Part of the problem, I think, in communicating about this topic is the ambiguity of the term "opening study." Some people mean memorization, others mean try to understand the moves but don't worry if you don't remember each move, some people mean a little bit of both, etc. As I said diminishing returns happen quickly. You may get a huge benefit from going from knowing zero about an opening to knowing something, but this benefit may be much smaller than going from knowing something about the opening to knowing just a little bit more than something, etc.
You don't need an opening reportoire until you hit 2000 ELO - ture or false ?
Sort:
Elubas wrote:
Part of the problem, I think, in communicating about this topic is the ambiguity of the term "opening study." Some people mean memorization, others mean try to understand the moves but don't worry if you don't remember each move, some people mean a little bit of both, etc. As I said diminishing returns happen quickly. You may get a huge benefit from going from knowing zero about an opening to knowing something, but this benefit may be much smaller than going from knowing something about the opening to knowing just a little bit more than something, etc.
Exactly. I tried to embody that idea when I said this earlier but, it is difficult to cover all of the possible bases for what could be intended.
3 hours ago · Quote ·Edit·Delete · #63
baddogno wrote:
This is a good thread. It's been a few months since the forums were blessed with this topic and I'd say the main positions are now being stated with a certain practiced elegance. No one is going to convince anyone of differing opinion here, but we all dutifully write our lines.
I think the perspective this question is asked from and how it is considered applicable to players of different skill levels, is detrimental to the relevance of the answers.
For example, if an 1800 FIDE rated player, has never made it a point to learn more than the first 3-4 moves of the most popular openings and is handily winning most of his games against like competition, who is still rising in the ratings, etc, it is probably true that studying openings for him to get to 2000, isn't neceassary. However, I think it is fair to say that most chess players aren't future titled players either, while a player of that caliber is likely to be one.
Someone who has been playing chess for 10 years, who has only risen from the provisional rating to 1600, and has never studied openings in depth or never tried to understand the elegance and necessity of a dedicated repertoire, or better, "a system" , will probably never reach 2000, unless they have a brain tumor, causing an unusual increase in spatial reasoning.
Long story short, it can be relative to whom the idea is juxtaposed with but, I would say for the most part, if you hope to be really good at chess, it is fool hearty to not try understanding the intricacy and pertinence of an "opening system".
Also, I tried to convey the ambiguity of a system, or opening system, by putting those terms in quotes.
Oct 7, 2014
0
#64
False! a good set of openings will help everyone. While begginners do not need to have deep complex openings, a good solid reliable opening is never bad
Elubas wrote:
Honestly if you want my advice, you may give up too easily. Instead of thinking about your rotten position, think about how eager your opponent wants an "easy win," and how frustrated he will be when you start forcing him to play accurately. When your opponent has to be precise, he can't go on autopilot, and if he feels he "should" win the game, he can easily get discouraged when his obvious threats keep getting met. He's going to miss moves; it's just a matter of you looking for those moments and catching him on it, rather than you collapsing.
I can remember a single time where I outright won a game out of the opening -- a totally legit win. And other "semi-traps" where I got a fairly large advantage or an extra pawn (although I didn't win all of those games!). But in the long run, it's not that helpful.
I'm not talking about winning a game in the opening as if all other moves from the opponent cannot defeat you. I'm saying at any decent level, winning a huge advantage in the opening can be a huge advantage that is difficult to overcome. Yes, the game could turn around quickly and often does. But even at lower levels than expert and master, it can be very difficult to win or draw a game when you're already fighting for survival out of the opening. At the very least, if you have some comfortable opening lines, you will not be sweating so hard through the opening and possibly the rest of the game. It makes a difference.
I look at it as similar to building a house.
You start by building a solid foundation. In chess, you start off with a solid opening.
Those who dismiss the value of openings baffle me.
"But even at lower levels than expert and master, it can be very difficult to win or draw a game when you're already fighting for survival out of the opening."
I don't really agree.
