Is opening theory really that important? • page 1/6 • General Chess Discussion • lichess.org

I've achieved an OTB rating of almost 1800 FIDE while I have never studied any opening theory. I generally rely on opening principles and ideas without ever learning the tedious variations and move orders. Is it really worth putting so much importance on opening theory for someone below 2000-2200 elo?

kindaspongey edited

#2

"... Overall, I would advise most players to stick to a fairly limited range of openings, and not to worry about learning too much by heart. ... the average player only needs to know a limited amount about the openings he plays. Providing he understands the main aims of the opening, a few typical plans and a handful of basic variations, that is enough. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2008)
".. 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 feel that the main reasons to buy an opening book are to give a good overview of the opening, and to explain general plans and ideas. ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)
"... 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

"... Overall, I would advise most players to stick to a fairly limited range of openings, and not to worry about learning too much by heart. ... the average player only needs to know a limited amount about the openings he plays. Providing he understands the main aims of the opening, a few typical plans and a handful of basic variations, that is enough. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2008) ".. 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 feel that the main reasons to buy an opening book are to give a good overview of the opening, and to explain general plans and ideas. ..." - GM John Nunn (2006) "... 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

bizzylizzy

#3

your right, it is not important. I do think that it can shift the tides of the game to have a familiar upper hand but lets be clear if you blunder later than it did not matter enough. Give the best GMs a half pawn edge or even more vs a modern engine and you will know for sure how little the initial advantage matters and how important the follow up is. Of course in games between equalish opponents it matters a lot.

If you are not master strength I just think time is better spent elsewhere. one naturally learns lines as they play. Even 1200's will stumble into Ruy Lopez main lines and such naturally.

your right, it is not important. I do think that it can shift the tides of the game to have a familiar upper hand but lets be clear if you blunder later than it did not matter enough. Give the best GMs a half pawn edge or even more vs a modern engine and you will know for sure how little the initial advantage matters and how important the follow up is. Of course in games between equalish opponents it matters a lot. If you are not master strength I just think time is better spent elsewhere. one naturally learns lines as they play. Even 1200's will stumble into Ruy Lopez main lines and such naturally.

kindaspongey edited

#4

"... [Evans' Gambit] is attributed to a Captain Evans around the year 1830 ... For the rest of the 1800s it was practically the main line of chess, but it almost died out around 1900 due in part to 'Lasker's Defense'. ..." - GM Larry Kaufman (2013)
Perhaps, it might make sense to read a little bit about it rather than strive to reinvent the wheel.

"... [Evans' Gambit] is attributed to a Captain Evans around the year 1830 ... For the rest of the 1800s it was practically the main line of chess, but it almost died out around 1900 due in part to 'Lasker's Defense'. ..." - GM Larry Kaufman (2013) Perhaps, it might make sense to read a little bit about it rather than strive to reinvent the wheel.

bizzylizzy

#5

I promise you Lasker's defense will not be played well by sub master players. Refuted openings are fine to play for anybody that is not a pro because one; They teach you how we got to where we are, opponent doesn't know the refutation and most importantly, the player themselves does not know the refutation.
I can guarantee the great masters of the past would smoke me in any of my given openings even if I had time to prepare refutations. also I would learn more from a game like that than another Exchange French draw.

My favorite games are beating gambits but I believe they are very important to learn. I have an aversion to them on principle but any curious chess player should look into them. This is coming from a mainline opening junkie.

I promise you Lasker's defense will not be played well by sub master players. Refuted openings are fine to play for anybody that is not a pro because one; They teach you how we got to where we are, opponent doesn't know the refutation and most importantly, the player themselves does not know the refutation. I can guarantee the great masters of the past would smoke me in any of my given openings even if I had time to prepare refutations. also I would learn more from a game like that than another Exchange French draw. My favorite games are beating gambits but I believe they are very important to learn. I have an aversion to them on principle but any curious chess player should look into them. This is coming from a mainline opening junkie.

bizzylizzy

#6

Garry Kasparov vs Viswanathan Anand. Tal memorial 1995.

If Garrick uses this to put away a prime Anand I promise it is good enough for any beginner.

Garry Kasparov vs Viswanathan Anand. Tal memorial 1995. If Garrick uses this to put away a prime Anand I promise it is good enough for any beginner.

