- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

Hot take: The notion that "openings don't matter" is hogwash

#21

I haven't read all the replies. This is my take.

Different people mean different things when talking about "learning openings"

I don't think there's anything wrong for a beginner to "learn" a few openings, it's kind of hard not to when learning the basics.

When a beginner "learns" a few openings, they might need to memorise and hopefully understand 10 moves, say, the main 3 variations 3 or 4 moves deep.

For most games you probably won't get to use your book knowledge after the first 3 or 4 moves anyway. The odds of a beginner playing another beginner who plays a book moves after 3 or 4 moves is very low. Most likely they'll play a weird beginner move that weakens their position.

When a GM talks about learning an opening, they aren't talking about memorising 10 moves, they are talking about memorising and understanding 1000s of moves, 10-20 moves deep. As I said about, that's pointless for a beginner. They are only ever going to use the first 3 or 4 moves.

I haven't read all the replies. This is my take. Different people mean different things when talking about "learning openings" I don't think there's anything wrong for a beginner to "learn" a few openings, it's kind of hard not to when learning the basics. When a beginner "learns" a few openings, they might need to memorise and hopefully understand 10 moves, say, the main 3 variations 3 or 4 moves deep. For most games you probably won't get to use your book knowledge after the first 3 or 4 moves anyway. The odds of a beginner playing another beginner who plays a book moves after 3 or 4 moves is very low. Most likely they'll play a weird beginner move that weakens their position. When a GM talks about learning an opening, they aren't talking about memorising 10 moves, they are talking about memorising and understanding 1000s of moves, 10-20 moves deep. As I said about, that's pointless for a beginner. They are only ever going to use the first 3 or 4 moves.
#22

@h2b2 said in #21:

I don't think there's anything wrong for a beginner to "learn" a few openings, it's kind of hard not to when learning the basics.
IMHO (almost) nobody really thinks that studying openings is useless or even harmful. What is often criticized is that beginners often tend to spend too much of their study time on openings while practising tactics, learning basic positional concepts or endgame basics could improve their play much more both immediately and long term.

Also, as you pointed out, "studying openings" can mean very different things. For a beginner, understanding and being able to apply basic principles of opening is definitely of more use than memorizing some lines. Even much later, when one learns some standard lines, it is important to not only memorize the moves but also understand why they are played. That way it is easier to remember them and it also often gives you a hint what to do when your opponent deviates. Another important part is to know the typical middlegame plans for both sides after the opening line ends. As with every topic, there are good learning resources and also bad ones. Sadly, quite a few opening books are of the "encyclopaedic" type rather than the "explain things" type.

Another problem is that for many players "learning openings" means finding some less known tricky line so that they can trap their opponents. Obviously it is of little use for their long term chess development but it can be productive short term, especially in blitz or bullet (which is what most players only care about anyway).

@h2b2 said in #21: > I don't think there's anything wrong for a beginner to "learn" a few openings, it's kind of hard not to when learning the basics. IMHO (almost) nobody really thinks that studying openings is useless or even harmful. What is often criticized is that beginners often tend to spend too much of their study time on openings while practising tactics, learning basic positional concepts or endgame basics could improve their play much more both immediately and long term. Also, as you pointed out, "studying openings" can mean very different things. For a beginner, understanding and being able to apply basic principles of opening is definitely of more use than memorizing some lines. Even much later, when one learns some standard lines, it is important to not only memorize the moves but also understand why they are played. That way it is easier to remember them and it also often gives you a hint what to do when your opponent deviates. Another important part is to know the typical middlegame plans for both sides after the opening line ends. As with every topic, there are good learning resources and also bad ones. Sadly, quite a few opening books are of the "encyclopaedic" type rather than the "explain things" type. Another problem is that for many players "learning openings" means finding some less known tricky line so that they can trap their opponents. Obviously it is of little use for their long term chess development but it can be productive short term, especially in blitz or bullet (which is what most players only care about anyway).
#23

"... nobody can wholly escape the dire necessity of compiling variations and of examining and memorising them. And therefore such a compilation, though a brief one, is correctly included in a Manual of Chess. Here follows a collection of variations essential in Opening play. ..." That is from page 42 of the Lasker's Manual of Chess sample available at
https://store.doverpublications.com/products/9780486206400.

