Forums

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

Sort:
SilentKnighte5
SilentKnighte5
Oct 8, 2014
0
#121
dodgernation wrote:
yureesystem wrote:

Opening is important, what distinguish strong player from a duffer is the opening. If I did not give some time as a low rated player and played junk opening I would still be low rated; I seen players from my two chess clubs I  play and players who play junk opening or avoid playing 1.e4 and standard lines ( Colle, London System, King's Indian Attack, Reti and finally English.) stay low rated, if are below 1800 elo you need to play 1.e4 so you can develop to become a better player; the reason 1.e4 is important is you get tactical positions and positional positions and others different pawn structures and different way to handle center breaks, for insteads the French opening, Sicilian, Petrov and Ruy Lopez ; each of these opening require specific planning to reach a desire goal, and that is a opening advantage. Your opening needs to be sound enough to play against Master.


Not entirely true...many GM's play those openings, especially the Engllish. 

 

In fact, if my chessbase research is correct, there seems to be a secular trend away from e4 towards Nf3/c4 systems at the top levels.  That doesn't have much bearing on what opening repertoire you need to get to 2000, but it's certainly an interesting development.

DrCheckevertim
DrCheckevertim
Oct 8, 2014
0
#122
Elubas wrote:
DrCheckevertim wrote:
Reb wrote:

The key is to not neglect any phase of the game and to spend the most time on the phase that you are weakest in . 

+1

This is true not only in chess, but for learning in general. Approach things as a whole -- and the quickest, most efficient gains are usually from spending time in the weakest area.

In general I would agree -- in fact this kind of philosophy is something I live for, but it also depends on how important the "weak area" is. I could be extremely bad at mating with queen and king vs king and rook, but since that will probably never occur in my games I don't necessarily need to work on it.

I knew you would make that comment. Laughing

ParadoxOfNone
ParadoxOfNone
Oct 8, 2014
0
#123

dodgernation wrote:

SilentKnighte5 wrote:
dodgernation wrote:
yureesystem wrote:

Opening is important, what distinguish strong player from a duffer is the opening. If I did not give some time as a low rated player and played junk opening I would still be low rated; I seen players from my two chess clubs I  play and players who play junk opening or avoid playing 1.e4 and standard lines ( Colle, London System, King's Indian Attack, Reti and finally English.) stay low rated, if are below 1800 elo you need to play 1.e4 so you can develop to become a better player; the reason 1.e4 is important is you get tactical positions and positional positions and others different pawn structures and different way to handle center breaks, for insteads the French opening, Sicilian, Petrov and Ruy Lopez ; each of these opening require specific planning to reach a desire goal, and that is a opening advantage. Your opening needs to be sound enough to play against Master.


Not entirely true...many GM's play those openings, especially the Engllish. 

 

In fact, if my chessbase research is correct, there seems to be a secular trend away from e4 towards Nf3/c4 systems at the top levels.  That doesn't have much bearing on what opening repertoire you need to get to 2000, but it's certainly an interesting development.


Opening poularity comes and goes.  Chess is no different than pop culture.  If a top GM scores a convincing win with an opening that isnt presently popular, guaranteed it will gain in popularity. 

An opening rep should be based on what you like to play, not what is popular.

Top GM's know better how to win with openings that have less winning chances. The reason the most popular openings are popular is due to their versatility and variety of winning chances. I recommend learning how to use all of the tools in a tool kit as opposed to starting off using a hammer instead of a screwdriver, just because a top GM can.

ParadoxOfNone
ParadoxOfNone
Oct 8, 2014
0
#124
[COMMENT DELETED]
pawnwhacker
pawnwhacker
Oct 8, 2014
0
#125

That's why I sometimes play the orangutan. It puzzles some players.

Plus a3 then h3, for example. They think either I am a beginner or crazy. (Of course, h3 then a3 is OK too...lol.)

ParadoxOfNone
ParadoxOfNone
Oct 8, 2014
0
#126

pawnwhacker wrote:

That's why I sometimes play the orangutan. It puzzles some players.

In a blitz game, I get it. Would you use in a classically time controlled game with €20,000 on the line ?

pawnwhacker
pawnwhacker
Oct 8, 2014
0
#127

Don't be silly...of course not! I just do such things when I'm in a giddy mood.

 

Dinero? Blood!!!

yureesystem
yureesystem
Oct 8, 2014
0
#128

dodgernation wrote:

yureesystem wrote:

Opening is important, what distinguish strong player from a duffer is the opening. If I did not give some time as a low rated player and played junk opening I would still be low rated; I seen players from my two chess clubs I  play and players who play junk opening or avoid playing 1.e4 and standard lines ( Colle, London System, King's Indian Attack, Reti and finally English.) stay low rated, if are below 1800 elo you need to play 1.e4 so you can develop to become a better player; the reason 1.e4 is important is you get tactical positions and positional positions and others different pawn structures and different way to handle center breaks, for insteads the French opening, Sicilian, Petrov and Ruy Lopez ; each of these opening require specific planning to reach a desire goal, and that is a opening advantage. Your opening needs to be sound enough to play against Master.


Not entirely true...many GM's play those openings, especially the Engllish. 

No you od not need to play e4.  beginner are taught to play e4, and d4 because they follow the opening principles.  But there certainly is nothing wrong with expanding beyond those openings before youre 1800.

 

I speaking from experiences and players who are or were low rated never reach expert level and never even reach 1800 Elo. There is a player in my chees club and we both started at the same time, on him first move plays the English (1.c4) and now the Birds (1.f4) and his highest rating was 1680 uscf and now in the low 1500 uscf and I started with 1.e4 and standard opening and mine highest rating was 2110 uscf and now 2011 uscf and I am still an expert.

