This concerns blitz. I had been playing sicilian dragon and orthodox defense to d4. Spent a lot of time reading up, analyzing, learning lots of opening lines in both and losing lots of games against 1300's 1400's 1500's, more than i cared for. My reasoning was i knew the lines well enough to go through lots of moves in a short time. I noticed that most of the players in the above categories didn't know beans about the opening lines. I was getting bored with the whole process. then i said, let's make it interesting so i started playing off the wall stuff, mostly b6 against anything and f4 as white or, again, b3. if i played e4 sometimes and my opponent went into sicilian i played c4 or g3 and fianchettoed. in short, i played anything. The interesting result was that i was winning more games and my opponents were taking more time, a plus in blitz. I think it's been said over and over, people spend too much time in opening analysis. Much of this forum concerns is this opening good, or is this line refuted, or this opening "rules." Etc,, etc. At our level (below 2000), common sense moves are fine. Tactics, pawn structures, strategy are much more important, especially in blitz where databases are not allowed and you need to know where the game is drifting in a general sense pretty quickly.
Originally posted by buddy2Good post. I agree, although my comments are not limited to blitz, but still aimed at OTB.
I think it's been said over and over, people spend too much time in opening analysis. Much of this forum concerns is this opening good, or is this line refuted, or this opening "rules." Etc,, etc. At our level (below 2000), common sense moves are fine. Tactics, pawn structures, strategy are much more important
While browsing this forum recently I've had very similar thoughts. There is a big emphasis on opening choice and theory... too big an emphasis for the typical level of player.
I think it's important to know some fundamental things about a chosen opening. For example, you want to know what the typical middlegames will involve, and you won't want to fall into any common traps.
But that said, opening positions are just chess positions. If you play badly in the opening you must make a tactical or positional mistake. If you improve your ability in these general skills, your opening play will improve regardless of what opening you're playing. It's the old saying "good players can find good moves in any position".
Many players here should worry about openings less and study chess fundamentals more.
Originally posted by buddy2But learning openings is learning chess and the openings are a really good place to begin because it's so much more comprehensible. You can explain to someone why the move e4 is better than a4 and the proof of this is easy to communicate to someone new to chess.
This concerns blitz. I had been playing sicilian dragon and orthodox defense to d4. Spent a lot of time reading up, analyzing, learning lots of opening lines in both and losing lots of games against 1300's 1400's 1500's, more than i cared for. My reasoning was i knew the lines well enough to go through lots of moves in a short time. I noticed that most o ...[text shortened]... lowed and you need to know where the game is drifting in a general sense pretty quickly.
What better place to start learning to read notation than the first few moves. What better place to learn the power of the queen than with schoolboys mate...what better place to learn why not to develop your queen to early than seeing the schoolboys mate refuted and the queen chased around the board.
Then we move on and it's time to focus - as you rightly say - on tactics, strategy and endgames more than openings....but surely some ongoing opening study is a good thing.
After that it really depends on where you want to go with chess and what you want to do - but I don't see anything wrong with taking up a long term detailed study of an opening repertoire. It's not a bad thing to do. It's interesting. Probably won't give you immediate better results in blitz but it so depends on what someone is interested in and how they wish to develop as a player rather than there being a right or a wrong thing to do.
Mostly, the people who say don't study openings are people who have studied openings - if not then how would they know. And is it the study of openings that has lead them to fully appreciate the importance of studying other areas of the game. Maybe it's a necessary step to get reasonably well acquainted with openings so that ideas about things like pawn structure and strategy can be properly understood.
Between the final two rounds of my last OTB tournament, some of us were feeling goofy and playing some 'fun' blitz games. Openings like the Latvian, the Bird, the Fred, the Traxler, the Borg, the Grob and 1. a3 all made appearances; All "standard" openings were shunned. Eventually we decided this wasn't strange enough, so we would have two people make random first moves before allowing the players to take over. one memorable game began
1. e4 a5 2. Ke2 g5
While totally useless, for opening practice, it was very interesting to see who could better play from these positions. Interestingly enough I found that the initiative played a far more important role in these games than it does in a 'normal' game.
Anyway, I digress. I agree with the OP. I have played many games beginning with 1. Nf3 2. b3 3. Bb2 4. c4 a KIA or something similar and often have great success despite the lack of immediate threats (of course, I play the English in CC, so it isn't that far removed from my standard repertoire).