"... nobody can wholly escape the dire necessity of compiling variations and of examining and memorising them. And therefore such a compilation, though a brief one, is correctly included in a Manual of Chess. Here follows a collection of variations essential in Opening play. ..." That is from page 42 of the Lasker's Manual of Chess sample available at https://store.doverpublications.com/products/9780486206400.
#24

@mkubecek said in #22:

IMHO (almost) nobody really thinks that studying openings is useless or even harmful. What is often criticized is that beginners often tend to spend too much of their study time on openings while practising tactics, learning basic positional concepts or endgame basics could improve their play much more both immediately and long term.

I don't know tbh. I certainly don't agree with the OP that "master players preach that opening study means little at the club level" - plenty of masters, particularly those who are actively coaching club-level players, seem to see opening study as an important part of a balanced diet provided it's done the right way.

On the other hand, statements like "below 1800 / 2000 / IM level you can just follow basic principles of centre, development and king safety" do crop up a lot on forums and suchlike, despite people having ample opportunities to say something more balanced if that's what they mean.

Also, as you pointed out, "studying openings" can mean very different things.

Yeah, agree, I think this is where some of the confusion comes from. People see 900-rated players memorizing Chessable LTRs by brute force and rather than try to come up with a nuanced take they just go with "opening study bad, endgames and tactics only until 2000".

For a beginner, understanding and being able to apply basic principles of opening is definitely of more use than memorizing some lines. Even much later, when one learns some standard lines, it is important to not only memorize the moves but also understand why they are played. That way it is easier to remember them and it also often gives you a hint what to do when your opponent deviates. Another important part is to know the typical middlegame plans for both sides after the opening line ends.

Broadly agree with all of this, particularly as you get into "club player" grades where your opponents are playing normal enough moves that you actually see the typical structures that lead to the typical plans. That said, I do have a bit of a thing that normally when we talk about learning to understand and apply chess principles, we do it by studying examples, and to me that also applies to the opening. I think it makes sense even at a beginner level to study an opening of some sort, but starting from the level of understanding that you play 1 e4 because it controls a couple of central squares and open lines for the bishop and queen, and that if your opponent doesn't prevent you from playing 2. d4 then you probably want to play that next because it controls more central squares and opens up your other bishop, and that if your opponent does prevent you from playing 2 d4 they you'll probably want to play 2. Nf3 because it's a developing move that threatens 3.d4 and so on. So to some extent, I think developing a very minimal repertoire is a natural side-effect of trying to understand "principles" sufficiently to apply them in practice.

@mkubecek said in #22: > IMHO (almost) nobody really thinks that studying openings is useless or even harmful. What is often criticized is that beginners often tend to spend too much of their study time on openings while practising tactics, learning basic positional concepts or endgame basics could improve their play much more both immediately and long term. I don't know tbh. I certainly don't agree with the OP that "master players preach that opening study means little at the club level" - plenty of masters, particularly those who are actively coaching club-level players, seem to see opening study as an important part of a balanced diet provided it's done the right way. On the other hand, statements like "below 1800 / 2000 / IM level you can just follow basic principles of centre, development and king safety" do crop up a lot on forums and suchlike, despite people having ample opportunities to say something more balanced if that's what they mean. > Also, as you pointed out, "studying openings" can mean very different things. Yeah, agree, I think this is where some of the confusion comes from. People see 900-rated players memorizing Chessable LTRs by brute force and rather than try to come up with a nuanced take they just go with "opening study bad, endgames and tactics only until 2000". > For a beginner, understanding and being able to apply basic principles of opening is definitely of more use than memorizing some lines. Even much later, when one learns some standard lines, it is important to not only memorize the moves but also understand why they are played. That way it is easier to remember them and it also often gives you a hint what to do when your opponent deviates. Another important part is to know the typical middlegame plans for both sides after the opening line ends. Broadly agree with all of this, particularly as you get into "club player" grades where your opponents are playing normal enough moves that you actually see the typical structures that lead to the typical plans. That said, I do have a bit of a thing that normally when we talk about learning to understand and apply chess principles, we do it by studying examples, and to me that also applies to the opening. I think it makes sense even at a beginner level to study an opening of some sort, but starting from the level of understanding that you play 1 e4 because it controls a couple of central squares and open lines for the bishop and queen, and that if your opponent doesn't prevent you from playing 2. d4 then you probably want to play that next because it controls more central squares and opens up your other bishop, and that if your opponent does prevent you from playing 2 d4 they you'll probably want to play 2. Nf3 because it's a developing move that threatens 3.d4 and so on. So to some extent, I think developing a very minimal repertoire is a natural side-effect of trying to understand "principles" sufficiently to apply them in practice.
#25

@RamblinDave said in #24:

People see 900-rated players memorizing Chessable LTRs by brute force...

