Sure, but the position after Be2 isn't lost and is also interesting to play... :-)
"I mentally flipped a coin and played Be2."
Well, there's your problem. You could have learned from what went wrong with your thought process. Instead, you doubled down: you concluded, "no, *not* thinking in the opening was definitely the right way to go about it, I just need to be able to play well without thinking."
Rather than memorizing moves, you could get better at thinking deeply in the opening, learn how to weigh up the pros and cons of different options. It's actually not so different from the rest of the game!
Well, there's your problem. You could have learned from what went wrong with your thought process. Instead, you doubled down: you concluded, "no, *not* thinking in the opening was definitely the right way to go about it, I just need to be able to play well without thinking."
Rather than memorizing moves, you could get better at thinking deeply in the opening, learn how to weigh up the pros and cons of different options. It's actually not so different from the rest of the game!
i prefer to consider positions than moves. Why i will never try to learn openings by moves.. ( I can only store few moves, and even that gets on my nerves, nowadays, all the past years wating to be in some known playable territory just by knowing the move sequences. having to rely on move knowledge.. not its logic that I could see on my radar using board clues).
so cost analysis, here is about loving the board mystery so much that I would not want to play chess like a speed cubing challenge. (I never learned those moves either). different thrills about the same object can happen. just a pity that chess is stuck at high level with only that memory performance barrier. I just read some web blurb introducing terminology for chess about openings, where they might end, and how they are usually played fast in tournaments. Combining memory task requirement with time control, is one type of competition, sure. well established.
When could we have new categories that level that skill set down for a competition on less memory inside the skull, but better fluid application of other type of chess skills, of the problem solving kind, or the board based logic. Not imitation from previous historical knowledge. Sure that is knowledge, but is it still chess. What if we wait long enough and the tree has grown to reach endgames... will we still compete on how the previously chess players had fun playing the board and sparing us the trouble to see why ourselves?
that trouble is my fun. i would rather reinvent the wheel as a competition.. I guess... There is an art to memorization of already found knowledge, I will admit it. But I would not shine there, or enjoy the sport relying on it.
so cost analysis, here is about loving the board mystery so much that I would not want to play chess like a speed cubing challenge. (I never learned those moves either). different thrills about the same object can happen. just a pity that chess is stuck at high level with only that memory performance barrier. I just read some web blurb introducing terminology for chess about openings, where they might end, and how they are usually played fast in tournaments. Combining memory task requirement with time control, is one type of competition, sure. well established.
When could we have new categories that level that skill set down for a competition on less memory inside the skull, but better fluid application of other type of chess skills, of the problem solving kind, or the board based logic. Not imitation from previous historical knowledge. Sure that is knowledge, but is it still chess. What if we wait long enough and the tree has grown to reach endgames... will we still compete on how the previously chess players had fun playing the board and sparing us the trouble to see why ourselves?
that trouble is my fun. i would rather reinvent the wheel as a competition.. I guess... There is an art to memorization of already found knowledge, I will admit it. But I would not shine there, or enjoy the sport relying on it.
Dan writes, " I think you could get by with a lot less - 10 minutes a week, perhaps - if you select your openings to economize on theory."
I agree.
I've been making Chess Openings Wizard for 40 years. I've seen players get remarkable returns on their study time even if it's only a few minutes a week.
My favorite point that Dan makes - which I'd shout from the rooftops - is to not bother memorizing positions that you don't understand.
I wonder if I could talk him into Chess Openings Wizard for iOS. :)
I agree.
I've been making Chess Openings Wizard for 40 years. I've seen players get remarkable returns on their study time even if it's only a few minutes a week.
My favorite point that Dan makes - which I'd shout from the rooftops - is to not bother memorizing positions that you don't understand.
I wonder if I could talk him into Chess Openings Wizard for iOS. :)
I really appreciate this article because 95% of my posts on this site are on this topic of memorizing openings, but the comments are always weird and condescending. I would love to continue reading more on this topic. I get crushed by the exact line in the french. I opened an account on chessable, but I dont get it.
