Hot take: The notion that "openings don't matter" is hogwash

@kindaspongey said in #30:

Is anyone advocating that one neglect middlegame strategy?

Nobody is advocating it, but lots of people do it.

@kindaspongey said in #30:

Perhaps it was a factor that the gambit-user had spent some time learning about the gambit?
Quite true, and you WILL run into this. Doesn't mean you should try to study 10,000,000 openings attempting to be ready for that one. Might better learn how to calculate your way out of a position you are not familiar with, rather than try to memorize a billion of them.

@kindaspongey said in #30:

But sometimes they have the benefit of having done some reading about the position?
See above.

@kindaspongey said in #30:

Perhaps opening reading can help one to be aware of some important 3-moves-ahead possibilities in an opening position?

Possible, but this generally falls under my heading of avoiding the traps, NOT "Studying" openings. I think you quoted someone above who said as much, but has better credentials than I do.

@kindaspongey said in #30:

Is anyone denying the value of working on such a skill?

No, but again, lots of people do nothing but memorize lines and it's pointless.
@kindaspongey said in #30:

It seems to me that it is easy enough to give advice like that of Capablanca:

It is indeed, but once again, you'll take note that Capablanca didn't memorize openings. He played novelties more often than many people play chess. That's not because he memorized opening lines. If he did anything of the sort, it was to pre-analyze positions after making unexpected moves and go on to win from there, mostly due to out-calculating the opponent.

@kindaspongey said in #30:

Is anyone arguing against calculation? Isn't it possible that some in-advance reading can help with the "finding"?
In my experience, it is nearly useless unless you're in the very first few moves. If you have some "theme" like pushing the G/H pawns and crashing through as in some Sicilians, Ok, but about all you've learned is this is something I want to set up and try. It's guaranteed to fail if you just blindly start pushing pawns, and even a well timed push will fail if you are unable to calculate the complications.

Your responses are making a serious reach on these rhetorical questions. Of course nobody is arguing against these things, but they're NOT DOING IT. What I often see is "Opening Study" to the exclusion of everything else. And I do mean everything. I said go look over on Chessable. It's the biggest chess learning site on the web by a pretty wide margin. Look at what people buy and study. Look at what they discuss. And omg, look how many people complain over there about "You didn't include THIS line! Oh my, what will I do? You need to update the course because I saw a line played that you didn't cover!" I'm serious. Omg, does anyone realize there's millions of lines every few moves? The numbers are so astronomical it took mathematicians years to even guess at it.

At high levels where people have narrowed things down to a near 0 subset of the possible moves, ok, openings matter. But they're not looking 3 moves ahead... More like 30. To the VAST majority of players, openings can be largely ignored and simply play a very small subset of opening choices.

If opening "Study" is, "I play this when they play that", you are wasting your time.

FYI, I looked at some games elsewhere where a person had asked me some things about their games. I started looking through some wins and losses. No lie, 1e4 or 1...e5 / 1...c5, whatever, it is THEMATIC that they drop a central pawn to a tactic by move 6 or 7. I mean it's like someone at GM level told them this is a good thing and they ran with it. It's a central theme of their games. I just shake my head and move on. What can you even say to that. They're simply not going to look at their own games and correct these problems. They literally make those same mistakes in every game they play. Time for me to stop typing... Lol.

I'd also point out that, Gukesh Domaraju (sp) was known widely in top chess circles for horrible openings, even just a couple years ago. I'm sure you've heard of him, and yes he did finally start working on openings recently. But he had progressed quite a long way before concentrating on such stuff. I'll try to quote but it might be paraphrasing, I recall Fabi on an interview saying about him (before he became wc), "His openings are complete shit, but he's got such good fundamentals and is such a strong calculator it just doesn't matter".

@V1g1yy said in #32:

I'd also point out that, Gukesh Domaraju (sp) was known widely in top chess circles for horrible openings, even just a couple years ago.
On the other hand, even, say, five years ago he was already playing on a level where "horrible openings" probably meant much wider and deeper knowledge than I'll ever have (or vast majority of lichess players).