Well, unfortunately this has almost become the norm and not the exception. Look at public profiles there and it's common to see a person with 20 opening courses and barely a single course about 'chess'. And the ones that show any level of completion are all opening courses. It's no wonder people advise against opening study.

@RamblinDave said in #24: > People see 900-rated players memorizing Chessable LTRs by brute force... Well, unfortunately this has almost become the norm and not the exception. Look at public profiles there and it's common to see a person with 20 opening courses and barely a single course about 'chess'. And the ones that show any level of completion are all opening courses. It's no wonder people advise against opening study.
#26

It seems there has been a mass misunderstanding. by "studying openings" I meant learning the general thematic ideas of a specific opening (via studying annotated games, etc.), not memorizing raw variations. I mostly use the former since I feel it gives me a better idea of the opening and why moves make sense, rather than trusting that the moves you're memorizing are good and you will remember them all over the board. although the latter does have its place in study, what I was trying to argue was that you can't properly understand the ideas in a middlegame without understanding the opening that preceded it.

for example, counterplay in the center is a thematic middlegame idea in hypermodern openings such as the pirc and modern defenses. however, this plan does not work for all hyper moderns, in all positions. if the center is locked, counterplay is often redirected towards the wings, such as in the mar de Palta variation of the KID, as well as the traditional Benoni. not all middlegames are created equal; even the slightest shift in structure can drastically change how you play a position. therefore, to study these middlegames you must understand where certain ideas work, where they don't, why they don't, and - my main argument - when and how they arise, i.e learn the opening preceding them, at least to a degree.

therefore, opening study goes hand in hand with middlegame study, so the idea that you should forsake openings and only learn middlegames is contradictory.

...unless they were specifically referring to memorizing thousands of variations that will never appear over the board, in which case I agree full heartedly.

It seems there has been a mass misunderstanding. by "studying openings" I meant learning the general thematic ideas of a specific opening (via studying annotated games, etc.), not memorizing raw variations. I mostly use the former since I feel it gives me a better idea of the opening and why moves make sense, rather than trusting that the moves you're memorizing are good and you will remember them all over the board. although the latter does have its place in study, what I was trying to argue was that you can't properly understand the ideas in a middlegame without understanding the opening that preceded it. for example, counterplay in the center is a thematic middlegame idea in hypermodern openings such as the pirc and modern defenses. however, this plan does not work for all hyper moderns, in all positions. if the center is locked, counterplay is often redirected towards the wings, such as in the mar de Palta variation of the KID, as well as the traditional Benoni. not all middlegames are created equal; even the slightest shift in structure can drastically change how you play a position. therefore, to study these middlegames you must understand where certain ideas work, where they don't, why they don't, and - my main argument - when and how they arise, i.e learn the opening preceding them, at least to a degree. therefore, opening study goes hand in hand with middlegame study, so the idea that you should forsake openings and only learn middlegames is contradictory. ...unless they were specifically referring to memorizing thousands of variations that will never appear over the board, in which case I agree full heartedly.
#27

@qpalzm123456
Let's back up a minute. Last paragraph of your first post... You answered the questions in your post # 26, and the answer is yes you're missing something.

You are missing the mathematical folly of the idea that you can study an opening and address the possibilities you just pointed out in paragraph 2 of post 26.

Consider the "Shannon Number", and keep in mind that the growth at early iterations of it are almost unimaginably lesser than later iterations. There's even a point with a pair (or two) of minor pieces exchanged off the board, where complication reaches its highest point. The numbers are simply beyond comprehension. In a standard game by move 6, you have roughly 110 million possible moves already and almost 11000 ways to have been checkmated. It is with this in mind that people say opening study is almost meaningless. Likely, even counterproductive. Just look at this table...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_number

My point here is, when you are playing your hypermodern mentioned above, if there's a nuance in that position, your "study" can be almost useless, if not detrimental. If you can't figure it out from there, you may as well have your cat walk across the keyboard typing notation. Finding the move in that position is what matters, and no amount of "study" is going to change the fact that you have got to calculate for yourself. Even if the sun, moon and stars align and somehow you recall from previous study that an idea works for this approximate position, you will still need to play the position. I agree with you that a general idea of how a structure plays out can be helpful, even if it's totally placebo and the only thing it helped you with is a false confidence in making the wrong moves that your opponent is also unable to calculate.

I try to avoid traps and play chess, hopefully having an advantage where my calculation is better than my opponent.