"At the very least, if you have some comfortable opening lines, you will not be sweating so hard through the opening and possibly the rest of the game. It makes a difference."
This is a plausible result of learning some "comfortable opening lines," but I'm not sure it makes a very large difference. There is always tons of wiggle room to undo any early mistakes you made because opportunities are all over the place, especially at the class level. Now, a lot of times a class player in a bad position doesn't exploit those opportunities. I'm saying all he has to do is learn how to do just that and he will be able to fight in just about any worse position with a reasonable chance, and this will improve his results. I think this is better than just shoring up your openings one by one, especially considering that you'll have these skills for the rest of your chess life, whereas with openings you may find yourself changing them often.
When you rarely blunder, you basically buy yourself 50 moves or so before you lose. A class player is bound to make a big mistake in that time, especially if you are looking for counterplay. At this point it's just math: if you only need your opponent to make one bad move even though he's played 49 good ones, you have pretty good odds. This is why consistency and just being able to see tactical threats tends to be much more efficient than relying on opening theory. When players get extremely consistent like at master level, and to a lesser extent expert level, this reasoning may start to break down a bit (although not necessarily that much!).
pawnwhacker wrote:
I look at it as similar to building a house.
You start by building a solid foundation. In chess, you start off with a solid opening.
Those who dismiss the value of openings baffle me.
"I don't understand the arguments of those who dismiss the value of openings. Therefore, it must be because they are wrong, not me."
Elubas wrote:
"But even at lower levels than expert and master, it can be very difficult to win or draw a game when you're already fighting for survival out of the opening."
I don't really agree.
Ok, well that's not my experience. Best streak I've ever had was after studying opening lines for a few hours. It gave me an unmistakable advantage against many opponents that I wouldn't have gotten otherwise. Coming out stronger from the opening not only gave me an advantage on the board, but a psychological edge. In reality, all of this contributes towards a more probable win. In reality, a 1200 or 1500 player who is clearly losing after 10 moves is more likely to crumble.
Of course, there will always be other opportunities later in the game to equal the position or overturn the advantage. You are saying that if two 1200 players play each other, and one gets an advantage in the opening, the other opponent simply has to play like a 1400 player the rest of the game. Except he's still a 1200 player. Preserverence is helpful but there's no reason to deny that gaining an opening advantage at the intermediate level is meaningless. Of course it can be overcome and sometimes is, but it's simply one more way to gain an advantage on an opponent.
Btw, people are more likely to read everything you write if you put a space between paragraphs.
Right, your point that a player can crumble in a difficult position has been addressed. But it sort of reminds me of, say, two 600s playing, and one side wins an extra piece. Because so many other pieces will be lost, it's unlikely the first piece taken will make a difference. Better than 50-50, of course, but not necessarily by much. This is sort of what I mean by randomness. Naturally anyone will want to be better over not being better, there's no question about that, but just how important that is is another matter entirely and I can't share your experiences in the slightest on this one. Could you cite the specific opening variations in which your quick wins happened? Maybe that would allow me to better understand your perspective.
DrCheckevertim wrote:
Btw, people are more likely to read everything you write if you put a space between paragraphs.
But I'll be less likely to read it :)
I'm not sure I care that much but I'll try to look through my games tomorrow and find a good example.
See I would agree with you if we were talking about 600 rated players, but I agree less as we move up to 1200ish through 1800ish.
pawnwhacker wrote:
I look at it as similar to building a house.
You start by building a solid foundation. In chess, you start off with a solid opening.
Those who dismiss the value of openings baffle me.
dodernation wrote:
Excellent analogy, but you have it backwards. Endings are the foundation of chess. Everything comes from the end game.
ParadoxOfNone wrote:
I disagree completely. You wont get to a winnable end game if you keep getting beat before the middle game. One mistake in an opening can cost the game, where as if you get to a playable middle game, you tend to have more options.