It's interesting that usually you can find a half dozen forum topics on openings, but you will rarely see anything on endings. It's out of kilter. A beginning player gets the idea there's a magic key or line that destroys all opponents. Also, they think if their opponent isn't folding like a cheap accordion they'd better do something dramatic and fast. It just doesn't work that way. On RHP especially you have to work hard to create a pawn weakness or clumsy development. I think almost any player can get a good, solid game out of e4, then d3 or d4 then e3 and do the same as black (with numbers changed of course). But time and time again i see "The Grob rules!" or "The Schevnikov destroys all" type posts. Or "A new line in the NImzo-Larsen). If I were teaching a new player I would teach them the basic rules of development, initiative, a few traps to avoid in the opening, pawn structure, basic endings. I wouldn't let them see an opening book until they got to at least 1500.
Originally posted by MahoutWhat better place to learn the power of the queen than with schoolboys mate
The queen often feels awkward during the opening. It’s vunerability to attack, combined with a possibly cramped board mean that its powers are often somewhat blunted. So, no I don’t think it’s an ideal example to learn from; the school boy’s mate only highlights poor defence.
Better is to demonstrate the queen on an open board or during a genuine attack on the king. Here the queen shows its ability to cover open diagonals, ranks, files and often many squares at once. Play around with KQ vs KR and see how the queens ability can usually pick up the rook if it separates from its king. Or observe the queen for many KQ vs KP endgames. Etc.
Maybe it's a necessary step to get reasonably well acquainted with openings so that ideas about things like pawn structure and strategy can be properly understood.
I prefer it the other way around. Study master games to understand positional aspects such as pawn structure and strategy, and then use this to assist opening play.
Opening study in itself is seldom a bad thing. But given that most of us have limited time to study chess, worrying about openings too much ultimately means that something else is being done less (e.g. study of master games). And it’s this effect that can be the significant downside.
Originally posted by VarenkaThe point about the school boys mate was in the context of seeing it work then seeing it refuted...surely an engaging lesson for a beginner as are the demonstrations you suggested.
[b]What better place to learn the power of the queen than with schoolboys mate
The queen often feels awkward during the opening. It’s vunerability to attack, combined with a possibly cramped board mean that its powers are often somewhat blunted. So, no I don’t think it’s an ideal example to learn from; the school boy’s mate only highlights poor defe ...[text shortened]... less (e.g. study of master games). And it’s this effect that can be the significant downside.[/b]
Study of master games, pawn structures, strategy, even in well annotated master games these are difficult concepts to grasp. But I agree it's probably a better use of limited study time than "overdoing" the opening study.
Originally posted by VarenkaI noticed that there is no connection between my results and any chosen opening..
Many players here should worry about openings less and study chess fundamentals more.
In fact the only thing I noticed was that I play better when my head is in no way "locked" on any specific openings.
Originally posted by VarenkaJust one thought that you may not usually mentioned when speaking of openings...
Many players here should worry about openings less and study chess fundamentals more.
While I have my tournament repertoire where I do know my variations, I like to change up what I play in casual games (most games on RHP) simply because they lead to different middlegames which I feel makes me a better player.
Originally posted by zebanoThat's also my goal...to have a repertoire for long term development - the lines that I hope to be quite proficient with in 5 years time - and then some lines for entertainment and general chess development. But I tend to use this site for developing my repertoire - I like the opportunity for study during a game that cc offers... and I like social chess OTB to mix it up.
Just one thought that you may not usually mentioned when speaking of openings...
While I have my tournament repertoire where I do know my variations, I like to change up what I play in casual games (most games on RHP) simply because they lead to different middlegames which I feel makes me a better player.
The thematic tournament are very good for practicing a line.
Originally posted by zebanoWhat do you need to get to progress past 2000 if I may ask? The higher you go the more knowledge you need to get a result. Have you seen one of the GM games at blitz or even 2300ish games playing mickey mouse openings?
I have a 1700 blitz rating on playchess and I throw in lots of random openings.
Originally posted by z00tHa!! Don’t you know that in order to get people to listen to you, you need to lose a few hundred points? Once you get under 1600 people will listen. We want quick fixes. Sound advice…bah, humbug!
What do you need to get to progress past 2000 if I may ask? The higher you go the more knowledge you need to get a result. Have you seen one of the GM games at blitz or even 2300ish games playing mickey mouse openings?