@qpalzm123456 Let's back up a minute. Last paragraph of your first post... You answered the questions in your post # 26, and the answer is yes you're missing something. You are missing the mathematical folly of the idea that you can study an opening and address the possibilities you just pointed out in paragraph 2 of post 26. Consider the "Shannon Number", and keep in mind that the growth at early iterations of it are almost unimaginably lesser than later iterations. There's even a point with a pair (or two) of minor pieces exchanged off the board, where complication reaches its highest point. The numbers are simply beyond comprehension. In a standard game by move 6, you have roughly 110 million possible moves already and almost 11000 ways to have been checkmated. It is with this in mind that people say opening study is almost meaningless. Likely, even counterproductive. Just look at this table... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon_number My point here is, when you are playing your hypermodern mentioned above, if there's a nuance in that position, your "study" can be almost useless, if not detrimental. If you can't figure it out from there, you may as well have your cat walk across the keyboard typing notation. Finding the move in that position is what matters, and no amount of "study" is going to change the fact that you have got to calculate for yourself. Even if the sun, moon and stars align and somehow you recall from previous study that an idea works for this approximate position, you will still need to play the position. I agree with you that a general idea of how a structure plays out can be helpful, even if it's totally placebo and the only thing it helped you with is a false confidence in making the wrong moves that your opponent is also unable to calculate. I try to avoid traps and play chess, hopefully having an advantage where my calculation is better than my opponent.
#28

@kindaspongey said in #19:

How many players can realistically expect to have "middlegame strategy" that is this "good"? Perhaps, with some opening knowledge, it will be "generally" more often that some of us manage to play good moves right out of the opening.
Middlegame strategy is independent of theory knowledge. A player gets better at it by doing puzzles and game experience. managing to play good moves straight out of the opening is possible, but eventually a player needs to rely on their skills of intuition, timing, and filtering out moves. Someone who has good knowledge of the theory and the thematic plans of the opening will make mistakes if they don't have good enough middlegame strategy relative to their level. Knowing the thematic moves is one thing, but application and timing of these moves in a game is a harder skill.
@kindaspongey said in #19:
Not quite the same as an "openings don't matter" attitude.
The point I was trying to make is that relying on getting an advantage from the opening at lower levels is irrelevant. You can play openings without theory and still expect a 50/ 50 winrate. If you want, I'll play 100 rapid games with just the cow opening to show how my winrate will remain about the same after I adjust to it (Or is that also an opening according to you?).
@kindaspongey said in #19:
Is deciding a game the only issue? Isn't it somewhat important as to who is more likely to be the one to make the deciding mistake? We have notations like
+
=
(for "white stands slightly better"). That certainly does not mean that "white has a decisive advantage". We have a separate notation ("+-") for that. So, how can the "advantage" be anything other than it being harder for Black to avoid a decisive mistake? Isn't it therefore somewhat important as to who manages to avoid a slight (or not-so-slight) disadvantage?
This is only applicable at top levels. Capitalising on a very small advantage is difficult for most players to do and the opponent can generally get away with it with decent middlegame strategy and calculation. I'm not implying that getting into deliberately terrible positions is good for one's chess. If avoiding a slight disadvantage was so important in every level, why do dubious gambits and other openings not blessed by the engine have good winrates in the lichess database? Seems like these games were decided by who played better in the middlegame, and not by some slight advantage of one side from the opening. Probability of making a mistake is dependent on one's calculation skills and not how well one plays the opening.
