential enterprise. Regardless of the reason(s) I mentioned, it is awefully shortsighted, arrogant and selfish of them.

Thanks, paradox. Interesting how different people can have almost opposite perceptions of me lol.

Naa, usually I like your posts.  Just here you seemed to be bringing up trivial stuff.  It's easy to argue without ideas.  People do it all the time in fact!