studying openings?

Studying openings kinda takes the fun out of the game. Isn't it better to play a game and play a master piece with out getting your moves from a book?

Originally posted by highdraw
Studying openings kinda takes the fun out of the game. Isn't it better to play a game and play a master piece with out getting your moves from a book?

my view is of a masterpiece is a game with highly correct play and great tension the whole way through... both players going for the win. a london system would cheapen it for me

Depends on the openings. There are some I love to study. The KID, the Scotch, and playing against Sicilians are my favorites.

Studying the French is pure hell for me, because there are so many weird positions it can lead to, and there are a lot of different breaks you can play, and I usually play the wrong one at the wrong time.

Originally posted by highdraw
Studying openings kinda takes the fun out of the game. Isn't it better to play a game and play a master piece with out getting your moves from a book?

Here is a solution.

1. f4!

Then watch your opponent suffer

Originally posted by highdraw
Studying openings kinda takes the fun out of the game. Isn't it better to play a game and play a master piece with out getting your moves from a book?

On the one hand :

1)Yes it is, and you can play a perfectly fun game making everything up yourself

On the other hand:

2)Making everything up yourself involves re-inventing the wheel, as everything you are thinking about the opening will probably have been thought before, and the best moves and responses distilled into what we know as opening theory. Therefore, in order to play the best possible chess, we should learn all there is to know about opening theory.

(1) and (2) are both extremes, and most people lie somewhere in the middle. It is certainly possible to play good (and fun) chess while ignoring opening theory completely. If you want to start playing better chess, knowing some openings can be useful .. but as others have pointed out, openings are not necessarily the best place to start if you want to get better.

Losing because you played a perfectly natural looking move in the opening that turned out to be flawed is very little fun.

Even playing standard book openings there is such massive variety that you can hardly call it dull. Actually methodically memorising moves is boring, but you don't need to do that in CC chess, so no problem.

Playing book moves also allows the game to move very quickly in the initial stages. In a typical game I will spend significantly less than 5% of my total thinking time on the opening. The vast majority of my time is then spent on interesting middle and end game positions.

Why re-invent the wheel?

Originally posted by highdraw
Studying openings kinda takes the fun out of the game. Isn't it better to play a game and play a master piece with out getting your moves from a book?

It is very hard, almost impossible, to play a move not in the book.
Even all the bad moves have been tried before and that is all
opening theory is, other peoples games.

If studying the openings to you is memorising loads of variations
then I can tell you at your level it's pointless and will lead you up a dead end.

I have just skimmed through your 6 GIP's and none of them after
9-10 moves look like anything (perhaps with one exception) of anything
I have seen before.

Stem games is the way.
Games that show you the idea and spirit behind an opening
being carried out. Studying these games, that is understanding why
every move was played. You will build up ideas and motifs and not
stuff your head with mainline moves you will never see in your games.

The hard bit is finding these inspiring games.
A lot of the modern GM games do not have 'obvious' moves because
a ref has been found or a better way (to them) has been found to
play the position.

So you have to poke about into the games history to find genuine
examples of the whole idea in action.

For the KID I used Bronstein's games and of course Alekhine-Yates,
Karlsbad 1923. A truly wonderful and instructive game.
The Queen and Bishop mating patterns you pick up are a bonus.
(this is the game Alekhine is reputed to have smashed up the furnuture over).

Also I looked at any game under 25 moves I could find.
These are also instructed because you will get a plausible error punished tactcially.
You can use the ideas (clean traps) in your games.

A clean trap is a move that is trappy but you have done no real harm to
your position setting it.
Dirty traps are moves where if the opponent finds, or knows the refuatation
then you are in trouble.

Look at this miniature from 1978. Just knowing this one short game and
you already have a feel for the Kings Indian and what it is all about.



Of course there are tricks and traps for both sides in the KID.
Get to know them all. It is a very complex and exciting opening.

Of course that means a certain amount of input and effort from yourself.
That is entirely up to you.

Memorising openings like a parrot is the easy way.
You can teach a parrot to say words but they do not know what they mean.

You will only get out of Chess what you put into it,

A wee free tip:

If White plays 6.Bg5 instead of 6.Be2 don't crack the centre with 6...e5?



7. dxe5 dxe5 8.Qxd8 Rxd8 9. Nd5 Nbd7 10. Rd1.



White is winning easily.

After 6.Bg5 you can poke the d-pawn with 6...c5 instead.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
It is very hard, almost impossible, to play a move not in the book.
Even all the bad moves have been tried before and that is all
opening theory is, other peoples games.

If studying the openings to you is memorising loads of variations
then I can tell you at your level it's pointless and will lead you up a dead end.