@kindaspongey said in #19:
Before making guarantees, shouldn't we be more specific about how much "less" we are talking about? 1%? 5%? 20%? What?
Does everyone agree on what counts as a blunder?
Does it make a difference whether we are talking about thinking 2 moves ahead or 3 moves ahead?
What does it mean to think 3 moves ahead anyway? Does it mean necessarily choosing the RIGHT 3-moves-ahead positions to consider? Does it mean necessarily making reliable assessments of those positions? How reliable?
A blunder is a move that gives the opponent an opprtunity to get a massive advantage, either materially, tactically or positionally. If you want a more strict definition, I claim that a blunder occurs when the evaluation of the position by an engine swings by 3 or more points, but this is not a good definition, so the first one is more agreed upon. By blundering "less", I did not necessarily mean a number, so I apologize for the wrong use of language. To clarify, blundering less means to make blunders of less intensity, the more intense blunders being hanging checkmate and then pieces as the resulting positions are harder to save for the defending side compared to blundering a positional advantage, a lengthy combination, subtle blunder in the endgame, and so on. If you want in terms of numbers, we don't need to be specific as lesser number of blunders in an average game for an improving player is progress. It can mean one less blunder between two games, with similar openings, middlegames and same number of moves separated over a time period.
Clarifying what it means to think 3 moves ahead, I generally meant spotting your opponents plans and shutting them down or spotting tactical combinations, it doesn't necessarily have to be 3 moves, I said that in order to simplify the statement. Most game plans of players at beginner and intermediate levels are pretty simple and linear, rarely considering the opponents choices. If you disagree with that, consider that this is one of the reasons that 1600s stay 1600. Predicting and countering your opponents moves is a very important skill. Yes, it does meaning choosing the right 3 or more moves ahead, but that is related to strategy and tactics, not openings. It also requires making reliable assessments of positions , relative to that level or better. Evaluation of a position is also an important skill.
@kindaspongey said in #19:
Where does one find objective data on what "anyone" can do?
By the way, I saw qpalzm123456 referring to the desirability of "understanding what opening you're playing". Is it appropriate to take qpalzm123456 as writing in favor of "knowing a lot of openings"?
I apologize for the wrong use of language. OPs take is not objectively wrong and I do not have any data of backing it up. But I have yet to find a single player who prioritised understanding themes in the opening in favour of endgame play that reached high levels. Conversely, there are several players who didn't prioritised endgames and strategy over openings but still managed to improve significantly. Biggest example being tyler1. DM me if you want more chess youtubers who reached advanced levels without prioritising openings and their ideas as the third most important skill, as OP says (even though they didn't specifially mention that, it's reasonable to conclude from their games and style of play).@kindaspongey said in #19:
So, you DO "play openings"? Anyway:
As I mentioned earlier, I can't get away with playing bad moves right from the beginning. I do play openings like most chess players, but I don't have good knowledge of the several ideas from an opening. I only know the 2-3 main ones from analysing my games, and I didn't put a conscious effort into learning theory or these various themes. And yet I still manage to stay 2200 despite often having equal or slightly worse positions from the opening, I win games from opponents making mistakes just as my opponents do the same. It wouldn't matter even if I played a more solid opening. Again I can play rapid games with the "best" openings if you want and my win rate would remain similar.