HPC10411038

#7

I have beaten many Masters (90+30) without studying Opening Theory deliberately;
Until I was rated around 1400, all I did was to remember opening moves and solve for tactical ideas.
But I took a step back and about 20 months later I made fine progress

I have beaten many Masters (90+30) without studying Opening Theory deliberately; Until I was rated around 1400, all I did was to remember opening moves and solve for tactical ideas. But I took a step back and about 20 months later I made fine progress

bizzylizzy

#8

I agree that studying openings is worthwhile once you play masters.

CM Sarg0n

edited

#9

You have to know where the pieces belong, the typical plans for the middle-game, even the typical endgames.

Call it the way yo want but you have to know your stuff. It’s not plain „theory“ but rather a skill. And this skill requires concrete moves as well as ideas.

You have to know where the pieces belong, the typical plans for the middle-game, even the typical endgames. Call it the way yo want but you have to know your stuff. It’s not plain „theory“ but rather a skill. And this skill requires concrete moves as well as ideas.

verylate

#10

For many players, "studying the openings" usually amounts to researching the databases to find which variations are played most often, which yield the most favourable statistics for whichever side you want to play, then committing specific move orders to memory. Which is a great way to know everything and understand nothing. I know, I've been there, done that and worn the dunce's cap.
What I much prefer to do now is to study complete games by strong players who have used a specific opening. And that means going back to those who pioneered certain openings half a century ago or more. For example, when I became interested in the semi-slav, I first picked up my old copy of Botvinnik's 100 Selected Games. Not just for his patent 5.Bg5 dxc4, but for all his games on both sides of the board. I was attracted to the Meran by just one of his games, I forget which. Once I have been through as many games as I kind find (by as many great players), then I look to the opening reference books and the online databases.
Opening reference books do go out of date very quickly. Usually in the time between seeing it on a shelf (or in an online store) and getting it home, one key variation will be obsolete because someone at an international tournament found a huge improvement for the other side. And that's always the variation you were originally interested in playing. By the time you get to your next OTB tournament, the next 2 variations you are interested have also become obsolete.
Which doesn't mean that the book is wasted. some opening books age very well, even when the analysis is entirely outdated. These are the books that use exemplary games to illustrate ideas. Peter Well's book The Complete Semi-Slav, for example, was in many places out of date before I got it home to study. That didn't matter, because he laid out the variations using complete games. A lot of them, with a lot of close analysis. As a learning supplement, it is still an excellent book. As is John Nunn's Beating the Sicilian. The variation he suggested for white against the 4 Knights defense has since been refuted, but from my point of view it is still worth a try at amateur tournaments. And the analysis is worth studying, just for the lesson in attacking play.

For many players, "studying the openings" usually amounts to researching the databases to find which variations are played most often, which yield the most favourable statistics for whichever side you want to play, then committing specific move orders to memory. Which is a great way to know everything and understand nothing. I know, I've been there, done that and worn the dunce's cap. What I much prefer to do now is to study complete games by strong players who have used a specific opening. And that means going back to those who pioneered certain openings half a century ago or more. For example, when I became interested in the semi-slav, I first picked up my old copy of Botvinnik's 100 Selected Games. Not just for his patent 5.Bg5 dxc4, but for all his games on both sides of the board. I was attracted to the Meran by just one of his games, I forget which. Once I have been through as many games as I kind find (by as many great players), then I look to the opening reference books and the online databases. Opening reference books do go out of date very quickly. Usually in the time between seeing it on a shelf (or in an online store) and getting it home, one key variation will be obsolete because someone at an international tournament found a huge improvement for the other side. And that's always the variation you were originally interested in playing. By the time you get to your next OTB tournament, the next 2 variations you are interested have also become obsolete. Which doesn't mean that the book is wasted. some opening books age very well, even when the analysis is entirely outdated. These are the books that use exemplary games to illustrate ideas. Peter Well's book The Complete Semi-Slav, for example, was in many places out of date before I got it home to study. That didn't matter, because he laid out the variations using complete games. A lot of them, with a lot of close analysis. As a learning supplement, it is still an excellent book. As is John Nunn's Beating the Sicilian. The variation he suggested for white against the 4 Knights defense has since been refuted, but from my point of view it is still worth a try at amateur tournaments. And the analysis is worth studying, just for the lesson in attacking play.