Opening Theory

"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"

The bit about 'understanding certain lines." is the I think the key.

In the days when the MCO was a must have it only took you up to
move 12 -16 with very few complete games.

(I say 'must have' when infact MCO the only thing really available.)

A lot of the time you were making/memorising these moves without a clue
why you were playing them. MCO stopped around about move 12
(or to more precise...your brain ceased up around about move 12) and you
where left with a 'White/Black is better' or the game is equal maker.

It was akin to to going to a restaurant and being shown pictures of the
meal you are about to eat but never actually eating anything.

Yoiu are still hungry.

Later dedidcated opening books came out with complete games so
you could taste the whole meal and if the game was noted up correctly a
whole feast of side dishes (ideas...I'm culinary mode.) were presented for
you to sample.

Dividing study time up into %'s is possible wrong.
Play out the full game and you will get a genuine feel for the opening
and middle game tricks that can apply to any opening.

Endgame study should be a separate thing all together. If you beef up
(still in cuinary mode) on your Rook endings it will score you points.

If you have the basic opening principles then you should be able to play
any opening

(outside of the heavily tactical openings which do require pre-knowledge
as the tricks and traps are waiting for standard opening moves.
Wilkes-Barre, Latvians, King Gambits, Max Lange those kind of openings.)

You can test this theory. Pick an opening you have never played before.
Take it 5-6 moves in and try to figure out what to play for both sides.
The chances are you will hit the main line moves just by following the
simply policy 'if in doubt get a piece out'.

Originally posted by Westside Mobster
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.

My feeling on this is that beyond a general understanding of what each side is trying to achieve opening theory does not improve one's chess. The thing that makes the most difference to playing strength is tactical vision and calculational precision. Endgame study is the best place to put in work, although in the words of Boris Spassky it's like giving up smoking - smart move, but not much fun!

If you want to look at opening theory then go ahead, just don't expect it to hike your rating. My other "theory" about opening play is that it is better to concentrate on a small number of black defences but to play a wider range of white openings. As white you have a half move advantage, as black you're playing catch up - so there's more scope to play around. Modulo traps, on average the better player will win, not the one who knows more opening theory.

The purpose of an opening is to create a favorable imbalance then prove that the imbalance that you created is indeed favorable.

There, I've proven that I've read some of a Silman book.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Absolutely not. Most openings have a few cheap traps buried within.
Its embarrassing (especially OTB) to lose a piece within 10 moves.

I disagree that it's "embarrassing" to lose a piece, or a game for this matter, in the first ten moves. I've been studying the Ruy Lopez for the past couple of weeks, and the variations are enormous. One false move, and you will lose. Like in any chess game.

Originally posted by DeepThought
My feeling on this is that beyond a general understanding of what each side is trying to achieve opening theory does not improve one's chess. The thing that makes the most difference to playing strength is tactical vision and calculational precision. Endgame study is the best place to put in work, although in the words of Boris Spassky it's like giving ...[text shortened]... Modulo traps, on average the better player will win, not the one who knows more opening theory.

As white you have a half move advantage.
As black you're playing catch up.

I agree.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
"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"

The bit about 'understanding certain lines." is the I think the key.

In the days when the [b]MCO was a must have it only took you up to
move 12 -16 with very few complete ga ...[text shortened]... will hit the main line moves just by following the
simply policy 'if in doubt get a piece out'.[/b]

Thanks Sir. And I will always fight, until the fighting is done.

As youth trainer I mainly focus on tactics all the time, because at that level it is fun to threat each other continously and meanwhile they learn a lot of tactical motifs and mate patterns. When the games are getting more close, and the amount of bad moves significant drop, then it is time to do other things.

A few topics I prefer to do it early but dont cost many lessons:
general opening development,
fools mate, and other tricks on f7
checkmate with rook and/or queen vs king
1 pawn and a king vs king

And for the rest all the time at beginners level: tactics tactics tactics,