Hot take: The notion that "openings don't matter" is hogwash • page 7/7 • General Chess Discussion • lichess.org

@kindaspongey, ... When you flood a discussion about improvement with "criticality" and "avoiding pitfalls" derived from openings, it's not a "figment of imagination" for me or any other reader to infer a strong emphasis.
The phrase, "avoiding immediate pitfalls", was in one of YOUR sentences in your #47. It also appeared within a quote of your passage in my #51 that reacted to your #47.
In #51, I used the phrase, "Another figment of your imagination." in connection with each of your (#46) comments:
"... you lean on the idea that one is missing out without giving priority to openings as much as they do to middlegames and endgames. ..."
and
"... Your initial comments supported that opening ideas are a top priority for avoiding mistakes. ..."
Previously (in #39), you wrote:
"@kindaspongey ... No one advocated neglecting middlegame strategy, but you and OP keep emphasising that understanding opening ideas are more important than this. ..."
~5 hours later (in #47), you acknowledged that I "never directly said that openings are more important" (while nevertheless making claims about what was supposedly implied).
@BabyPoltergeist said in #60:
It's a reasonable interpretation of your chosen argumentative strategy. Your refusal to acknowledge this perception, ...
Will the above do?
Anyway, I would hope that, if a reasonable person wanted to interpret something that I wrote, consideration would be given to what was going on in the discussion at the time that I wrote it.
@BabyPoltergeist said in #60:
... You repeatedly deny emphasizing the importance of openings,
Here is an authentic copy of a denial, written by me:
"... I mentioned the Heisman avoiding-difficult-positions comment as a reaction to some writing about an opening purpose being 'irrelevant' or 'pointless'. I was naturally trying to refer to a relevant alternative purpose, and NOT trying to emphasize that understanding opening ideas are more important than middlegame strategy. ..." - #51
@BabyPoltergeist said in #60:
yet your entire argumentative approach revolves around defending their "criticality" against practical advice. ...
You are apparently referring to:
"... 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 ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2007)
I called attention (in #30) to the last 19 words of the Heisman quote as a reaction to your (#28) comment,
"... relying on getting an advantage from the opening at lower levels is irrelevant. ...".
I was trying to show that an authority considered a worthy alternative goal to be to avoid difficult positions.
I did something similar to #30 in #6.
In #54, I used the Heisman quote as part of an attempt to indicate that one could do some worthwhile opening work in only a limited amount of time. I was reacting to #53 and #50.
I mentioned the Heisman quote in #45 because of your (#42) comments about what my use of quotes was supposedly implying.
It was a similar situation in #51 when I mentioned the Heisman quote in reaction to your #46.
In #57, I was similarly reacting to your #55.
And here in #61, I am reacting to your #60.

@BabyPoltergeist said in #60: > @kindaspongey, ... When you flood a discussion about improvement with "criticality" and "avoiding pitfalls" derived from openings, it's not a "figment of imagination" for me or any other reader to infer a strong emphasis. The phrase, "avoiding immediate pitfalls", was in one of YOUR sentences in your #47. It also appeared within a quote of your passage in my #51 that reacted to your #47. In #51, I used the phrase, "Another figment of your imagination." in connection with each of your (#46) comments: "... you lean on the idea that one is missing out without giving priority to openings as much as they do to middlegames and endgames. ..." and "... Your initial comments supported that opening ideas are a top priority for avoiding mistakes. ..." Previously (in #39), you wrote: "@kindaspongey ... No one advocated neglecting middlegame strategy, but you and OP keep emphasising that understanding opening ideas are more important than this. ..." ~5 hours later (in #47), you acknowledged that I "never directly said that openings are more important" (while nevertheless making claims about what was supposedly implied). @BabyPoltergeist said in #60: > It's a reasonable interpretation of your chosen argumentative strategy. Your refusal to acknowledge this perception, ... Will the above do? Anyway, I would hope that, if a reasonable person wanted to interpret something that I wrote, consideration would be given to what was going on in the discussion at the time that I wrote it. @BabyPoltergeist said in #60: > ... You repeatedly deny emphasizing the importance of openings, Here is an authentic copy of a denial, written by me: "... I mentioned the Heisman avoiding-difficult-positions comment as a reaction to some writing about an opening purpose being 'irrelevant' or 'pointless'. I was naturally trying to refer to a relevant alternative purpose, and NOT trying to emphasize that understanding opening ideas are more important than middlegame strategy. ..." - #51 @BabyPoltergeist said in #60: > yet your entire argumentative approach revolves around defending their "criticality" against practical advice. ... You are apparently referring to: "... 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 ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2007) I called attention (in #30) to the last 19 words of the Heisman quote as a reaction to your (#28) comment, "... relying on getting an advantage from the opening at lower levels is irrelevant. ...". I was trying to show that an authority considered a worthy alternative goal to be to avoid difficult positions. I did something similar to #30 in #6. In #54, I used the Heisman quote as part of an attempt to indicate that one could do some worthwhile opening work in only a limited amount of time. I was reacting to #53 and #50. I mentioned the Heisman quote in #45 because of your (#42) comments about what my use of quotes was supposedly implying. It was a similar situation in #51 when I mentioned the Heisman quote in reaction to your #46. In #57, I was similarly reacting to your #55. And here in #61, I am reacting to your #60.

BabyPoltergeist

#62

@kindaspongey
Let's be clear. Your relentless re-quoting of your own past statements and insistence on literal interpretation is no longer a debate tactic; it's a stalling maneuver to avoid engaging with the actual substance of my argument. Your continuous fixation on proving you "never said" a specific phrase is a transparent evasion of the practical, data-driven truth about chess improvement for the masses. I've stated my case clearly, and I will not endlessly re-litigate your semantic hang-ups. The argument stands.

@kindaspongey Let's be clear. Your relentless re-quoting of your own past statements and insistence on literal interpretation is no longer a debate tactic; it's a stalling maneuver to avoid engaging with the actual substance of my argument. Your continuous fixation on proving you "never said" a specific phrase is a transparent evasion of the practical, data-driven truth about chess improvement for the masses. I've stated my case clearly, and I will not endlessly re-litigate your semantic hang-ups. The argument stands.

HighlyCruciferous

#63

@qpalzm123456
Train tactics, that's all you need

@qpalzm123456 Train tactics, that's all you need

kindaspongey

#64

@HighlyCruciferous said in #63:

@qpalzm123456
Train tactics, that's all you need
"... 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
By the way, are you aware that, ~67 hours ago, this discussion apparently struck an iceberg and began sinking into the depths? Since then, when a note is posted here, it no longer causes the discussion to move up to the top of the list of topics. I can only assume that it has been decided that it is best to let it gradually disappear from view, no matter how many times someone comes down here to say something. As I write this, your contribution is ~5 hours in the past, and the discussion is now below 33 other topics in the "General Chess Discussion" list. 25 of them have not had a contribution for 6 hours or more.

@HighlyCruciferous said in #63: > @qpalzm123456 > Train tactics, that's all you need "... 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 By the way, are you aware that, ~67 hours ago, this discussion apparently struck an iceberg and began sinking into the depths? Since then, when a note is posted here, it no longer causes the discussion to move up to the top of the list of topics. I can only assume that it has been decided that it is best to let it gradually disappear from view, no matter how many times someone comes down here to say something. As I write this, your contribution is ~5 hours in the past, and the discussion is now below 33 other topics in the "General Chess Discussion" list. 25 of them have not had a contribution for 6 hours or more.