People who play at a certain level (say 1600 and below), tend to deviate TONS from much of the "opening theory". To devote so much time to openings, when they will be no use to you since your opponent doesn't follow suit, seems pointless to me. Tactics occur no matter what. (In the opening, middlegame, and endgame.).
Originally posted by MikeXx2020"Zwugzang"? lol
I am 1100 ish and I know what zwugzang's and forks and combo's are...
I have lost some games because I have completely messed up the opening. If I had studied openings in detail, I would probably have been able to avoid that. But if I had had enough tactical knowledge and had planned far enough ahead, I am sure I could have avoided it, too. And while tactics will help you in whatever situation, if you study a specific opening it will only help you with that specific opening. And if I am playing a good player, I will get trashed anyway.
I agree with Timothy here, I'm afraid - I tend to find that most of the games I face against players of my level or thereabouts (i.e. mediocre) revolve around who makes the first mistake, not who has the sharpest opening...you often find that players of 1500 or lower with sharp openings are playing out of a book or via Google, and that a slightly neutral response throws them because they have no book response to it. A higher level player will simply murder the same response. I do feel I need to settle down and choose some openings now, but I inevitably gravitate towards e4-e5 and Four Knights transpositions, which is inexcusable because I loathe those openings. I'm going to take a break, think about a repertoire, no doubt lose many games adapting to that repertoire, and then hopefully start enjoying playing chess again.
Originally posted by AmauroteI'm predominantly an e4 player. For Black, learn the Petroff - at my level it works great. The thing with an opening, the more you play it, the more you start recognising patterns and structures. People I play against also seem to hate the Two/Four Knights, so they do everything they can to avoid it.
I agree with Timothy here, I'm afraid - I tend to find that most of the games I face against players of my level or thereabouts (i.e. mediocre) revolve around who makes the first mistake, not who has the sharpest opening...you often find that players of 1500 or lower with sharp openings are playing out of a book or via Google, and that a slightly neutral r ...[text shortened]... e many games adapting to that repertoire, and then hopefully start enjoying playing chess again.
Originally posted by MikeXx2020You won't get trashed because you don't know the best move or "book move" in an obscure opening. You will probably get trashed if you hang a piece though. If you're playing someone at a lower level just keep playing and eventually they'll give you the piece back. Maybe even a few more. Tactics will help you spot those chances to win material much faster than any moves out of a book will.
All these ideasa about "tactics is the was to go till 2000" and "forget openings until your atleast 1800"... Well my view is that if we dont study openings how should we know what to play? If someone came up against the sicilian Scheveningen Variation keres attack without h7-h6, how would you know what to do!!?!?!?!?!?? Simple, you wouldnt and get tra ...[text shortened]... what zwugzang's and forks and combo's are... I see them easy enough... So what you gotta say?
Here on RHP it's a little different though. Players are allowed to use books and databases so staying in the book tends to be more common here far deeper into a game. On the other hand you can choose to go out of book early and force your opponent to play chess on his or her own. That's when tactics will become extrememly important.
And there's more to tactics that just spotting them or knowing what they are. You need to be able to create them from scratch.
Originally posted by buffalobillI appreciate what you're saying, Bill, but you have to realize that at 1800+ you're a stratospherically good player by my standards, so your theoretical chess is incomparably superior to my own level of player - the problem I have is that the typical scenario is that I tend to fall by default into boring, static, purely developmental openings like the Two (or the Giuoco, which I don't mind because I still think it's the most beautiful opening going), and then before I know it my opponent has done the same, which is hardly something I can blame him for.
I'm predominantly an e4 player. For Black, learn the Petroff - at my level it works great. The thing with an opening, the more you play it, the more you start recognising patterns and structures. People I play against also seem to hate the Two/Four Knights, so they do everything they can to avoid it.
I tried persevering with the English for a while, with some success, but a fianchetto is obligatory with that, and with rare exceptions I absolutely hate the sight of fianchettoes on my side of the board. I think I need to think hard before continuing here, because I've really hit a ceiling as far as my own standard of play goes...I've started to bore myself even when I play well, and that doesn't augur well for the future.