@qpalzm123456 said in #1:

... 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...?
@BabyPoltergeist said in #18:
... If you have good middlegame strategy you can generally play good moves right out of the opening without knowing any theory unless the opening is very sharp ...
@kindaspongey said in #19:
... How many players can realistically expect to have "middlegame strategy" that is this "good"? Perhaps, with some opening knowledge, it will be "generally" more often that some of us manage to play good moves right out of the opening? ...
@BabyPoltergeist said in #28:
... Someone who has good knowledge of the theory and the thematic plans of the opening will make mistakes if they don't have good enough middlegame strategy relative to their level. ...
@kindaspongey said in #30:
... Is anyone advocating that one neglect middlegame strategy? ...
@V1g1yy said in #31:
... Nobody is advocating it, but lots of people do it. ...
So, we can safely conclude that you do not want to identify anyone specific in this discussion as neglecting middlegame strategy?
@BabyPoltergeist said in #28:
... why do dubious gambits and other openings not blessed by the engine have good winrates in the lichess database? Seems like these games were decided by who played better in the middlegame, and not by some slight advantage of one side from the opening. ...
@kindaspongey said in #30:
... Perhaps it was a factor that the gambit-user had spent some time learning about the gambit? ...
@V1g1yy said in #31:
... Quite true, and you WILL run into this. Doesn't mean you should try to study 10,000,000 openings attempting ...
Can we safely conclude that you also do not want to identify anyone specific in this discussion as advocating that a player should try to study 10,000,000 openings? ...
@BabyPoltergeist said in #28:
... Predicting and countering your opponents moves is a very important skill. Yes, it does meaning choosing the right 3 or more moves ahead, but that is related to strategy and tactics, not openings. ...
@kindaspongey said in #30:
... Perhaps opening reading can help one to be aware of some important 3-moves-ahead possibilities in an opening position? ...
@V1g1yy said in #31:
... Possible, but this generally falls under my heading of avoiding the traps, NOT "Studying" openings. I think you quoted someone above who said as much, but has better credentials than I do. ...
If it is something useful that can be learned from a book like First Steps: 1 e4 e5, why should it matter what heading someone considers it to "generally" fall under?
@V1g1yy said in #31:
... again, lots of people do nothing but memorize lines and it's pointless. ... Capablanca didn't memorize openings. ... If opening "Study" is, "I play this when they play that", you are wasting your time. ...
Didn't palzm123456 refer to the desirability of "understanding" what opening one is playing?
@V1g1yy said in #27:
... Finding the move in that position is what matters, and no amount of "study" is going to change the fact that you have got to calculate for yourself. ...
@kindaspongey said in #30:
... Is anyone arguing against calculation? Isn't it possible that some in-advance reading can help with the "finding"?
@V1g1yy said in #31:
... In my experience, it is nearly useless unless you're in the very first few moves. ...
For potential usefulness, doesn't the number of moves increase as one's rating increases? Does it take very long for it to become useful to know how and why one might want to avoid 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Nf6 4 Ng5 d5 5 exd5 Nxd5 ?