@kindaspongey said in #19: > How many players can realistically expect to have "middlegame strategy" that is this "good"? Perhaps, with some opening knowledge, it will be "generally" more often that some of us manage to play good moves right out of the opening. Middlegame strategy is independent of theory knowledge. A player gets better at it by doing puzzles and game experience. managing to play good moves straight out of the opening is possible, but eventually a player needs to rely on their skills of intuition, timing, and filtering out moves. Someone who has good knowledge of the theory and the thematic plans of the opening will make mistakes if they don't have good enough middlegame strategy relative to their level. Knowing the thematic moves is one thing, but application and timing of these moves in a game is a harder skill. @kindaspongey said in #19: > Not quite the same as an "openings don't matter" attitude. The point I was trying to make is that relying on getting an advantage from the opening at lower levels is irrelevant. You can play openings without theory and still expect a 50/ 50 winrate. If you want, I'll play 100 rapid games with just the cow opening to show how my winrate will remain about the same after I adjust to it (Or is that also an opening according to you?). @kindaspongey said in #19: > Is deciding a game the only issue? Isn't it somewhat important as to who is more likely to be the one to make the deciding mistake? We have notations like > + > = > (for "white stands slightly better"). That certainly does not mean that "white has a decisive advantage". We have a separate notation ("+-") for that. So, how can the "advantage" be anything other than it being harder for Black to avoid a decisive mistake? Isn't it therefore somewhat important as to who manages to avoid a slight (or not-so-slight) disadvantage? This is only applicable at top levels. Capitalising on a very small advantage is difficult for most players to do and the opponent can generally get away with it with decent middlegame strategy and calculation. I'm not implying that getting into deliberately terrible positions is good for one's chess. If avoiding a slight disadvantage was so important in every level, why do dubious gambits and other openings not blessed by the engine have good winrates in the lichess database? Seems like these games were decided by who played better in the middlegame, and not by some slight advantage of one side from the opening. Probability of making a mistake is dependent on one's calculation skills and not how well one plays the opening. @kindaspongey said in #19: > Before making guarantees, shouldn't we be more specific about how much "less" we are talking about? 1%? 5%? 20%? What? > Does everyone agree on what counts as a blunder? > Does it make a difference whether we are talking about thinking 2 moves ahead or 3 moves ahead? > What does it mean to think 3 moves ahead anyway? Does it mean necessarily choosing the RIGHT 3-moves-ahead positions to consider? Does it mean necessarily making reliable assessments of those positions? How reliable? A blunder is a move that gives the opponent an opprtunity to get a massive advantage, either materially, tactically or positionally. If you want a more strict definition, I claim that a blunder occurs when the evaluation of the position by an engine swings by 3 or more points, but this is not a good definition, so the first one is more agreed upon. By blundering "less", I did not necessarily mean a number, so I apologize for the wrong use of language. To clarify, blundering less means to make blunders of less intensity, the more intense blunders being hanging checkmate and then pieces as the resulting positions are harder to save for the defending side compared to blundering a positional advantage, a lengthy combination, subtle blunder in the endgame, and so on. If you want in terms of numbers, we don't need to be specific as lesser number of blunders in an average game for an improving player is progress. It can mean one less blunder between two games, with similar openings, middlegames and same number of moves separated over a time period. Clarifying what it means to think 3 moves ahead, I generally meant spotting your opponents plans and shutting them down or spotting tactical combinations, it doesn't necessarily have to be 3 moves, I said that in order to simplify the statement. Most game plans of players at beginner and intermediate levels are pretty simple and linear, rarely considering the opponents choices. If you disagree with that, consider that this is one of the reasons that 1600s stay 1600. Predicting and countering your opponents moves is a very important skill. Yes, it does meaning choosing the right 3 or more moves ahead, but that is related to strategy and tactics, not openings. It also requires making reliable assessments of positions , relative to that level or better. Evaluation of a position is also an important skill. @kindaspongey said in #19: > Where does one find objective data on what "anyone" can do? > By the way, I saw qpalzm123456 referring to the desirability of "understanding what opening you're playing". Is it appropriate to take qpalzm123456 as writing in favor of "knowing a lot of openings"? I apologize for the wrong use of language. OPs take is not objectively wrong and I do not have any data of backing it up. But I have yet to find a single player who prioritised understanding themes in the opening in favour of endgame play that reached high levels. Conversely, there are several players who didn't prioritised endgames and strategy over openings but still managed to improve significantly. Biggest example being tyler1. DM me if you want more chess youtubers who reached advanced levels without prioritising openings and their ideas as the third most important skill, as OP says (even though they didn't specifially mention that, it's reasonable to conclude from their games and style of play).@kindaspongey said in #19: > So, you DO "play openings"? Anyway: As I mentioned earlier, I can't get away with playing bad moves right from the beginning. I do play openings like most chess players, but I don't have good knowledge of the several ideas from an opening. I only know the 2-3 main ones from analysing my games, and I didn't put a conscious effort into learning theory or these various themes. And yet I still manage to stay 2200 despite often having equal or slightly worse positions from the opening, I win games from opponents making mistakes just as my opponents do the same. It wouldn't matter even if I played a more solid opening. Again I can play rapid games with the "best" openings if you want and my win rate would remain similar.
#29

