So Many Experts on Openings

...and so few thinkers.

The terror of so many experts on openings is continuing and becoming hardly bearable.

Do these GMs, IMs, FMs really have nothing better to teach us about chess?

Seeing all these masters discussing openings is like seeing artists debating some recommended practice from a lawn mower User Manual.

Does this mean they have all become the board technicians and there are really no more true thinkers and educators in chess?

“We need teachers capable of elevating the multitude from its terrible dilettantism in matters of chess. They would have to produce books of instruction and for reading as plain, as intelligible, as valuable as Umgang mit Menschen, or de la Bruyère’s Characters.”— Dr Lasker in his Final Reflections on Education in Chess of The Manual, 1925.

.

Are the openings really the best and most effective way to make us better think and improve in chess?

.

I asked the same question on Twitter.

Here is a reply. The guy is absolutely right. In order to improve (in chess) we need to upgrade the thought process. And ideas and concepts are building blocks of thinking. Not the specific knowledge on openings...

I've been told that opening books and articles appeal to club players, who are looking for a small advantage in their weekend tournaments. So, maybe we see a lot more information on openings and less on principles and strategy because of demand from non-expert chess mavens.

People teach openings because the majority of players want to learn openings.

They sell it... because it sells.

I agree that for most players, memorizing opening lines is a huge waste of time, which might be better spent on almost any other facet of the game.

Won't concepts and ideas make us better players in the long run?

I also assume these club players are clueless about what to do next when their parroted and memorized sequence of moves expire

They "want" to learn openings because there has been created an unhealthy climate of the importance of openings. By the same people who should be teaching us concepts and keep stressing their importance on the road for improvement.

Absolutely agree with you that studying openings is a huge waste of time and effort that can be spent elsewhere.

Thanks for visiting and commenting

yes

As a blogger myself I can reiterate the fact that it is much harder to come up with a more specific idea and prep positions and a lesson based on the middlegame compared to just picking an opening out of a hat and teaching it

That's my understanding.

I think books and articles on principles and concepts aren't difficult to find, though. I'm going through Reuben Fine's Chess the Easy Way, which is highly recommended. I think Patrick Wolff's The Idiot's Guide ... is also widely available and is also recommended for people who play at novice to intermediate levels.

For players past those levels, I can't say, but books like Fine's Middle Game and Nimzowitsch's My System are mentioned frequently.

Yes what?

1) They sell it... because it sells?

2) Memorizing opening lines is a huge waste of time?

or both?

That's true, but people want to read about openings, traps...  my 2 most viewed posts are "How to play against English", and "How to play against London"   .Third and fourth is How to improve your chess visualization (3rd in spanish, 4th in english version), so there is any hope...

So... if you want a lot of viewers, you need to talk about openings.

Personally, I am self-taught when I "study" openings and defences  No one is going to tell me that I can and cannot play! 

1. they sell it because it sells

2. memorizing opening lines is not a complete waste of time. you have to memorize the starting moves, the proceed the understand WHY theory is theory. Why are those moves played? So memorizing is important to some extent but I completely agree, too many people simply spend hours of end memorizing without knowing what they're playing

Pawn Power in Chess by Hans Kmoch.

Well, it's a waste of time... or not, depending on how it is done. If it's about memorizing, then obviously it's useless, but if's it's about understanding the concepts / strategies that are part of the opening then it is as much useful as learning about middlegame or endings (before middlegame and endings you have to play an opening, and the better you play it the better your position in middlegame will be...).

I agree there's often an exaggerated emphasis put on openings, but it's nearly equally wrong to do the opposite error and to over neglect it...

Also people can like opening theory just for the sake of it, even if studying it is not the most important for improving their chess. I do like opening theory...

i've seen a team mate memorizing 20 moves for a League game, and then losing the game in 23th move more

trying to understand the positions that arise after the basic moves in openings is key, and I agree it's very interesting. It just sucks when people mindlessly memorize 30 moves deep. Against people like that I just play something wack on like move 7 and throw them off

Aside from the obvious need to study tactics, model mates, etc...

When it comes to the study of Opening, Middle-game and Endgame, they should be studied in the reverse order... Endgames first, then Middle-games, and Openings last.

Why? Because it's much easier to plan constructively in the Middle-game if you already know what a won Endgame looks like; and it's much easier to play the Opening sensibly if you already know what a good Middle-game looks like.

I know

 I have a blog because i want to learn and share with the readers what i'm learning, and i'm happy with it, even though many posts have few visits

Any Chess Easy Way title resonates with those who don't get it there's no easy way anywhere.

And so many Idiot's Guides indicative in what the same people who write the opening fluff think of us. By "teaching" us openings, they want and do keep us firm down at that low level

Learning openings is not necessarily bad in the long run. There are bad and good ways to learn the openings under master level.

1. You can memorize the moves and sequences
This one is obviously bad, since you will not learn much about chess and you will forget most of it by the next month.

2. Learning some key ideas
This one can be decent. For example, you learn that in French defense there are two key breaks (ie. c5 and f6) and that you want to activate/exchange light squared bishop which is a bad piece. This gives you some general concepts which can guide you without too much memorization and can be somewhat translated to other areas of chess and give good result payout with minimal study.

3. Good way
There is also a good way. For instance, when learning about French advanced, learning about space, how to to play with and against space advantage, how to exploit bad piece (c8 bishop) and general plans for both side. Also, cover most common tactics themes and see what endgames can come out of the opening and cover at least basics. With a set of exercises for strategic concepts, tactics and endgames.

Third option is something that is really good for improving chess even more than studding those themes separately, because it is connected to something tangible that you can try and master in real games much more frequently and easily.

Unfortunately, not many courses are focused on something like that (even on 2/3 is not likely) so it is up to player to find individual pieces and put it together.