@V1g1yy said in #31:
... Of course nobody is arguing against these things, but they're NOT DOING IT.
Who is they? Anybody specific in this discussion?
@V1g1yy said in #31:
What I often see is "Opening Study" to the exclusion of everything else. And I do mean everything.
Didn't palzm123456 include "understanding what opening you're playing" in a list of 3 (or perhaps more) priorities?
@V1g1yy said in #31:
I said go look over on Chessable. It's the biggest chess learning site on the web by a pretty wide margin.
Are Chessable users necessarily representative of all who seek to understand an opening that they are playing?
@V1g1yy said in #31:
Look at what people buy and study.
Is what they buy and study necessarily representative of "everything" studied by those who seek to understand an opening that they are playing? How would you know the number of them who are also working through Polgar's tactics book or whatever?
@V1g1yy said in #31:
Look at what they discuss.
Are Chessable discussions necessarily representative of all who seek to understand an opening that they are playing?
@V1g1yy said in #31:
And omg, look how many people complain over there about "You didn't include THIS line! Oh my, what will I do? You need to update the course because I saw a line played that you didn't cover!" I'm serious. Omg, does anyone realize there's millions of lines every few moves? The numbers are so astronomical it took mathematicians years to even guess at it.
Perhaps they are concerned with particular lines that are appearing in publicized games?
@V1g1yy said in #31:
At high levels where people have narrowed things down to a near 0 subset of the possible moves, ok, openings matter. ... To the VAST majority of players, openings can be largely ignored and simply play a very small subset of opening choices. ...
"Largely ignored" does not seem to me to be the same thing as "entirely ignored", and perhaps the degree of importance increases as one's rating increases?
@V1g1yy said in #31:
... FYI, I looked at some games elsewhere where a person had asked me some things about their games. I started looking through some wins and losses. No lie, 1e4 or 1...e5 / 1...c5, whatever, it is THEMATIC that they drop a central pawn to a tactic by move 6 or 7. ... What can you even say to that. They're simply not going to look at their own games and correct these problems. ...
Doesn't that, right there, indicate something to say? Maybe: "look at your own games and correct these problems."
@V1g1yy said in #32:
I'd also point out that, Gukesh Domaraju (sp) was known widely in top chess circles for horrible openings, even just a couple years ago. I'm sure you've heard of him, ... I'll try to quote but it might be paraphrasing, I recall Fabi on an interview saying about him (before he became wc), "His openings are complete shit, but he's got such good fundamentals and is such a strong calculator it just doesn't matter".
Perhaps many do not have such a level of grasp of fundamentals and calculating ability.
@V1g1yy said in #32:
... and yes he did finally start working on openings recently. But he had progressed quite a long way before concentrating on such stuff. ...
Doesn't this 2017 game start with a Najdorf or something? [Event "Abu Dhabi Masters"] [White "P V Nandhidhaa"] [Black "D Gukesh"] [ECO "B90"] [WhiteElo "2182"] [BlackElo "2365"] 1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd4 4 Nxd4 Nf6 5 Nc3 a6 ...
Anyway: "... everyone is different, so what works for one person may likely fail with another ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2002)