@qpalzm123456 One can figure out the ideas in the middlegame regardless of the opening, just from calculation, knowledge of positional concepts, and filtering out bad moves.

@qpalzm123456 One can figure out the ideas in the middlegame regardless of the opening, just from calculation, knowledge of positional concepts, and filtering out bad moves.
#30

@BabyPoltergeist said in #28:

... Someone who has good knowledge of the theory and the thematic plans of the opening will make mistakes if they don't have good enough middlegame strategy relative to their level. ...
Is anyone advocating that one neglect middlegame strategy?
@BabyPoltergeist said in #28:
... relying on getting an advantage from the opening at lower levels is irrelevant.
"... It is especially critical not to continually fall into opening traps – or even lines that result in difficult positions ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2007)
@BabyPoltergeist said in #28:
You can play openings without theory and still expect a 50/ 50 winrate.
"... Individuals will have ... different playing strengths. ..." - GM Lajos Portisch (1974)
@BabyPoltergeist said in #28:
If you want, I'll play 100 rapid games with just the cow opening to show ...
"... 2200, the level I play, ..." - BabyPoltergeist
@kindaspongey said in #19:
... Is deciding a game the only issue? Isn't it somewhat important as to who is more likely to be the one to make the deciding mistake? We have notations like
+
=
(for "white stands slightly better"). That certainly does not mean that "white has a decisive advantage". We have a separate notation ("+-") for that. So, how can the "advantage" be anything other than it being harder for Black to avoid a decisive mistake? Isn't it therefore somewhat important as to who manages to avoid a slight (or not-so-slight) disadvantage? ...
@BabyPoltergeist said in #28:
... This is only applicable at top levels. ...
"... For young, inexperienced players, this attack [(1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Ng5)] is ... not easy to defend. I've seen this position appear hundreds of times in junior games, and Black often goes astray immediately. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen the player with the black pieces losing a rook, or even worse! ... even after [the good move, 4...d5,] Black has to be very careful. ... for now I'm going to recommend [3...Bc5]. ..." - GM John Emms (in the 2018 book, First Steps: 1 e4 e5)
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/7790.pdf
@BabyPoltergeist said in #28:
... why do dubious gambits and other openings not blessed by the engine have good winrates in the lichess database? Seems like these games were decided by who played better in the middlegame, and not by some slight advantage of one side from the opening.
Perhaps it was a factor that the gambit-user had spent some time learning about the gambit?
@BabyPoltergeist said in #28:
Probability of making a mistake is dependent on one's calculation skills and not how well one plays the opening. ...
GM Emms seemed to think that his readers might benefit from reacting to 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 with 3...Bc5 instead of 3...Nf6.
@BabyPoltergeist said in #28:
... lesser number of blunders in an average game for an improving player is progress. ...
But the amount of progress and the amount of required work perhaps depend on many factors?
@BabyPoltergeist said in #28:
... Most game plans of players at beginner and intermediate levels are pretty simple and linear, rarely considering the opponents choices. ....
But sometimes they have the benefit of having done some reading about the position?
@BabyPoltergeist said in #28:
... Predicting and countering your opponents moves is a very important skill. Yes, it does meaning choosing the right 3 or more moves ahead, but that is related to strategy and tactics, not openings.
Perhaps opening reading can help one to be aware of some important 3-moves-ahead possibilities in an opening position?
@BabyPoltergeist said in #28:
It also requires making reliable assessments of positions , relative to that level or better. Evaluation of a position is also an important skill. ...
Is anyone denying the value of working on such a skill?
@BabyPoltergeist said in #28:
... I have yet to find a single player who prioritised understanding themes in the opening in favour of endgame play that reached high levels. Conversely, there are several players who didn't prioritised endgames and strategy over openings but still managed to improve significantly. ...
It seems to be pretty common for all of these things to be recommended.
"... Strategy clarifies what we need to do, ... endgames incorporate a boundless variety of specific ideas and subtleties of various kinds. ... if you understand the essence of your opening system, if you have mastered its fundamental strategical ideas, you will not be caught off guard by something unexpected. ..." - The Soviet Chess Primer by Ilya Maizelis
@BabyPoltergeist said in #28:
... DM me if you want more chess youtubers who reached advanced levels without prioritising openings and their ideas as the third most important skill, as OP says ....
Are reaching- advanced-levels priorities necessarily appropriate for all levels and all players?
@BabyPoltergeist said in #28:
... I don't have good knowledge of the several ideas from an opening. ...
"... everyone is different, so what works for one person may likely fail with another ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2002)
@BabyPoltergeist said in #29:
@qpalzm123456 One can figure out the ideas in the middlegame regardless of the opening, just from calculation, knowledge of positional concepts, and filtering out bad moves.
But there seems to be a widespread opinion that it can be helpful to know something about the "fundamental strategical ideas" of an opening.
@V1g1yy said in #25:
... Look at public profiles there and it's common to see a person with 20 opening courses and barely a single course about 'chess'. And the ones that show any level of completion are all opening courses. It's no wonder people advise against opening study.
It seems to me that it is easy enough to give advice like that of Capablanca:
"... The game might be divided into three parts, i.e.:- 1. The opening. 2. The middle-game. 3. The end-game. There is one thing you must strive for, to be equally efficient in the three parts. Whether you are a strong or a weak player, you should try to be of equal strength in the three parts. ..." - from Capablanca's book, My Chess Career
@V1g1yy said in #27:
... Finding the move in that position is what matters, and no amount of "study" is going to change the fact that you have got to calculate for yourself. ...
Is anyone arguing against calculation? Isn't it possible that some in-advance reading can help with the "finding"?

