Plasticity of the brain is greatest at 20, but chess players peak much later don't they?
@MeWantCookieMobile I can't find where I made that claim.
It was just this,
"Principled play will often find those lines over the board to an extent, but once the position opens up, the calculation required becomes more difficult."
It was your wording in post #27.
It's really small. But I think it's important. Too many people underestimate principled chess.
I don't think principled play hurts or goes away in calculation. And that it helps.
Did I misunderstand you?
"Do not study openings before X rating" is one of the most overrated pieces of advice in chess (next to "only analyze your games by yourself with no outside help"). Way too broad and easy to misinterpret.
"Do not just memorize lines", yes, that makes sense (but that's not tied to any rating).
"Do not (waste time to) try to understand your opening moves" on the other hand is bad advice.
"GM/WC/prodigy X never studied opening theory" - well, yeah, no. They all did and do. They just do it en passant while studying other master's games. And of course they don't just memorize. But noone starts from scratch. If that was that easy, Carlsen would not have that much better opening knowledge than the Morphys, Laskers and Alekhines had in their day.
If have seen more than one novice stagnate for years because someone "clever" told them to abandon their openings altogether (or at least that's how they understood it). Typically, said clever person knows quite a bit about openings themselves.
I never said don't study openings. I said you don't need openings. Most people choose fad openings. And THAT'S what slows them down. They want something that gives them instant gratification and they don't want to take the time to truly build and understand their repertoire.
That is accurate though. If you look at most people and their play. Do you really think the average class player understands their opening? Sorry.. If you do, but they don't. I actually know my openings at a much deeper level than most at my level and I can't say I understand my opening deep enough.
I am around 1650 standard FIDE, and I disagree. On the last tournament I lost all games as black due to the lack of opening preparation.
When you play white, you can allow yourself to be unpreparied. There are often more than one good move, and with some chess intuition you can keep the initiative without learning opening theores.
But when you are black, things change dramatically. You need to know what are you doing, or you'll be crushed against any decent (~1700) opponent. You just have to sit and learn how to respond to 1.e4 and 1.d4 and stick to it. You don't have to learn 25 moves of all existing defenses, but you should know at least one defense rather good to stay in the game as black.
I don't know @LukaCro . I would like to believe you. I really would. But I have heard thousands and thousands of people u2000 USCF and FIDE tell me they lost due to opening prep. And when they show me the games they lost because of something else. Maybe you can post the games. Now there have been a few people in those thousands that I spoke of that did lose from opening prep. But those few people chose to lose. And what I mean by that is they chose an opening that they want to play but don't understand. Najdorf or Gambits are usually the biggest ones. But without having games to reference, you are only saying unsubstantiated claims. Show the games. I am not saying there isn't flukes, but 90% of the time it is simple things and people just "think" it's their opening prep.
You dont need to study openings, just look at some gm games. I saw christiansen play opening 1500 players play and crush gm later tactically, were i thought how can you do that from simple opening. Carlsen played the larsen im sure you it was considered to give no advantage. Yes maybe look at your openngs.iJust compare book sales or opening videos watched to progressing players. And i bet you will see a huge discrepancy . Its actual the most underrated advice, because noobs are naturally atracted to openings.
Or look at kamsky winning sinqefield with colle opening, no advanced theory i assume. Gms win tournaments with bird opening. You just need playable position .And if you would have needed study your opponents would not have amateur ratings.
Capablanca study the endgame before the opening. Capablanca as i mowed them down one by one my superiority became soon apparent.