I've got a question. Is this the most popular topic of all time, excluding the daily thing?
I saw that earlier someone mentioned that some that settle on their opening play things like reti or English, or d4 without c4. I have experience with this. And I was far from settled on my openings when I started those types of openings. I did English Reti when I was 1800 with great success. Only theory I knew on it was what Roman taught in his Roman forum on "Openings for the tournament player". It did a stupid easy plan for the English. You didn't need to know any strict moves. You just needed to know basic pawn structure and some basic planning and you could play in any class tournament with success. I was great!
Since then I switched openings like I had schizophrenia. back and forth between 1. e4 1. d4 1. c4 1. Nf3. Around 1950 I even added 1. b3 and 1. .. b6 to my massive opening knowledge. And had decent success with those as well.
The ONLY thing I never tried which is ironic because it turned out to be my best in terms of success and ability to understand the system.. Was when I decided to try 1. d4 2. c4 with g3 systems. And after that deciding to go head long into slav formations. It's possible my "Haphazard" study of openings helped me understand these better.
Funny enough, now that I am actually settled in my openings it actually turns out I went back to 1. d4 2. Nf3 and 3. g3 where it's a hybred system that delays c4. So while it turned out the comment was "kind of true", I don't necessarily agree with the people that play those systems are set in their ways all the time. But maybe most of the time. And I also think that when those people fall in that trend it turns out to be more of a weakness than a strength.
Since then I switched openings like I had schizophrenia. back and forth between 1. e4 1. d4 1. c4 1. Nf3. Around 1950 I even added 1. b3 and 1. .. b6 to my massive opening knowledge. And had decent success with those as well.
The ONLY thing I never tried which is ironic because it turned out to be my best in terms of success and ability to understand the system.. Was when I decided to try 1. d4 2. c4 with g3 systems. And after that deciding to go head long into slav formations. It's possible my "Haphazard" study of openings helped me understand these better.
Funny enough, now that I am actually settled in my openings it actually turns out I went back to 1. d4 2. Nf3 and 3. g3 where it's a hybred system that delays c4. So while it turned out the comment was "kind of true", I don't necessarily agree with the people that play those systems are set in their ways all the time. But maybe most of the time. And I also think that when those people fall in that trend it turns out to be more of a weakness than a strength.
I do study opening one for white and one for black and all its variations , and if i encounter something i dont know i write notes. So i create more variations on single opening. I dont really learn more than one opening. Waste of time
That's a lot of work IMO for a 1400 player. Even I don't do that.
Openings form part of the vocabulary of chess.
The idea you shouldn't try to go too deep into one opening if you're a beginner seems valid.
But ignoring openings and sticking to just opening principles seems a bad idea also.
The opening gives a game a context.
I used to be destroyed by the Roy Lopez so I did a bit of research and play the Caro-Kann. My knowledge only goes about 4 moves deep but it's solid and has the same pawn structure as the Queen's Gambit. I play d4 as White, I like closed games.
Without any opening knowledge at all I wouldn't have been able to write the above paragraph.
The idea you shouldn't try to go too deep into one opening if you're a beginner seems valid.
But ignoring openings and sticking to just opening principles seems a bad idea also.
The opening gives a game a context.
I used to be destroyed by the Roy Lopez so I did a bit of research and play the Caro-Kann. My knowledge only goes about 4 moves deep but it's solid and has the same pawn structure as the Queen's Gambit. I play d4 as White, I like closed games.
Without any opening knowledge at all I wouldn't have been able to write the above paragraph.
I spent 6 years playing at the 1900+ level using nothing but principled chess. And no.. There really is no such thing as "Opening principles." That is a misnomer. Opening principles are merely "Guidelines" that people have made up to help super beginners understand basic development.
Principled chess is deep understanding of the fundamentals of strategic chess. People underestimate the power in this understanding all the time. And it's so simple. The funny thing.. When I tell someone what the concept is.. they go, "Oh yeah I know that!!" then they go back to their normal play breaking those principles and wondering why they are losing.