@BabyPoltergeist said in #28: > ... Someone who has good knowledge of the theory and the thematic plans of the opening will make mistakes if they don't have good enough middlegame strategy relative to their level. ... Is anyone advocating that one neglect middlegame strategy? @BabyPoltergeist said in #28: > ... relying on getting an advantage from the opening at lower levels is irrelevant. "... It is especially critical not to continually fall into opening traps – or even lines that result in difficult positions ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2007) @BabyPoltergeist said in #28: > You can play openings without theory and still expect a 50/ 50 winrate. "... Individuals will have ... different playing strengths. ..." - GM Lajos Portisch (1974) @BabyPoltergeist said in #28: > If you want, I'll play 100 rapid games with just the cow opening to show ... "... 2200, the level I play, ..." - BabyPoltergeist @kindaspongey said in #19: > ... Is deciding a game the only issue? Isn't it somewhat important as to who is more likely to be the one to make the deciding mistake? We have notations like > + > = > (for "white stands slightly better"). That certainly does not mean that "white has a decisive advantage". We have a separate notation ("+-") for that. So, how can the "advantage" be anything other than it being harder for Black to avoid a decisive mistake? Isn't it therefore somewhat important as to who manages to avoid a slight (or not-so-slight) disadvantage? ... @BabyPoltergeist said in #28: > ... This is only applicable at top levels. ... "... For young, inexperienced players, this attack [(1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Ng5)] is ... not easy to defend. I've seen this position appear hundreds of times in junior games, and Black often goes astray immediately. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen the player with the black pieces losing a rook, or even worse! ... even after [the good move, 4...d5,] Black has to be very careful. ... for now I'm going to recommend [3...Bc5]. ..." - GM John Emms (in the 2018 book, First Steps: 1 e4 e5) https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/7790.pdf @BabyPoltergeist said in #28: > ... why do dubious gambits and other openings not blessed by the engine have good winrates in the lichess database? Seems like these games were decided by who played better in the middlegame, and not by some slight advantage of one side from the opening. Perhaps it was a factor that the gambit-user had spent some time learning about the gambit? @BabyPoltergeist said in #28: > Probability of making a mistake is dependent on one's calculation skills and not how well one plays the opening. ... GM Emms seemed to think that his readers might benefit from reacting to 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 with 3...Bc5 instead of 3...Nf6. @BabyPoltergeist said in #28: > ... lesser number of blunders in an average game for an improving player is progress. ... But the amount of progress and the amount of required work perhaps depend on many factors? @BabyPoltergeist said in #28: > ... Most game plans of players at beginner and intermediate levels are pretty simple and linear, rarely considering the opponents choices. .... But sometimes they have the benefit of having done some reading about the position? @BabyPoltergeist said in #28: > ... Predicting and countering your opponents moves is a very important skill. Yes, it does meaning choosing the right 3 or more moves ahead, but that is related to strategy and tactics, not openings. Perhaps opening reading can help one to be aware of some important 3-moves-ahead possibilities in an opening position? @BabyPoltergeist said in #28: > It also requires making reliable assessments of positions , relative to that level or better. Evaluation of a position is also an important skill. ... Is anyone denying the value of working on such a skill? @BabyPoltergeist said in #28: > ... I have yet to find a single player who prioritised understanding themes in the opening in favour of endgame play that reached high levels. Conversely, there are several players who didn't prioritised endgames and strategy over openings but still managed to improve significantly. ... It seems to be pretty common for all of these things to be recommended. "... Strategy clarifies what we need to do, ... endgames incorporate a boundless variety of specific ideas and subtleties of various kinds. ... if you understand the essence of your opening system, if you have mastered its fundamental strategical ideas, you will not be caught off guard by something unexpected. ..." - The Soviet Chess Primer by Ilya Maizelis @BabyPoltergeist said in #28: > ... DM me if you want more chess youtubers who reached advanced levels without prioritising openings and their ideas as the third most important skill, as OP says .... Are reaching- advanced-levels priorities necessarily appropriate for all levels and all players? @BabyPoltergeist said in #28: > ... I don't have good knowledge of the several ideas from an opening. ... "... everyone is different, so what works for one person may likely fail with another ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2002) @BabyPoltergeist said in #29: > @qpalzm123456 One can figure out the ideas in the middlegame regardless of the opening, just from calculation, knowledge of positional concepts, and filtering out bad moves. But there seems to be a widespread opinion that it can be helpful to know something about the "fundamental strategical ideas" of an opening. @V1g1yy said in #25: > ... Look at public profiles there and it's common to see a person with 20 opening courses and barely a single course about 'chess'. And the ones that show any level of completion are all opening courses. It's no wonder people advise against opening study. It seems to me that it is easy enough to give advice like that of Capablanca: "... The game might be divided into three parts, i.e.:- 1. The opening. 2. The middle-game. 3. The end-game. There is one thing you must strive for, to be equally efficient in the three parts. Whether you are a strong or a weak player, you should try to be of equal strength in the three parts. ..." - from Capablanca's book, My Chess Career @V1g1yy said in #27: > ... Finding the move in that position is what matters, and no amount of "study" is going to change the fact that you have got to calculate for yourself. ... Is anyone arguing against calculation? Isn't it possible that some in-advance reading can help with the "finding"?

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.