In large money events the people that know openings well do better than those people that do not.
Only in large money events?
Its easier to win a game from a good position than from a bad position.
Are you serious?
What does ture mean?
The wizard of oz was not a woman. He needs to get a better hairdresser
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? :)
No, I had to do a bit of digging. That person has had that account with that pic so long, most of the web pages using that pic, were from here. If you'd like a step by step tutorial in how I do it, let me know. I will PM you th details.
In large money events the people that know openings well do better than those people that do not.
Only in large money events?
Its easier to win a game from a good position than from a bad position.
Are you serious?
In events that do not offer large money, weaker players are in the pool. Large money events bring out the strongest player in each section and openings are paramount if one wants to do well. (There are some anomalous results, but exceptions do not disprove the rule.)
And yes I was serious and was referring to the idiotic saying that 'the hardest thing to do in chess is winning a won game.'
So you don't actually have anything to support your claims other than conjecture? Your "rule" just sounds made up.
The handful of really big events that offer ridiculous cash prizes to class players draw out the sandbaggers .... thats for sure . Its likely they draw out more than 1 or 2 cheaters as well .....
The handful of really big events that offer ridiculous cash prizes to class players draw out the sandbaggers .... thats for sure . Its likely they draw out more than 1 or 2 cheaters as well .....
Not talking about 'sandbaggers.'
Talking about real players that study seriously and prepare like mother feckers for big money events.
Its clear mosty of you people are members of the Ignoratti.
Can you have a debate without insulting people ?
Its easier to win a game from a good position than from a bad position.
See, I agree strongly with this.
It may be difficult to win a won position in that you have to be persistent -- but that's about it. I think even at the intermediate level, more games are won than lost by those who come out of the opening with a strong advantage.
I think studying certain lines 5-10 moves in depth, and then knowing some typical middlegame plans and endgame formations (that generally result from those openings) is worthwhile study.
On the other hand, below strong master level, studying extremely theoretical variations up to 20+ moves long IS a waste of time.
What's the debate about again?
Edward vs Jacob.
Every master who has said that you don't need an opening repertoire before you reach ~2000 studied openings before they broke 2000. Every master who said that you do need an opening repertoire before 2000 also studied openings.
The point Polgar, Kraai, and others are making with their hyperbolic statement that you don't need an opening is that most people spend far too much time on openings, and usually focus on the wrong things (memorizing lines instead of learning the ideas behind the lines).
What's the debate about again?
What "opening repertoire" means and how / when / why it is useful to incorporate into study. 
Every master who has said that you don't need an opening repertoire before you reach ~2000 studied openings before they broke 2000. Every master who said that you do need an opening repertoire before 2000 also studied openings.
The point Polgar, Kraai, and others are making with their hyperbolic statement that you don't need an opening is that most people spend far too much time on openings, and usually focus on the wrong things (memorizing lines instead of learning the ideas behind the lines).
There is a problem with hyperbolic statements when the purpose is to inform a student of a precise method. To the student, the statement is taken literally, or it is highly open to interpretation.
Hyperbole is a often a crappy method of instruction. If students are to take anything from this advice, they need to know clearly what these masters are trying to say. Teachers need to be very clear with their words, or what they say can be strongly misleading and thus counterproductive (as this thread and many others have shown).
If you were to pick up one of many old chess books (pre-computer era), you'll find that there was a great emphasis on learning openings.
Now, I am just commenting on what was...not pushing an agenda.
Back in those times, computerized tactics were not available. Sure, there were books on chess "puzzles". But the emphasis was on playing the entire game, starting with the opening.
Nowadays, we have the luxury of playing tactics continuously...for hours...hundreds at a whack, if we choose.
This is fantastic! But I think that we should not neglect openings, which set up the midgame tactics. And, of course, endgame study is very, very important as well...although I would guess that very few of us (myself included) spend the time crunching and studying endgames.
These are things that I learned from my grandfather's old chess books.
nescitus 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.
I seen your games you posted it is not bad and I believe with a little more studying you reach expert. I understand what you are saying, you feel comfortable with 1.d4 and 1.Nf3 but you are not a beginner or low rated, I believe you are 1889 Elo, that is not bad and you are a strong player. What I am suggesting is with low rating start with 1.e4, GM Reti suggested this for a player starting out or a low rating.
I hope you achieve expert class, your skills strong enough with a little more work.
Veganomnomnom wrote:
Or you can just play something they don't know well, and you're all of a sudden in a game of chess.
You know opening are only part of expert skill and they do posses the ability to play against non-book opponents and I love it when they don't play standard line, it make my life easier and I get an opening advantage; especially when I black.
dodgernation wrote:
Like a car wreck, drawn back to this.
194 posts on openings?
**************************************
I am a student of human nature and, if you don't mind, I am wondering why you are pulling your hair out? You've played no games. You've started no posts. Who is forcing you to read crap that you find dreadful?
And, exactly what are you trying to communicate except vexation?
Probably the worst tip I ever followed that I read on this forum was just follow the opening principles dogmatically without studying openings, needless to say most of my games were Guico Pianisimo which is just plain boring and hard to understand.
About openings...
Another thought that comes to mind is about Bobby Fischer. As we know, he loved e4. But eventually, he became bored with conventional chess and invented Fischer Chess (now widely known as 960).
In 960, there are no "lines". It's a free-for-all. That's why dear old Bobby invented it.
I've played it a few times (not recently) and have the thought in mind to someday just dig into it. Mostly, I haven't mastered conventional chess yet...lol.
I can't help but wonder how well those who minimize chess openings in conventional chess would do in 960. I imagine: worse.
Right. When you are closing in on 2000 or whatever (nothing magical about the number 2000) then, if you want, immerse yourself in the Najdorf, KID, or whatever is vogue at the time but takes a lot of work to master.