Been playing 30 odd years, some classical players will do 30 odd moves right off there head/book, they stand up well, but a newer younger group have learned what the computers have; it is not the moves but there mathematical value vrs other mathematical counters, they do very well, but a classic slight of hand putting a bishop out in the open by "accident" screws the system up, points for position, then wham em with a killer blow from great position , nice queen/king fork 🙂
Originally posted by ISKCorrect! I agree with you 100%. No one, especially the mathematical player, can count the sacrifice. So, as I want to improve my chess game, how much emphasis should I put on opening theory?
Been playing 30 odd years, some classical players will do 30 odd moves right off there head/book, they stand up well, but a newer younger group have learned what the computers have; it is not the moves but there mathematical value vrs other mathematical counters, they do very well, but a classic slight of hand putting a bishop out in the open by "accident" screw ...[text shortened]... ints for position, then wham em with a killer blow from great position , nice queen/king fork 🙂
Originally posted by Westside Mobster80% should be tactics. Opening theory is a waste of time if you don't have tactical vision..
Correct! I agree with you 100%. No one, especially the mathematical player, can count the sacrifice. So, as I want to improve my chess game, how much emphasis should I put on opening theory?
Originally posted by Westside MobsterI'd stick to book openings unless they start doing odd things then its just your gut instinct, play the game as you see it gives you centre control and just duke it out, if you spot a nice little sacrifice to get a nice hitting position go for it, as has been said MANY MANY Times a good game lost sure beats a bad game won.
Correct! I agree with you 100%. No one, especially the mathematical player, can count the sacrifice. So, as I want to improve my chess game, how much emphasis should I put on opening theory?
Originally posted by Westside MobsterLearn a few openings. Not to memorize dozens of lines of specific variations, but to get a general idea what sorts of strategic plans work. I'd start with the Ruy Lopez and the QGD for white; they've been played for 300 years and are still valid for the principles they embody. They haven't survived 300 years for nothing.
I understand opening theory as a basic concept. So you don't lose games early, avoid traps and understand certain lines. But, does it really improve your chess game? All comments are appreciated and welcome.
Of course you need to do something about openings: with 60% of your time based on the endgame you will never reach an endgame. And with Ruy lopez: it is really extended theory, for instance if you never heard of Marshall gambit you always loose in this line: There is a certain point that your chess reaches a level that you must do something about opening knowledge
Originally posted by aljogeFair statement. Rookie. Ruy Lopez has, at the minimum, 50% attack and 50% defense in a whole lot of lines!!! Who wins???
Of course you need to do something about openings: with 60% of your time based on the endgame you will never reach an endgame. And with Ruy lopez: it is really extended theory, for instance if you never heard of Marshall gambit you always loose in this line: There is a certain point that your chess reaches a level that you must do something about opening knowledge
Originally posted by aljogeThis simply is not true. At the amateur level, one needs to know enough about opening theory to get to a playable middlegame, and that does not take all that much study time.
Of course you need to do something about openings: with 60% of your time based on the endgame you will never reach an endgame.
Endgame study is decidedly tactical, and provides the building blocks to improve in all aspects of the game.
While I am not a big fan of ratios and numbers as applied to studying, the 20/20/60 ratio seems like a good study goal.
Originally posted by Paul LeggettI totally agree, but you can use a book for an opening , take a bunch of them, find your game and use it, mid game is about material reduction and that is the time to strike with a fake, or a "miss move" to get position, much harder to do in end game, in terms of pure mental learning 10% opening 30% mid game 60% end game
This simply is not true. At the amateur level, one needs to know enough about opening theory to get to a playable middlegame, and that does not take all that much study time.
Endgame study is decidedly tactical, and provides the building blocks to improve in all aspects of the game.
While I am not a big fan of ratios and numbers as applied to studying, the 20/20/60 ratio seems like a good study goal.
- Joined
- 12 Nov 06
- Moves
- 74414
Learning endgames will make you a better player in the middle game. If you know which endings are winning or losing, you have something to go for in the mid game, you see a bigger picture.
Openings really don't matter much, take a look at Game 5557012 and Game 5557017.
My philosophy is that I play each game one move at a time. I know most of the openings by name, and can even play some of them. But at my level of play, I just don't think an Intense knowledge of openings Is required. I win some, I lose some and I draw some, but I can't Imagine any of my results are down to any of my openings. Anyone agree.
Steve
Originally posted by steve45Absolutely not. Most openings have a few cheap traps buried within.
My philosophy is that I play each game one move at a time. I know most of the openings by name, and can even play some of them. But at my level of play, I just don't think an Intense knowledge of openings Is required. I win some, I lose some and I draw some, but I can't Imagine any of my results are down to any of my openings. Anyone agree.
Steve
Its embarrassing (especially OTB) to lose a piece within 10 moves.