"... the situations in which trainers work vary enormously. ... Some trainers work with large groups of students and others individually; with average low-category players or with bright and highly talented potential stars. ...
That is why I am skeptical about any attempt to introduce a rigid methodology, rigid rules telling us what to do and how and in what order to do this or that. What should one begin with? Openings or endgames? Should he play open or closed openings, should he concentrate on main lines or 'subsidiary' variations? What is more important: a tactical mastery or a positional one?
Opinions of respected specialists, grandmasters and world champions differ greatly. Some claim that chess is 95% tactics, while others hold that the basis of chess is positional play. We should not take such statements seriously; they are worthless and only disorient people because each one reflects only a single facet of the problem. In fact, when we think over a dilemma, be it the one I have just mentioned or another one - for example, should we work to develop strong qualities of a player or to liquidate his weaknesses? - any unambiguous answer like 'we do either this or that' will be a wrong one. The truth lies in skillful combination of the opposite approaches, in search for an optimal proportion between them. And this proportion is individual for every particular case. ..." - IM Mark Dvoretsky (~2003)
My answer regarding your question.
It does; but not the way everyone in forum will think.
In my whole OTB chess career; the part of the game I hated was Openings. I considered them (rightfully?) less rewarding to study; due to the fact that even if you know thousands of theory lines; in a real game you will get a +1/+2 computer eval; still you need to have the skill to convert. (not speaking about GM level chess) and i devoted most of my time to middlegame and endgame training. (some leftover for tactics)
But I faced a problem. I used to play the sicilian (most heavily theorized opening) without knowing any to low theory; and that slowed my advancement. So I took a look at my past recent games; and figured the openings that caused me the main problem; and replaced them with some that people rarely play.
So my advice to you also is to take a look at your stats in lichess opening explorer; find the opening that you result bad with; and either learn it or dump it.
@RetiredProffesor said in #12:
> So I took a look at my past recent games; and figured the openings that caused me the main problem; and replaced them with some that people rarely play.
This is the strategy I took, because I was sick of facing Wayward Queen/Scholar's Mate.
I thought you were rated something like 800...
I suggest you do a few search on YouTube on openings and see if there is one opening fits your style.
In my case and my level, I really liked this one, because I can see a plan for the whole game instead of doing my best after the only basic 2-3 first moves I was told (read somewhere, not from a teacher) to learn because I was low rated : https://youtu.be/ECMMct_jnEM
All high rated players learn openings and their variations, plus a lot of GM games and more; so why would private yourself to do so?
For classical and rapid...yes
As someone who is bone idle and from a child refused to learn opening theory, and as someone who only plays 2 openings now basically one being completely non standard as white and another being Alekhine's defense, I can tell you that you can get a long way without much opening theory. However, now at my level (I am around 2100 OTB), I really cannot improve my ratings much without learning some openings. The problem is I am still too lazy to do so.
So if you are serious about Chess, then YES you need to learn opening theory. If you are instead the sort of person who is lazy and finds it fun to come back from being behind then maybe its okay not to learn them.
"... 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
@P7formula said in #5:
> I do not hold that there is a threshold for opening research, and believe that the teachers of opening generalities and opening understandings are hogwash. So yes it is very important no matter how bad you are fact is most poor players are bad at the openings that is how they get trapped etc.; the greatest attacking players in history were masters at the opening and to get an advantage from the start is easier than trying to maneuver all the day. Every opening has its own characteristics and if you can recognize them you have an advantage already in foreseeing what the opp is about to do. The only generality to openings is that it is a fight for the center.
Well korchnoi played d4 d5 nc3, and i think theory agreed that it gives away the advantage.
Learning opening theory ist great, but not great enough to twist the truth
@kindaspongey said in #10:
> "... 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."
You probably could war a spoon of cow manure each day and by all chances, it would not make a difference.
But why would you want to do that in the first place?
It isn't necessary only if you play chess960 otherwise it's a good idea to at least know what are you doing in the opening.
.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.