Principled chess is things you can use in all phases of the game. Mostly developed based on Steinitz laws of chess. Even the most basic laws are important. Things like, "Never attack where you are weak and your opponent is strong." Or "Always look to your least active piece and work to make it more active". These things are extremely important.. And analysis of these in deeper context is worth the time. Even Seirawan made attempts to make his own version of principles. I think he may have expanded on a theory that was already known, because several years after reading his books I saw a video of Larry Evans being interviewed and one of his quotes was based on Seirawan's ideas. And I think the interview was in the 70's. Either way.. The ideas Seirawan expanded on were very sound and principled like. When I recommended his books I use to call "Play winning chess" his REAL opening book and told people his other opening book was crap. Why? Because it introduced basic ideas to opening theory, recommended the Barcza system, and then nothing else. When his "Play winning chess" book could be used to just play chess and taught basic strategic play enough that any beginner could become a "strong class player" with absolutely no opening theory.
Do I have proof? Well yes.. I was one. I went from 900 to 1800 on just Seirawan's first four books. (Play winning chess, Winning chess strategies, Winning chess tactics, and winning chess brilliancies) Later when I was 1950 I took a student who was 900 and yes.. brought him to 1800. Never once taught him opening theory. Just taught him what was in Seirawan's books. Sad part? That fool beat me to our first candidate master norm in USCF. Also.. I once tutored a guy online.. And then 2 years later had his brother come up to me in the same site we met on to challenge me to a game. And he played on level to his brother. His brother was a 1700 player that I trained from 1200. He told me he learned chess from me through his brother and his challenge was to thank me for the help.
One time I learned 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 because Fischer played it. I knew it was called the Ruy lopez because people online told me. I studied some Fischer games, like maybe 20 or 30. Played for a few years. Visited someone in Chicago I "knew" from FICS and he introduced me to an OTB blitz tournament. He played in the open and I played in the u1600. Walluped everyone. Some of the participants later asked me how long I have been studying the Ruy Lopez. And I said, "Never.. I looked at some Fischer games." And then they claimed they believe I knew it 30 moves deep. Of course this is a human exaggeration, but it made me feel good. Having people live come up and tell me that I knew some opening book line they love some odd moves deep and all I did was look at Fischer games. The most I knew back then was three basic pawn structures, I knew the knight tour from b1-d2-f1-d3/g3 and I knew some basic tactics. It carried me to 1700+. I am literally told daily by my local club that I am an opening guru. And most of the stronger people tell the club members that if they want to know something about an opening to come to me or another guy who is known for his openings. The crazy thing is even today I don't really know anything about "openings". I just know basic ideas and I have seen a lot of opening prep videos like once. And I have a decent memory. So having an entire chess club think of my opening understanding as being an opening guru is kind of a big compliment because I feel I know nothing.
Sometimes people make chess basics so hard for themselves that it gives me chills thinking back to my days as a sub 1500 player. I ask myself all the time if I thought this way.. I don't really remember. But I do love looking over the games back then. I still have some hidden in my dungeons. And if I logged into an old BBS from 1992 I think I could pull up archives of games when I was a 900 strength. Those are comedies for sure.
Principled chess is deep understanding of the fundamentals of strategic chess. People underestimate the power in this understanding all the time. And it's so simple. The funny thing.. When I tell someone what the concept is.. they go, "Oh yeah I know that!!" then they go back to their normal play breaking those principles and wondering why they are losing.
Principled chess is things you can use in all phases of the game. Mostly developed based on Steinitz laws of chess. Even the most basic laws are important. Things like, "Never attack where you are weak and your opponent is strong." Or "Always look to your least active piece and work to make it more active". These things are extremely important.. And analysis of these in deeper context is worth the time. Even Seirawan made attempts to make his own version of principles. I think he may have expanded on a theory that was already known, because several years after reading his books I saw a video of Larry Evans being interviewed and one of his quotes was based on Seirawan's ideas. And I think the interview was in the 70's. Either way.. The ideas Seirawan expanded on were very sound and principled like. When I recommended his books I use to call "Play winning chess" his REAL opening book and told people his other opening book was crap. Why? Because it introduced basic ideas to opening theory, recommended the Barcza system, and then nothing else. When his "Play winning chess" book could be used to just play chess and taught basic strategic play enough that any beginner could become a "strong class player" with absolutely no opening theory.
Do I have proof? Well yes.. I was one. I went from 900 to 1800 on just Seirawan's first four books. (Play winning chess, Winning chess strategies, Winning chess tactics, and winning chess brilliancies) Later when I was 1950 I took a student who was 900 and yes.. brought him to 1800. Never once taught him opening theory. Just taught him what was in Seirawan's books. Sad part? That fool beat me to our first candidate master norm in USCF. Also.. I once tutored a guy online.. And then 2 years later had his brother come up to me in the same site we met on to challenge me to a game. And he played on level to his brother. His brother was a 1700 player that I trained from 1200. He told me he learned chess from me through his brother and his challenge was to thank me for the help.
