"... It is illogical for one who has not earned his master title to ape the complicated opening variations played by, say, a world champion. After all, while the opening is indeed important in chess, it is still only one part of the game; victory can be found as well in the middlegame or endgame. Your only task in the opening is to reach a playable middlegame. ... How should we lay the foundations of our opening repertoire? It is hard to come up with a single answer to satisfy every player. Individuals will have different objectives in the opening, as well as different playing strengths. Nevertheless, to all players I can recommend the following: simplicity and economy. These are the characteristics of the opening systems of many great masters. They do not strain unduly for advantages in the opening; they would just as soon move on to the next phase of the game, hoping their skill will overcome the opponent in the middlegame or endgame. ... the most complicated variations demand huge amounts of time for home analysis, time available only to professional chess players. ... I will discuss here only openings and defenses that in my opinion offer simplicity and economy. ... The Dragon and Najdorf Variations ... have been analyzed to twenty moves and more; if a player without adequate preparation walks into an analyzed sequence he may lose even to a weaker opponent. Under no circumstances should you handle these variations in serious games unless you are a professional chess player with unlimited time for study. ..." - GM Lajos Portisch (1974)
#19 - this advice works alright for me. I'm not convinced that _just_ following "general principles" like "center, development, king safety" is enough any more than thinking about "piece activity, pawn structure, king safety" is enough to play any middlegame perfectly, but just memorizing loads of long lines off the bat seems like a terrible idea. Picking an opening, going through some model games to try to get the strategic themes and then learning concrete theory mostly by trial and error seems like a balanced approach.
@RoundMoundOfUnsound said in #13:
> There is no shortage of chess content on the internet but usually anything that is published offers little or no edge because everyone has access to it.
>
> The exception is if you find a gold mine before everyone else but when people go on reputation that becomes impossible.
Does any normal chess player care about getting "an edge" from something that no-one else has access to, though? There's enough stuff out there that loads of people know that I don't, so I'd happy to start off by just catching up with stuff that's common knowledge...
Don't play openings!
Hello Aarush, I also have problems with opening. If you like, we can learn an opening and then play it together and analyse it.
@Rebeccaisrael Sure, we can. PM me so we can schedule some things together
@jonWM So what I play in my games, do you think I should continue using that or should I use the pre-made gambits?
@RamblinDave said in #23:
> Does any normal chess player care about getting "an edge" from something that no-one else has access to, though? There's enough stuff out there that loads of people know that I don't, so I'd happy to start off by just catching up with stuff that's common knowledge...
One has to build their edge of course but commonly available information shouldn't cost anything, let alone what many charge for it. They bill it as a way to improve but the real key is books like ECM.
@kindaspongey said in #21:
> "... It is illogical for one who has not earned his master title to ape the complicated opening variations played by, say, a world champion.
"Your first lesson is to read MCO from cover to cover, twice." -- Actual world champion Robert James "Bobby" Fischer.
One becomes a master by building a world-class repertoire. Any move good enough for Fischer or Carlsen is fine for a beginner.
"You have to learn to run before you can crawl."
Building a world-class opening repertoire lets you continue to gain familiarity as your rating goes up.
@Aarush_Pandey said in #27:
> @jonWM So what I play in my games, do you think I should continue using that or should I use the pre-made gambits?
To be honest, I've seen a lot of advice on which openings to learn and when from people with good credentials, and the range of contradictory opinions is striking. Different people will argue for learning as few openings as possible or as wide a range as you can, or for always playing e4 e5 or for playing something else, or for always playing "systems" or never playing them, or for always playing mainlines or only playing sidelines, or for avoiding the Najdorf because it's "too theoretical", or for playing the Najdorf because it's "ideas based". And it's worth pointing out that basically none of them have got anything beyond anecdotal evidence for any of this. About the only thing that everyone seems to agree on is that there's no point memorizing loads of theory that you don't understand and probably won't get to play, and the ongoing popularity of Chessable opening courses suggests that plenty of players are ignoring even that...
My only real advice is to take any prescriptive advice with a pinch of salt, and to play whatever openings make you want to click "New Game"...
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.