Master players preach that opening study means little at the club level and studying middlegames and endgames are better uses of your study time. however, in my eyes, this statement is inherently contradictory.
For one, If you do not know at least the basic ideas of the opening, you will end up in a significantly worse position going into the middlegame. at that point, all the middlegame study in the world can't help you. but even here lies a contradiction. the middlegame you get is a direct result of the opening you chose to play. a scotch game middlegame is different from a bird's opening middlegame, which is different from a modern defense middlegame, etc... so to study the middlegame, you need to study the middlegame of a specific opening, and by extension the opening phase of that opening (to understand how to get to favorable middlegames in the first place). even the endgame is influenced by one's choice of opening, especially in certain ones like the English rat or the Exchange Ruy Lopez.
Understanding what opening you're playing is undoubtedly important. probably #3 most important only to game review and tactic training. so why do masters say it doesn't? or is there something I'm missing...?
"... you must choose what openings you will be using. ..." - Journey to the Chess Kingdom, a book for beginners by Yuri Averbakh and Mikhail Beilin
Actually probably the best way to phrase it is that learning openings isn't the best path to chess improvement. Focusing on openings is rather inefficient if wanting to improve. Here is why it's inefficient:
1. If you don't possess enough chess skill while you can memorise moves you won't understand why they're good. This means that moment you leave a book position you'll be lost. It also means you're unable to evaluate the positions you're aiming to reach. It might also mean you spend time learning opening traps that superficially appear good but aren't good against best play.
2. The whole point of openings is to gain a small advantage you can later convert to a win. If you don't know how to convert a small edge into a win then it's pointless spending hours on openings to get a small edge you can't convert.
3. Endgames are actually relatively easy to reach a good level of proficiency. If you read a good endgame book it can easily boost you by 100-200 points especially if unfamiliar with concepts and might only take 10-20 hours work. Learning a new opening is unlikely to yield a similar gain.
4. Middlegame skills is where you need to put most effort. For example it can be learning positional concepts, mating attacks, tactics etc and is what will win games or hold draws. Many strong players can outplay weaker opponents in equal positions.
I think if you solely focus on learning openings you'll probably plateau at around1400-1500ish. Studying openings a little can be good to reach playable positions and it's a good idea to learn key ideas in lines you play. However unless you're rated over 2200 FIDE and want to aim for titles then I think studying openings isn't likely to benefit you much. Having said that if you enjoy it then by all means do so.
I think @KMcGeoch summed it up, but yeah. The goal with openings is understanding the concept, rather then memorizing a line. If you understand the purpose of a simple opening like Kings pawn, or the London, etc, you're better off starting in chess by playing the positional naturally through intuition and skill, as opposed to memorizing a closed/complicated line that yields little in tactics. Obviously you don't want to make blunders in the opening, but buying an opening course at 1300 elo will not make you a better player in the long run.
imo, consistent opening lines are necessary at 2200+ level, but by that time in your chess life, you are making very little mistakes in the middlegame, that would warrant a win via tactics. playing a solid line in the opening will give you an edge in the endgame, to which expert players connotate most of their time studying.
@qpalzm123456 said in #1:
> Master players preach that opening study means little at the club level and studying middlegames and endgames are better uses of your study time.
And for the most part, they are correct. Daniel Naroditsky has a difference of opinion even going so far as to say that totally green beginners need to learn at least a few lines so they can get into a game. He doesn't necessarily advocate studying theory, but you do have to be able to make it to move six and avoid traps.
This thread also needs a disclaimer added stating what people think opening study really is. My years of experience on chessable has shown me that most people think opening study means memorizing a bunch of lines. And they do so at bullet speed. I and many others do not consider that opening study. To each their own.
> Understanding what opening you're playing is undoubtedly important. probably #3 most important only to game review and tactic training. so why do masters say it doesn't? or is there something I'm missing...?
Again, I think it comes down to the definition of study. If when you say study you mean actually looking at every single position along the way and understanding every branch that can occur from here, and why it would be good or bad, and internalizing that the same way that you would patterns when you train tactics, then yes, I call that studying. But most people don't do that. Go read the forums over at chessable and you will see what I mean. The entire site is overrun with opening courses and they monopolize the discussions almost to the exclusion of anything that actually teaches you something about chess. I have probably 40 courses, maybe more, Idk, but only a handful have anything to do with openings and most of those were free short and sweets. I did purchase "Keep it Simple for Black" but I have yet to go through it. When I get to where I think openings are my biggest weakness I will spend some time on that, but until then, I have bigger fish to fry.
Another thing I think people do fundamentally wrong, is they spend time on openings for white when really I think you should spend about 90% of your opening time on black. White should be simple, you already know what opening you're playing. From the Black side, you're not the one that gets to choose all the time. So you're going to have a much greater number of things to deal with as black. Every time somebody throws at you some crazy new gambit they learned, you need to be able to deal with that.
Over on Chessable, Kramnik has an entire series of courses on "Playing" the opening. When the first one came out I checked out the short and sweet because it was only four variations (and free, as all SnS are). It came with his video explanations and it was clear to me that this was it totally different way of prepping openings. The kind of thing a really strong player would recommend to someone trying to learn. The thing is, that course is aimed at players way above my rating range. NM, IM, etc. The couple of short and sweet lines we're such that he was out of book by move two. Perfectly playable positions that guarantee you your opponent is out of book right now. But it wasn't something a typical Club player could train. Or at least I certainly could not.
