Hi all, I am a keen player, and consider myself to be above average compared to the "casual" player, but not very good against players who play all the time, I go through stages of playing for a couple of months then not playing for a good couple of years, thats what I consider to be a casual player.
Anyway, my point is, I find it very boring to learn openings, I am not very analytical and think its pointless to blindly "learn" openings if you do not know why you are playing the opening if you know what I mean (people who blindly follow the exact opening regardless of opponents move,within reason, with no real knowledge on why they are doing it)
Is it possible to become a good player and naturally learn good openings on your own or is it necessary to study openings once you get to a certain rating, if so, what rating do you consider it necessary to seriously study openings or get whooped all the time?
Use a database, then you will play usually decent moves in the opening. it isnt neccessary to know why you play the moves (though is if you want to get very good) as if you find yourself in a good position, play sensibly and wait for a misstake you can just exploit opponents misstakes. At lower levels, including my own, knowing why you try to play moves isnt the most important thing in the opening, just playing sensibly and waiting for misstakes is (at least for me).
Originally posted by mazziewagI agree with the waiting for opponent mistakes and not making your own, thats what I tell my friends when they ask how to get better (not that I am an expert, but quite a bit better than they are)
Use a database, then you will play usually decent moves in the opening. it isnt neccessary to know why you play the moves (though is if you want to get very good) as if you find yourself in a good position, play sensibly and wait for a misstake you can just exploit opponents misstakes. At lower levels, including my own, knowing why you try to play moves is ...[text shortened]... tant thing in the opening, just playing sensibly and waiting for misstakes is (at least for me).
However, I dont like just following openings for the sake of it, it seems to be almost cheating, it isnt me playing then, its a book playing for the start of the game, thats the issue I have with it.
Originally posted by Pigface1Get yourself a book on opening principles rather than openings. The one I have is called First Moves by David Pritchard although i suspect you could find a better one. Couple that with something like Batsford's Modern Chess openings and/or a database and you will have sufficient material to at least not fall flat on your face too often in the opening. Then try out opening moves to see what works for you.
Hi all, I am a keen player, and consider myself to be above average compared to the "casual" player, but not very good against players who play all the time, I go through stages of playing for a couple of months then not playing for a good couple of years, thats what I consider to be a casual player.
Anyway, my point is, I find it very boring to learn open ...[text shortened]... rating do you consider it necessary to seriously study openings or get whooped all the time?
Originally posted by mazziewagI think it is.
it isnt neccessary to know why you play the moves
I've met people who tried KingsGambit against me. And when their theory is out then their chances of winning is equally out. But if you know the ideas about KG then you know what to do when black steps out of well known theory and makes inferior moves. If you don't know what to do as white, then you're a stewed gremlin.
Originally posted by FabianFnasThanks Kepler, I will look into that.
I think it is.
I've met people who tried KingsGambit against me. And when their theory is out then their chances of winning is equally out. But if you know the ideas about KG then you know what to do when black steps out of well known theory and makes inferior moves. If you don't know what to do as white, then you're a stewed gremlin.
Fabian, this is what I think, I could learn the first twelve moves of any opening, and then when those moves finish, I am on my own in a position that I dont know how to back up 🙂 Thats why I havent bothered to learn openings until there comes a time when it is important to do so rather than keep inventing my own!
Originally posted by FabianFnasExactly.
I think it is.
I've met people who tried KingsGambit against me. And when their theory is out then their chances of winning is equally out. But if you know the ideas about KG then you know what to do when black steps out of well known theory and makes inferior moves. If you don't know what to do as white, then you're a stewed gremlin.
Depends on how sharp the opening is.
I'm a bit more serious about my chess than you are, but I too dislike memorizing openings. The keys to getting around this are
1. Choose an opening with an easy to understand purpose. i.e. I played the english (and still do) because it's all about controlling d5 so in almost all cases I can play 1. c4 2. Nc3 3. g3 4. Bg2 and then I start thinking about controlling the center or minor piece play (good bishop/bad bishop, outposts etc.)...
2. Get a very good opening book that explains the moves. I have a book on the benko by Pinkski that does this 50% of the time. A better option may be books like Logical Chess move by move which reviews many master games (different openings) and gives commentary (words, not symbols) after every move until you find something you like.
from my own experience I would say you need to know some theory...
BUT
there is a FICS player I know(FlorinC on fics) that uses to play in long league (45 minutes/game+45 seconds/move) and has a big success using strange openings and moves...like a4 and h4 and so...He play about FM level chess(and I think he is not titled player)
Thanks for the advice, would you say it is very important at a higher level of play to know openings fairly well? I am still curious as to whether there is a threshold (say 1800+ for example) where it becomes more important.
The trouble I had when I briefly tried openings is that I got bored with all my games being two pawns two knights in the centre blah blah, it seemed dull to lay and quite repetative to just constantly battle for those four centre squares so I tend to try and play alternatives to that now.
I shall consider getting a good book as not all openings rely on the middle four squares but it seems that they are the crucial openings to learn.
Originally posted by FabianFnasSorry i mean more subtle things like "black aims for kningside pawn majorty and more mobility of bishops" etc etc, the obvious things of openings will become apparent when you have played them, and you will pick up things when you play blind moves and learn basic meanings of them. i mean you dont need to buy a book and know the point of playing one move over another when the point is like my above example, to get a kingside pawn majority in the endgame etc, as you can play sensible moves, and wait for a misstake and try and exploit it.
I think it is.
I've met people who tried KingsGambit against me. And when their theory is out then their chances of winning is equally out. But if you know the ideas about KG then you know what to do when black steps out of well known theory and makes inferior moves. If you don't know what to do as white, then you're a stewed gremlin.
Originally posted by Pigface11800 sounds about right, but you can play outside established opening theory on any level. however, that requires you to be stone cold pro on every other aspect of the game. which is something that's not going to happen.
Thanks for the advice, would you say it is very important at a higher level of play to know openings fairly well? I am still curious as to whether there is a threshold (say 1800+ for example) where it becomes more important...
for a beginner like you, openings are almost irrelevant. they'll be the reason for your losses in 1% of the games, while lack of tactical training will count for the rest 99%. internalizing basic opening principles will keep yout of the harms way through the openings.
get chernev's book 'logical chess move by move', which has about 30 games explained from the first move. and when you read time after time the explanations (ie. basic opening principles) for the first few moves, you'll begin to understand why it's just common sense to do what you need to do. it'll take some work, but you'll come out of it with a lot more understanding for the game.
all that said, it makes sense to pick up one opening as white and two (one against 1.e4 and the other against 1.d4) as black. that way you'll end up in similar positions and slowly become familiar with the problems you'll be running into. any openings will do, whatever feels fun to you.
Thanks for all your suggestions, I will probably never reach the 1800 ranks anyway, but I was curios roughly when a player started taking openings a little more seriously, I think I shall look out for a book or two and just practice with openings here and there, I am not a total noob, so I have some understanding of the concept of openings. but have always managed to do well enough without them so far.
Chess is a life long game, so there is no rush, I will just keep practicing.
Originally posted by wormwoodNot so sure about this.
for a beginner like you, openings are almost irrelevant. they'll be the reason for your losses in 1% of the games
What about all the exchange/counting disasters that occur in beginners games during the opening? Sure, you could argue that this is pure tactics, but there are certain openings (such as the Ruy - a favourite for novices) where a simple removal of the guard wins fairly easily in many lines if black is careless.
If you are going to play an opening as part of a very simple repertoire, then surely at least rudimentary knowledge is essential?
I agree that generic openings book will cater for this - there's absolutely no need for a -1400 player to go buying books on the Schliemann variation for example.