One time I learned 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 because Fischer played it. I knew it was called the Ruy lopez because people online told me. I studied some Fischer games, like maybe 20 or 30. Played for a few years. Visited someone in Chicago I "knew" from FICS and he introduced me to an OTB blitz tournament. He played in the open and I played in the u1600. Walluped everyone. Some of the participants later asked me how long I have been studying the Ruy Lopez. And I said, "Never.. I looked at some Fischer games." And then they claimed they believe I knew it 30 moves deep. Of course this is a human exaggeration, but it made me feel good. Having people live come up and tell me that I knew some opening book line they love some odd moves deep and all I did was look at Fischer games. The most I knew back then was three basic pawn structures, I knew the knight tour from b1-d2-f1-d3/g3 and I knew some basic tactics. It carried me to 1700+. I am literally told daily by my local club that I am an opening guru. And most of the stronger people tell the club members that if they want to know something about an opening to come to me or another guy who is known for his openings. The crazy thing is even today I don't really know anything about "openings". I just know basic ideas and I have seen a lot of opening prep videos like once. And I have a decent memory. So having an entire chess club think of my opening understanding as being an opening guru is kind of a big compliment because I feel I know nothing.
Sometimes people make chess basics so hard for themselves that it gives me chills thinking back to my days as a sub 1500 player. I ask myself all the time if I thought this way.. I don't really remember. But I do love looking over the games back then. I still have some hidden in my dungeons. And if I logged into an old BBS from 1992 I think I could pull up archives of games when I was a 900 strength. Those are comedies for sure.
Fascinating how this topic has garnered so much attention and energy from people.
Sometimes I think people "Want to learn" they just are too lazy when the time comes. And just don't want to admit it. Maybe if someone sorted through all the crap like half of my last post, they could actually learn something. ;-)
@hampy That you like closed games at your rating is LIKELY a sign, that you seek for positions with fewer tactics. So my advice would be to improve on tactics, e. g. by daily routine (10 to 15 minutes EVERY day is enough) and when strong enough maybe getting back to more open positions.
@MeWantCookieMobile
I'm sure *some* people who "want to learn" are "too lazy when the time comes".
There is always a divide between "wanting" and "doing" and we are all guilty of living in that hole, at one point or another of our lives for some given subject as I'm sure you will agree. ;D
But many people also put great effort and energy into their hobby and passion but lack the resources (time, money, etc.) or enlightened support to "learn properly".
I believe this is at least partly because not everyone is equipped to "learn the same way".
In other words, generalizations may have some use when applied to the majority but I suspect progress often grinds down to a halt for a variety of reasons that varies from person to person.
I personally think many people (probably myself included) are incapable of significant progress because they picked-up the game as youngsters and probably integrated some very bad habits "deep into their bones" so that it is much harder for them than if they were starting as adults with a clean slate under the enlightened guidance of a stronger player.
Whatever the case, I think this discussion thread is a wonderful medium for people off all ages, ability and skill levels if only because it breaks the isolation that can be rampant on such sites and exposes one to different points of views that are subjected to constructive criticism.
People are then free to weigh the pros and the cons as they apply to their own experiences and choose what seems most relevant, leaving the rest behind.
I'm sure *some* people who "want to learn" are "too lazy when the time comes".
There is always a divide between "wanting" and "doing" and we are all guilty of living in that hole, at one point or another of our lives for some given subject as I'm sure you will agree. ;D
But many people also put great effort and energy into their hobby and passion but lack the resources (time, money, etc.) or enlightened support to "learn properly".
I believe this is at least partly because not everyone is equipped to "learn the same way".
In other words, generalizations may have some use when applied to the majority but I suspect progress often grinds down to a halt for a variety of reasons that varies from person to person.
I personally think many people (probably myself included) are incapable of significant progress because they picked-up the game as youngsters and probably integrated some very bad habits "deep into their bones" so that it is much harder for them than if they were starting as adults with a clean slate under the enlightened guidance of a stronger player.
Whatever the case, I think this discussion thread is a wonderful medium for people off all ages, ability and skill levels if only because it breaks the isolation that can be rampant on such sites and exposes one to different points of views that are subjected to constructive criticism.
People are then free to weigh the pros and the cons as they apply to their own experiences and choose what seems most relevant, leaving the rest behind.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.