@kindaspongey Understanding opening themes is important but not as important as endgames , middlegame strategy, ability to evaluate positions, and calculating your way out of a complicated position instead of relying on opening ideas to save the game. You keep emphasising that understanding the opening is one of the 3 most important skills of chess an quote a lot of top players. For example, wouldn't it make more sense to calculate the correct move in a sharp sicilian game instead of playing the thematic move? Excluding traps that most intermediate players have seen and will rarely fall into, a lot of gambit games have very unique positions that require good calculation and evaluation in order to win. It's a way better use of one's time to improve calculation skills instead of reading about niche opening ideas as calculation is good for all stages of the game

@kindaspongey said in #30:

... Is anyone arguing against calculation? ...
@BabyPoltergeist said in #36:
... @V1g1yy did point out that you emphasised studying opening ideas over calculation in order to reduce the "probability of blundering" Even though blunders can happen in all stages of the game regardless of the opening ...
#36 seems to have been subsequently "deleted by user".

@kindaspongey said in #37:

#36 seems to have been subsequently "deleted by user".
That was a poorly written comment. I'm making a new one. English is my third language so it's difficult for me to convey some ideas

@kindaspongey said in #30:

Is anyone advocating that one neglect middlegame strategy?
No one advocated neglecting middlegame strategy, but you and OP keep emphasising that understanding opening ideas are more important than this.
@kindaspongey said in #30:
"... It is especially critical not to continually fall into opening traps – or even lines that result in difficult positions ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2007)
These can be avoided if someone gets good at calculation
@kindaspongey said in #30:
GM Emms seemed to think that his readers might benefit from reacting to 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 with 3...Bc5 instead of 3...Nf6.
GM Emms likely preached that because the Nf6 line is sharper and black has to play down a pawn. Most players who fall for the fried liver attack are beginners who lack the calculation and evaluation ability to see that sequence. They could've avoided that if they improved on their tactics instead of reading on the idea which could be forgotten if not applied many times.
@kindaspongey said in #30:
Perhaps it was a factor that the gambit-user had spent some time learning about the gambit?
So why do a lot of players also manage to correctly punish the gambit despite having never seen it before? Maybe they were good at calculating and didn't have to read on the opening ideas. Calculation during the game is also more reliable than the opening ideas that one reads as memory is a factor. The opening themes outside of the main ones will never get drilled into someones brain as effectively as tactics and positional concepts do since the latter are seen more frequently in games and can be applied better. For openings, the positions will get unique after some time and it's way more efficient for someone to improve their calculation skills instead of reading into niche ideas, most of which will never see the light of day.
@kindaspongey said in #30:
But the amount of progress and the amount of required work perhaps depend on many factors
Yes it does depend on many factors, but puzzles are way more time efficient than opening ideas
@kindaspongey said in #30:
But there seems to be a widespread opinion that it can be helpful to know something about the "fundamental strategical ideas" of an opening.
Yes it is helpful to know the strategic ideas of the opening one plays, but it isn't necessary for most players below advanced levels since most of them don't have much time to study chess. There are also several cases in an opening where one has to play moves which are against the strategic ideas but it's necessary. By reading up on these ideas, they're training themselves to not deviate out of them, consciously or subconsciously. @kindaspongey said in #30:
It seems to be pretty common for all of these things to be recommended.
"... Strategy clarifies what we need to do, ... endgames incorporate a boundless variety of specific ideas and subtleties of various kinds. ... if you understand the essence of your opening system, if you have mastered its fundamental strategical ideas, you will not be caught off guard by something unexpected. ..." - The Soviet Chess Primer by Ilya Maizelis
This comment was made in the 20th century, when surprises out of the opening was uncommon.@kindaspongey said in #30:
It seems to me that it is easy enough to give advice like that of Capablanca:
"... The game might be divided into three parts, i.e.:- 1. The opening. 2. The middle-game. 3. The end-game. There is one thing you must strive for, to be equally efficient in the three parts. Whether you are a strong or a weak player, you should try to be of equal strength in the three parts. ..." - from Capablanca's book, My Chess Career

In the 21st century, engine theory is very unorthodox and unexpected in openings. Reference my point above. One has to rely on calculation and evaluation in order to play the right move instead of the thematic one.
@kindaspongey said in #30:

Are reaching- advanced-levels priorities necessarily appropriate for all levels and all players?
No, but these players documenting their journeys give us insight that the skills I mentioned are more important in order to win games instead of opening ideas.
It seems to me that it is easy enough to give advice like that of Capablanca:
"... The game might be divided into three parts, i.e.:- 1. The opening. 2. The middle-game. 3. The end-game. There is one thing you must strive for, to be equally efficient in the three parts. Whether you are a strong or a weak player, you should try to be of equal strength in the three parts. ..." - from Capablanca's book, My Chess Career
Capablanca said this in the 20th century. Chess strategy changes over time. In this era of online chess, being stronger at calculation is a more important skill than understanding the opening. Are you arguing that if a player is say, 2000 at middlegames and endgames but 1800 in openings, to deliberately spend more time learning opening ideas so that they're 2000 in openings as well, even though a lot of games are decided in superior middlegame /endgame strategy, instead of a playstyle where they can quickly convert to endgames and grind them out? Again you contradict yourself, you quoted that different approaches work for different people and being equally good at all 3 phases of the game is far more difficult to achieve than improving the skills I mentioned.
@kindaspongey said in #30:
Is anyone arguing against calculation? Isn't it possible that some in-advance reading can help with the "finding"?
It can, but doing calculation exercises is a way more efficient way to find moves in a certain position. Reference one of my earlier points, it's not easy to retain theoretical ideas over a long period of times, but calculation and middlegame strategy relies on pattern recognition so they are ingrained in a chess player who gets good at these

The thing I don't like about talking in these "absolutes" is the complete lack of nouance. Do openings matter? Of course they do. Do openings deserve the kind of attention most people give to them? Of course they don't!