Ignoring Theory

@TheEighthRank

Yep, I think these forums are often skewed towards very young players with the ambition and free time for "no-limit aspirations" while others like you and me who have more limited ambitions, natural ability and available time are easily swept into the "online chess-cultural current" of deep opening study and other completely irrelevant pursuits for mere chess-hobbyists who have full and busy lives and simply want to get to a point where they can play good, solid chess on a consistent basis. My own recent experience is proof-positive that this is a very reasonable goal and quite achievable with very limited time and resources as the main factor at our level of play is the number of avoidable mistakes and blunders that litter games, not a deep knowledge and understanding of openings and associated theory. A firm grasp of opening principles and chess fundamentals complemented by sticking to a small simple repertoire and drilling randomly generated basic tactics on a daily basis should get any "adult improver" to a pretty good place.

Regards, Pix.

personally, I prefer the queen's gambit or London system as white because Magnus play it in many of his games

#18 - I'd consider the Giuoco Piano to include an early c3, otherwise you're just playing a shonky Four Knights. Anyway, the relevant point is that Lasker's principles say that you should only move your d and e pawns, so you can't take Lasker's principles as gospel while saying that the London System, the Colle System and the Hippo are fine, because they all involve early moves with other pawns.

#21 I can't actually remember seeing anyone on here advocating for "deep opening study", at least at the levels that most of us play at. The argument is mostly between people who suggest, as you say, "a small simple repertoire" and people who say "don't learn openings just follow principles" with no qualification at all.

My personal view is that a good understanding of opening principles and how to understand them comes from looking at some amount of normal opening play - I wouldn't expect to be able to play the middlegame well based on four bullet points and no examples, why would the opening be different?

#23
Lasker in his "common sense in chess" gives several examples of his four rules in games.
Openings are a matter of fashion.
Middel games are often a matter of style.
Only endgames can be taught exactly.

All the openings suggested here have lots of theory. The only way to avoid it is to play 960.

@RamblinDave

#23

"I can't actually remember seeing anyone on here advocating for "deep opening study""

Glad to hear that is your impression or experience as I have had a number of occasions to make the distinction as to the relative merit of studying openings to any degree beyond their names, first few moves and general ideas, both on this platform as well as Chessable.com's over the past two years. Here is just one recent example : lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/1400-lichess-rating-after-2-months-any-tips#5

Having said this, I'm not going to split hairs with you about the meaning - implicit or otherwise - of "deep opening study" and suggest we not quibble about this since we are agreed on what counts. I'm pretty sure we would get pretty universal agreement about the relevance to almost all new players past perhaps the rankest beginner level of having a small opening repertoire and sticking to it as well as developing a firm grasp of opening principles and chess fundamentals. Also, I've recommended the following book in many related threads as in this very one: www.chessable.com/smithys-opening-fundamentals/course/21302/

#24 - "openings are a matter of fashion"

Again, this seems overly simplistic and dogmatic. Of course there's an element of fashion, particularly if regular patzers like us start basing our opening choices on what's getting played at the elite level, but fundamentally openings are judged based on the evaluation of the positions that they lead to, and that evaluation is based on tactical and positional considerations like anything else. For instance, Sicilians with the Boleslavsky structure were considered unplayable in the era immediately before WWII because the positional understanding of the day said that the d5 hole was too big a concession. They grew to be rated among the best responses to 1. e4 as players developed a more complex understanding of how static and dynamic factors interact. Similarly, Nimzovich spent quite a bit of time in My System discussing the re-evaluation of the Rubinstein French, not because fashions had changed and he wanted to be on-trend but because it embodied his reinterpretation of what it meant to fight for the centre. And at a level that patzers like me can understand, 1 e4 is more popular than 1 h4 because it better follows fundamental principles of centre, development and king safety. Chess principles don't magically only start applying on move three or move ten.

#26 fair enough, it's not really something I'd noticed. I've always found the voices that rail against any sort of concrete learning at all to be much louder and more persistent.

@PixelatedParcel

where do you get the "randomly generated low-level tactics" from that you are "drilling on a daily basis"?

@Alakaluf

I use the "puzzle feature" on Chess.com in "learning" mode (not "rated" mode) and set it at very low ratings range using "all themes" rather than just one or a few particular themes. I'm also told Chess Tempo has a very nice tactics trainer and imagine there are a bunch of good apps out there.

1.g4
or
1.b3

Go with the flow, against a systematic player play
a gambit or a dutch defence,
I think its cheating playing always the same opening, so
I would not allow that in a match.
By the way, does lichess have a match feature?
It has tournaments but Im not sure about match
There is the opening warfare like kasparov-karpov.
Random thoughts as usual.
I used to play the caro kann but I obliged myself
to get out of my comfort zone and become a tactical player,
however I approve that pursuit.
Here its a game I played today against the caro.



Im not sure if its theory but I prefer white.

My two cents

I think there are three type of players in the openings,
Those clueless, original, unexperienced, new to the
game.
Then there are the players that have played the game and know the ideas of the openings
and then the few awkward like bobby fischer that
Memorize lines.
So trying to summarize, perhaps Im wrong but
I like to understand it like this
( there is a continuum)
1.players that have no idea of opening theory
2.players that know a lot of ideas about openings
3.players that memorize lines

And this is important, because the general case
is to fall in 1 or 2 which is where I am, as to those
that want to memorize lines, good luck to them.
Its the repetitive trend of a new player trying
to emulate a grandmaster, his goal should be
number 2 and not number 3, because the game is
exponential.