Prompted by another thread about "intuition" in chess: Are there any highly rated players on rhp who know little about openings? There's always a question about whether the enormous amount of time people put into opening study is worth it. By highly rated I'd guess over 1800 rhp. I mean by that players who play "by the seat of their pants" without references to databases, just playing what they think are the best moves at the time. If so, to what do these players attribute their success? Intuition, experience, few games, a lot of games, etc. Don't be put off by the thread title. I just meant it as an attention grabber.
Originally posted by buddy2I would think you might hard pressed to find any 1800+ player anywhere who knew little about openings. Some may not memorise openings and variations by rote, but they will have a deep understanding of the ideas behind the various openings and defences they play and encounter. They will understand the principles of opening play for instance, and would generally have a sound comprehension of pawn structure.
Prompted by another thread about "intuition" in chess: Are there any highly rated players on rhp who know little about openings? There's always a question about whether the enormous amount of time people put into opening study is worth it. By highly rated I'd guess over 1800 rhp. I mean by that players who play "by the seat of their pants" without r ...[text shortened]... of games, etc. Don't be put off by the thread title. I just meant it as an attention grabber.
hmmmm...my opening background is very weak, and i have never studied chess, ive read no books, ive just learnt alot online, i no hardly any theory, but i attribute my past higher ratings of over 1800 to experience...ive played alot over the years and i have seen alot of openings and how they play out.
D
I'm not sure Dustin is typical,but there is an example of simply learning the game through experience, playing a lot, not studying openings. I'm sure players like Dustin have picked up the fact, for example, that doubled pawns are usually weaker without a book telling him. I'm also sure that Dustin knows that in certain situations doubled pawns can be an advantage. I'm pretty confident there are plenty of players out there who don't know more that 4 or 5 moves into book who are very successful and give more bookish players fits because they don't play the "in" lines.
TRACKHEAD21 said that he had never studied openings and just played them as they went. e.g. playing the move he considered the best in that position, regardless of what opening strategy said. Although I found this hard to believe at the time he told me, I cannot help but believe him now I know more about chess and in particular opening techniques.
The only chess books I own are as follows: MCO (Duh, everyone owns this brick!) and The School Of Chess Excellence series (Tactical Play [My Name!] is the sub-title of one of the books, four books in total).
Anyway, I own NO opening books, opening vidoes or opening software. Everything (I mean everything!) I know about openings came from:
1) Friends
2) MCO
Quite frankly, thats all you need.
Originally posted by buddy2buddy2 - you mentioned intuition. Now I'm in no way a good or experienced player, but I have played occasionally since I was a kid. One time, about 15 years ago, I played a game tripping HARD on LSD. Normally I find thinking several moves ahead in a game beyond my limited mental capacity, but on that occasion I saw long sequences of moves unfolding effortlessly in my mind. And yes I did win the game. But my opponent was tripping too...
Prompted by another thread about "intuition" in chess: Are there any highly rated players on rhp who know little about openings? There's always a question about whether the enormous amount of time people put into opening study is worth it. By highly rated I'd guess over 1800 rhp. I mean by that players who play "by the seat of their pants" without r ...[text shortened]... of games, etc. Don't be put off by the thread title. I just meant it as an attention grabber.
Maybe its more important to understand the idea behind an opening than the actual moves.
If you know the intention of the opening, bit for white as well for black, you will find the right moves anyway.
I feel many players "study opening moves", but forget to study the idea of
where do I want to attack
where can i expect an attack
what are my potential weaknesses
what are my opponents potentail weaknesses.
these 4 questions vary from opening till opening, even from variation to variation. (example: compare sicialian najdorf polugajevski line with sicilian sveshnikov)
the ideas behind an opening are key, not the moves in the book.
SL
Originally posted by jimshadyI tried that once ... seemed to have the oposite effect on me. Couldnt seem to have any coherent thoughts at all - much like me most of time lol.
I played a game tripping HARD on LSD ... [text shortened] ... I saw long sequences of moves unfolding effortlessly in my mind.
I think most people will agree that learning ideas behind the opening moves is better than learning the lines by rote. Here's my point: Someone who has reasonable intelligence will play lots of games and realize that, say, a backward pawn in an opening is ripe for attack because it's not easily defended. So, in certain lines of Sicilian they will see a backward black d pawn, castle queenside with, fix their e pawn with f3, and shove pawns against black's castled position on king's side. And they will be playing the English attack against the Najdorf without having opened a single book! Of course, playing over lots of Najdorf/English Attack games will give them ideas,but they won't have to study "book lines."
Originally posted by Tactical PlayWell MCO is an opening book so you own at least one!
The only chess books I own are as follows: MCO (Duh, everyone owns this brick!) and The School Of Chess Excellence series (Tactical Play [My Name!] is the sub-title of one of the books, four books in total).
Anyway, I own NO opening books, opening vidoes or opening software. Everything (I mean everything!) I know about openings came from:
1) Friends
2) MCO
Quite frankly, thats all you need.
Do you know where you can get the four volumes together,
the school of excellence? Dvorskay is supposed to be the worlds
best chess coach, so it makes sense those four books would be the
way to go to get better.
Originally posted by buddy2Try that in a Bg5 Najdorf against someone whose suitably booked up and you are toast.
I think most people will agree that learning ideas behind the opening moves is better than learning the lines by rote. Here's my point: Someone who has reasonable intelligence will play lots of games and realize that, say, a backward pawn in an opening is ripe for attack because it's not easily defended. So, in certain lines of Sicilian they will see a b ...[text shortened]... Najdorf/English Attack games will give them ideas,but they won't have to study "book lines."