I have just skimmed through ...[text shortened]...

White is winning easily.

After 6.Bg5 you can poke the d-pawn with 6...c5 instead.

Thanks for that post Greenpawn, I've been looking for good ways to improve my game from a basic level. Can anyone recommend any good online resources, books etc. Free if possible 😉

Originally posted by greenpawn34



Stem games is the way.
Games that show you the idea and spirit behind an opening
being carried out. Studying these games, that is understanding why
every move was played. You will build up ideas and motifs and not
stuff your head with mainline moves you will never see in your games.

This is how I learn openings- if an opening book is not composed of complete annotated, I don't buy it.

I think the names and the content of a game help me memorize the ideas better than a sterile line- an example is my thread on triangulation. When I saw the idea in a thread, the Botvinnik game immediately sprang to mind.

The big advantage, however, is that complete annotated games familiarize you with the usual middlegame and endgame themes, so they prepare you to play the complete game at a conceptual level, not just 10 moves of rote memorization followed by folly.

In addition, many times opening books with annotated games will tend to feature multiple games by players who frequently play the opening, so if a particular player's style in that opening appeals to you, you can research his other games and learn more- I learned about GM Kengis after studying Alekhine's defense, and his games are an Alekhine's laboratory. I feel like he coached me personally sometimes.

Originally posted by irontigran
my view is of a masterpiece is a game with highly correct play and great tension the whole way through... both players going for the win. a london system would cheapen it for me

I know everyone on the site seems to love busting the London System, but I started a few games on the site with it about a month ago, and I think it gets a bad rap.

I've been using the Johnsen and Kovacevic book, and GM Kovacevic's idea is centered around the move order 1. d4 and 2. Bf4, preparing to transpose into the Queen's Gambit Bf4 lines or other lines (one turned into a Barry Attack) beyond simply the London System as appropriate.

So far the games have varied in style, but they have been no worse, in my opinion, than the games I get when I am black, for example, and get 1. e4 c5 2. c3 or 2. Nc3, or when I respond to 1. e4 with ...Nf6 and get 2. Nc3.

Originally posted by highdraw
Studying openings kinda takes the fun out of the game. Isn't it better to play a game and play a master piece with out getting your moves from a book?

Don't study openings. Don't play book moves. It's much more fun to play your own moves, even if this means losing. (And you will lose, fairly often. If you can play "masterpieces" without studying then you need to be some kind of modern day Morphy.)

Better to understand opening principles than learn book moves. Sortez les pieces! Control the centre! Knights before bishops (!? ok, maybe not, but certainly minor pieces before major pieces!)

Played a game recently where the first 9 moves came straight from the book. I don't normally follow book moves, but I just happened to have a relevant book lying around at the time, so I thought I'd try and follow it. Seems my opponent had the same book, because he followed along as well... On move 10 my opponent deviated, so I had to invent something... On move 14 he resigned. I don't feel like that win was really mine, because I only had to come up with 3 or 4 of my own moves. No fun at all.

Originally posted by Check ered past
Thanks for that post Greenpawn, I've been looking for good ways to improve my game from a basic level. Can anyone recommend any good online resources, books etc. Free if possible 😉

www.redhotpawn.com./gamesexplorer/

The two books I've recently started looking at (I too am working on opening play) is chess openings for white explained, and it's partner, chess openings for black explained. Between these two books and game explorer, things are already becoming more clear in situations I repeatedly find myself in....

And I've also (at the rec'd of the forum in another post) started keeping a notebook, which is helping. I make my move, and write down the expected responses, and what I'll do in responcse, etc... Haven't finished any games yet since this is pretty new for me, but I feel very good about the games I've started doing this in thus far. Plus, it'll help post-game analysis, which is actually why I started doing it. Openings is just a bonus.

P

Originally posted by Pariah325
www.redhotpawn.com./gamesexplorer/

The two books I've recently started looking at (I too am working on opening play) is chess openings for white explained, and it's partner, chess openings for black explained. Between these two books and game explorer, things are already becoming more clear in situations I repeatedly find myself in....

And I've also ...[text shortened]... game analysis, which is actually why I started doing it. Openings is just a bonus.

P

Hey cheers for the link, very useful. Just been given " Kasparov teaches chess" so gonna give that a read. I have been playing out different lines in the "analyze game" feature but keeping notes sounds like a great idea, will try on the next game.

Openings are the most enjoyable part of chess to study.

Originally posted by Sam The Sham
Openings are the most enjoyable part of chess to study.

I beg to differ!

It's equally enjoyable as watching grass grow.

toet.