My belief is, after you've seen a few openings once or twice so you have a general direction, your best way of actually learning them is to play the game while thinking about the opening moves instead of blitzing them out, and then go over the game with an engine afterward to see what you could have done better. I don't think there's a better way to study your openings. And that's why Master players say what they do. Most of them go out of their way to explain why they feel that way.
"... Review each of your games, identifying opening (and other) mistakes with the goal of not repeatedly making the same mistake. ... It is especially critical not to continually fall into opening traps – or even lines that result in difficult positions ... Read many annotated game collections ... By looking at entire games, the aspiring player learns about openings, middlegames, and endgames all at one fell swoop. Playing through annotated games spurs improvement as the reader learns how good players consistently handle common positions and problems. ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2007)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627062646/https://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman81.pdf
"... I am not a big fan of weaker players memorizing lots of opening lines they will never play. However, it is quite a different issue to spend a small amount of time learning how to play your openings a little better each time they occur. A long journey begins with a single step. ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2005)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627023809/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman50.pdf
Seems to me that it can be helpful to encounter advice like this:
"... For young, inexperienced players, this attack [(1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Ng5)] is ... not easy to defend. I've seen this position appear hundreds of times in junior games, and Black often goes astray immediately. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen the player with the black pieces losing a rook, or even worse! ... even after [the good move, 4...d5,] Black has to be very careful. ... for now I'm going to recommend [3...Bc5]. ..." - GM John Emms (in the 2018 book, First Steps: 1 e4 e5)
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/7790.pdf
"... you play a4 on move one and if you're good at tactics it doesn't matter. That's the biggest mistake all low rated players make is they think only openings matter. They don't matter at all. ... You could play h3 on move one, rook h2 on move two and if you're 1500 and you're playing another 1500, its irrelevant. Now, if you're Magnus playing Wesley So, it might matter. Probably not. ... I've never been this mad except I'm always this mad. ... All coaches are bad. ... I hate everybody." - GM Ben Finegold
httpscolon//www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPIMRMl0guA
"... the two extremes are clearly wrong. The one extreme of do-nothing and the other extreme of try-to-memorize-every-possible-thing-that-anyone-could-ever-play-against-you-in-your-opening that's not going to work either. ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2019)
httpscolon//www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBk3Kle2O9k
@qpalzm123456 Chess is a very complex game in which the principle of the ‘weakest link’ often applies. Over time, these links (chess concepts that I understand/don't understand, apply/can't apply, tactics that I recognise/don't recognise, calculations that I perform/can't perform, etc.) become stronger and break through less frequently.
At the same time, these weak links in the chain are only increasingly exploited as the opponent's playing strength increases.
This is the reason why many coaches tend to teach players to play ‘generally sensible moves’ first, instead of focussing explicitly on opening theory.
In our chess club, the kids first learn to solve tactical problems and play 10-minute games with a chess clock. Then the topic of ‘general opening principles’ is soon added. After that, they are ready for league games and tournaments.
Of course, many roads lead to Rome, but some are rockier than others.
Good luck on your LIFELONG chess journey!
Its not a hot take. It just a wrong take.
The novice player will screw up any position you give to him. He might get a decent position out from MEMORY from regurgitating an opening, but as soon as he gets out of the opening prep, he wont know what to do. He wont have a plan, he wont understand pawn structures, he will move the same piece twice, he wont look for outposts, he will trade the good bishop for a bad knight. He just wont understand the position. He will not know the strong points, he will not know how to deal with counterplay.
When you study the middlegame first, you will understand piece positioning, you will understand tempos, you will understand initiative, you will be forced to learn tactics, you will be forced to learn how and when to sacrifice, you will understand matting patterns, piece overload, among many other useful tools that you actually use in the game.
And all of this is dynamic, its not preset as the opening, they will learn how to adapt to the situation and they will start to see patterns. And since they will as said, understand piece position, they will retroactively understand where to place the pieces the first time they move (AKA opening).
While it is true that they may gain some rating points due to a trappy opening or similar, as soon as they start climbing, they will have no chance against someone who has a better understanding, even if the opponent starts in a worse position from the opening and they will never be able to pass that barrier until they get the fundamentals.
More rating does not equate to a better player. The bubble will quickly burst.
On the other hand, the one studying the middlegame, he will probably lose so many games while trying stuff up or risking that sacrifice for the tempo gain or among those lines. and he is gonna lose a lot of rating points, but his calculating skills will improve a lot. And soon after, once they get the hang of it, they are gonna recover the lost points and will pass the next barrier with no problems, as they are prepared.
There is a reason you study middle game, endings, and THEN openings. The reason is that openings is just you regurgitating moves that you dont need to understand, but you dont learn anything about the game. While the other 2 topics do force you to learn a lot of fundamentals.
No offense, you are just wrong, you just dont have the level to realize it because you lack the fundamentals.
When you study middlegame, you will see.
Aaaaaand, there's a reason you are 1500 on lichess, and titled players, are ... titled ;)
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.