Originally posted by robbie carrobie
would you play the French defence if you understood not a little theory?

Yes. Because I know very little theory (I haven't played many games with it yet) but play it now and then. I learn my openings from my games and from my analisis.

On the other hand I know I wouldn't survive against the stronger player. But until I reach 1800s I'm going to spend very little time studying openings if any at all. I haven't needed theory in my games up to now and didn't have much trouble. I'm glad I invested my time in tactics and other books as such. They have helped me, I've been playing now for 8 months for real and my rating is peaking at 1640s, I didn't need any opning knoledge to get there, except for some principles I read here and there. Anyhow the point I am trying to make is that you don't need to study openings until you reach a certain overall chess level. There is no need to be an ace in opneings if you won't know what to do once that fase is over.

Another important aspect of openings, if you play CC, is that you can learn them while you are playing. You don't need to know them beforehand. But if you are in doubt, or lost, or anything. Just type the opening's name in your browser, and there you are, all theory you want to know if your common chess-sense fails you.

I played a game OTB this summer (yes that rarely happens), my openent played the grunfeld. I had never played against it. I was surprised to find that I play the theoretical moves up to move 7 or 8. I figured it all out over the board, based on simple principles.

Originally posted by orion25
I played a game OTB this summer (yes that rarely happens), my openent played the grunfeld. I had never played against it. I was surprised to find that I play the theoretical moves up to move 7 or 8. I figured it all out over the board, based on simple principles.

And did you beat him?

Originally posted by Goshen
And did you beat him?

I lost. But he was a 2100 player OTB, so a little better than I am.

Originally posted by Mahout
[b]"You can also learn from theory without memorizing it eg the value of an exchange sacrifice by studying the dragon sicilian."

Yes I read it and understood it and it makes sense. You describe a way of learning from the
theory without memorization.

I think the confusing thing in my original post was to describe theory as being more or less
syno ...[text shortened]... pening knowledge...etc,etc...

....it's been better explained by other posts now.[/b]

Ah, I understand now. Sorry for my poor reading comprehension ;D

Originally posted by orion25
Yes. Because I know very little theory (I haven't played many games with it yet) but play it now and then. I learn my openings from my games and from my analisis.

On the other hand I know I wouldn't survive against the stronger player. But until I reach 1800s I'm going to spend very little time studying openings if any at all. I haven't needed theory in m up to move 7 or 8. I figured it all out over the board, based on simple principles.

this is very true, for what we need is a general understanding and strategy which is flexible enough to cover all major events, that being said, i think what Macpo said is very relevant, in that thematic moves are really worth considering and learning, because there is usually an idea behind them, rather than simply a move based on some text.

I have had many times reached a position where my opponent deviated from known lines and although i could see that it was perhaps not the best move, i am not strong enough to try to capitalise on those little infringements, im not talking about blunders, but you know, those moves which are not blunders but, well, just dont sit right. I have no doubt that at a higher level of understanding these types of moves would be instantly punishable.