 What I see in my chess club and among low rated players is the they are weak in the opening and when they go against strong opposition they normally lose.

SilentKnighte5
SilentKnighte5
Oct 8, 2014
0
#129

I see 2000s at my club all the time that play goofy openings like b4 or the Budapest.  I dunno if they got there with it, but to say you're setting yourself up for failure if you decide to play Nf3 or b3 as an amateur is wrong.

Being good at an offbeat opening repertoire doesn't make you "weak in the opening".  The general principles still apply.  Tactics is still 99% of chess. I'd rather be "weak in the opening" than weak at tactics. If computer chess has taught us anything, it's that there's a ton of playable openings out there.  Heck the hypermoderns taught us the same thing 100 years ago.

yureesystem
yureesystem
Oct 8, 2014
0
#130

Veganomnomnom wrote:

I got to 2000 without knowing much about the opening. I switched 'repertoires' a few times, playing 1.e4 for a while, playing 1.d4 for about a year, and switching back to 1.e4.

I learned openings mostly by playing blitz, and I studied a lot of my games afterwards to figure out what I could have done better. This led naturally to my becoming very familiar with specific opening positions that arised commonly in my games.

I haven't really ever sat down with a chess book and a board and tried to learn what was in the book. I consider that to be a colossal waste of time and energy below master level.

 

 Few players reach 2000 Elo without opening knowledge and you are probably the lucky one to reach expert level. But I know when you play against masters and stronger players opening are essential.

 

yureesystem
yureesystem
Oct 8, 2014
0
#131

nescitus wrote:

What about about a middle ground approach? I actually gained a lot by learning some structures: Symmetrical English, Carlsbad, Kings Indian Attack, black side of classical Ruy Lopez (i.e. some patterns revolving naround black King). At the same time, learning long move sequences has almost always been an utter waste of time for me. Basically, if You learn plans, then You win in the long run, as You start to think along the lines "this position resembles me something", "if opponent blocks the center then I go into pawn storm mode on the kingside" etc. Knowing long lines may actually hurt this kind of thinking.

 

These opening you mention are sophisticate opening and I seen low rated players handle them badly. If you think playing them will help your game and by all means played them. My opinion these opening should be played by masters only and they are difficult to understand for most players.

nescitus
nescitus
Oct 8, 2014
0
#132
yureesystem wrote:

These opening you mention are sophisticate opening and I seen low rated players handle them badly. If you think playing them will help your game and by all means played them. My opinion these opening should be played by masters only and they are difficult to understand for most players.

Well, I have gained 1st cathegory and then a candidate master norm soon after switching to 1...e5, so I understand the case for playing classical stuff. In fact it seems that junior players are nowadays more afraid of mainline Ruy Lopez than of mainline Sicilian. On the other hand, I was never really comfortable with 1.e4. I switch to it if a tournament goes badly (so that the learning experience is already more important than scoring), but normally I choose between 1.d4 and 1.Nf3, where move order is less critical and plans and patterns gain more importance. I guess I might be "too short" by about 100 Elo to play these openings, but I enjoy them.

Elubas
Elubas
Oct 8, 2014
0
#133
ParadoxOfNone wrote:
Elubas wrote:

Wow, that person looks a lot like rowsweep.

Oh, did I accidently post that here. I meant to post that in how to find pics from the net and make them look like your own...

How did you find that though? Of all women she was the first one to pop up? :)

MainlineNovelty
MainlineNovelty
Oct 8, 2014
0
#134

Google image search presumably

SilentKnighte5
SilentKnighte5
Oct 8, 2014
0
#135

This idea that an opening has lots of theory so a beginner shouldn't play it is ludicruous.  You only need enough theory to play it against your level.  You're not challenging Carlsen with the Catalan, you're playing against another 1100 that knows even less theory than you.

It has lots of theory to play it against a GM.  So unless you're playing a GM, don't worry about it.

pawnwhacker
pawnwhacker
Oct 8, 2014
0
#136

When I must play my best opening, I prefer the G.Piano as W or the Sicilian as B. There...now everyone knows my secret. Undecided

 

But then, at other times...the world is my oyster. I like to mix-it-up and experiment. You only live once (well, maybe).

SmyslovFan
SmyslovFan
Show your flair!
Oct 8, 2014
0
#137
Reb wrote:

I certainly studied openings long before I got to 2000 and had an opening repertoire before I was an A class player . The key is to not neglect any phase of the game and to spend the most time on the phase that you are weakest in . 

This comports with my experience too. 

You don't need walls of text. The point has been made succinctly by several strong players. 

You're not going to break 2000 if you are really weak in openings, middlegames or endgames. The problem most players have is that they spend far too much time memorising opening lines rather than learning how to play the positions that arise from their chosen openings. 

Elubas
Elubas
Oct 8, 2014
0
#138

I think you can afford to be at least fairly weak in openings. Not saying this is exactly desirable, but I don't see it dragging down your game in the same way as lacking in other phases will.

Chicken_Monster
Chicken_Monster
Oct 8, 2014
0
#139

Need is a strong word. Why don't you just allocate, say, 10-15% of your weekly chess time to openings, and the rest to tactics, playing, reading books, analyzing games, etc?

Every time you see a new opening, if it is turn-based, you can take a little time and study it.

Elubas
Elubas
Oct 8, 2014
0
#140

"Why don't you just allocate, say, 10-15% of your weekly chess time to openings, and the rest to tactics, playing, reading books, analyzing games, etc?"

This sounds reasonable. 10-15% is a pretty small amount.

And again one can do more if they want. But it will make improvement more difficult.