A solid foundation is the key to every winning king's castle. The argument here is really over where to draw the line at building a cabin or a Cape Cod and for who. Trying to learn how to construct many palaces as GM's do is what is a waste of time. They probably ad lib many of theirs anyway.
Well yes, a piece is much more important in that range :) Which is why we are lowering the scale to just slight advantages and such, the kinds of things GMs only convert sometimes :)
I mean, I've had games where I was above 1400 and lost and drew games where I was up a clear piece. And many more where I won a full pawn early on. But if I end up blundering a piece later who needs the pawn?
dodgernation wrote:
Excellent analogy, but you have it backwards. Endings are the foundation of chess. Everything comes from the end game.
Sorry but I don't believe you.
You won't get to an ending if you screw up your opening.
pawnwhacker wrote:
I look at it as similar to building a house.
You start by building a solid foundation. In chess, you start off with a solid opening
Those who dismiss the value of openings baffle me.
dodgernation wrote:
Excellent analogy, but you have it backwards. Endings are the foundation of chess. Everything comes from the end game.
ParadoxOfNone wrote:
I disagree completely. You wont get to a winnable end game if you keep getting beat before the middle game. One mistake in an opening can cost the game, where as if you get to a playable middle game, you tend to have more options.
A solid foundation is the key to every winning king's castle. The argument here is really over where to draw the line at building a cabin or a Cape Cod and for who. Trying to learn how to construct many palaces as GM's do is what is a waste of time. They probably ad lib many of theirs anyway.
dodgernation wrote:
The opening serves one purpose, to get to a playable middlegame.
A mistake in the opening you can survice. A mistake in the middle game will hurt you. A mistake in the endgame will kill you.
If youre getting beat in the opening, youre missing tactics.
ParadoxOfNone wrote:
I have yet to play a game where one mistake in the middle game cost me a game. I have dropped queens in the middle game and still won or drawn. I have resigned or been check mated more than I care to count from a horrible opening. Since you want to keep arguing about, I challenge you to play the Blackburn Gambit and not get checkmated in the opening.
As for missing tactics, I find there arent any tactics if both players play the opening properly. Most players I play with do because, I only play correspondence, where opening books and databases get used.
I'd play live to try remedying the situation but, I have too many responsibilities and I am sure the opening books and databases are used in live chess, though they arent supposed to be.
Elubas wrote:
pawnwhacker wrote:
I look at it as similar to building a house.
You start by building a solid foundation. In chess, you start off with a solid opening.
Those who dismiss the value of openings baffle me.
"I don't understand the arguments of those who dismiss the value of openings. Therefore, it must be because they are wrong, not me."
You have twisted my words and created a false syllogism.
"Long story short, it can be relative to whom the idea is juxtaposed with but, I would say for the most part, if you hope to be really good at chess, it is fool hearty to not try understanding the intricacy and pertinence of an "opening system"."
I liked your point paradox about how it may depend on the player -- not just their level, but also their particular strengths and weaknesses.
But regarding openings... I am generous enough to say it's not foolish to study them a bit, but I don't think I could possibly disagree any more strongly on the statement that it's as much as foolish to do the opposite. Beyond, say, a brief overview of what you're trying to do, which takes maybe a half hour and most of it you can learn as you go.
By the way if you guys are curious... I think on one of the first threads I have ever posted here, 6 years ago maybe, I was very much for openings, probably using similar arguments to what you guys are. Although I think my main argument was that in learning openings you can also learn chess in general. I have already addressed that point here.
I feel as if you are thinking of a plan for one particular opening and how a few variations may effect it, where as instead, I am thinking more along the lines of how you may be trying to utilize one opening but, are forced into another opening entirely.
While studying "openings", it isn't simply a matter of studying lines within a specific opening, to be more prepared than your opponent for that specific ECO# but, instead know the openings as a whole generally well enough that, if you get forced out of your comfort zone, you have a few alternate choices that work with your skill set. This can become an issue within an individual opening itself, where one variation creates a tactical game and another a very positional game.