I am an amateur, but I do think opening knowledge is important. With some openings, you can start off with a plainly superior position pretty quickly if you understand the lines in that opening better than your opponent. At the very least, I think people should study lines, key ideas, etc. in openings they like to play, or play often. Sometimes there are traps and tricks that can instantly win you the game, or turn the position in your favor greatly. There are cases in some openings where there are absolutely **critical** lines that if you know them but your opponent doesn't, you have an easier, more playable game. But I agree with Dan, and if I were to desire improving in the game, I would definitely broaden my opening knowledge.
Some recommend more tactics and puzzles than openings and endgames to people rated around "club level" (amateurs such as myself), but I am personally much stronger at tactics puzzles than openings and endgames, which people (or maybe just me) are more likely to procrastinate learning, because it requires actual study, where puzzles can be addictive and fun but its not increasing your knowledge of those critical parts of the game.
Some people find endgames to be almost like a different game, or find them boring. Yes, they sort of are, but they're important to know as well. One blunder in an endgame can be devastating, and knowing basic endgame principles is necessary if you want to play accurately. I have thrown many games that I was winning because i made a mistake in the endgame, it hurts particularly bad if you outplayed your opponent in the opening AND middle-game, then throw it all away in the end.
Some recommend more tactics and puzzles than openings and endgames to people rated around "club level" (amateurs such as myself), but I am personally much stronger at tactics puzzles than openings and endgames, which people (or maybe just me) are more likely to procrastinate learning, because it requires actual study, where puzzles can be addictive and fun but its not increasing your knowledge of those critical parts of the game.
Some people find endgames to be almost like a different game, or find them boring. Yes, they sort of are, but they're important to know as well. One blunder in an endgame can be devastating, and knowing basic endgame principles is necessary if you want to play accurately. I have thrown many games that I was winning because i made a mistake in the endgame, it hurts particularly bad if you outplayed your opponent in the opening AND middle-game, then throw it all away in the end.
I usually study an opening in the context of an entire game (often grandmaster games, but also games played by other strong players like FMs or IMs or so are useful). Also it is useful not only to know the moves but also to have some textual or spoken information (by a strong player). I think that you have more confidence in an opening after some additional info (plans, strategies, experiences...).
And the opening has even connections to endgames. I learned this idea from a book by Max Euwe.
For example I noticed that a typical French opening pawn structure (d4 and e5 on the white side, d5, e6 and f7 on the black side, open c-file) might be good for White in the beginning and in the middlegame (space!) but it might turn out to be bad in the endgame (since f7 is easily defended, but d4 is weak in this position).
Our board 1 (a GM) lost one game with white in the French defense (by the aforementioned reason).
I remember another GM losing with white in the French defense (against a player which is in my rating region).
Of course, from a theoretical viewpoint, French is perfectly ok for White, but the classical game Fischer-Uhlmann illustrates some dangers. Even strong players get easily deceived by the visually "good looking" white positions and lose sometimes in the endgame.
That's why I nowadays avoid the space-grabbing variations with e5 in the French defense. But there are alternatives.
Even Nimzovich tended to over-estimate the role of space advantage in the e5-French advance-varations (some positions in which he favoured the white side might even be slightly better for Black considering the evalualtion by modern engines).
Euwe seemed to prefer Nd2 (Tarrasch) against the French.
But Nc3 followed by exd5 and Bd3 is also a good alternative.
And the opening has even connections to endgames. I learned this idea from a book by Max Euwe.
For example I noticed that a typical French opening pawn structure (d4 and e5 on the white side, d5, e6 and f7 on the black side, open c-file) might be good for White in the beginning and in the middlegame (space!) but it might turn out to be bad in the endgame (since f7 is easily defended, but d4 is weak in this position).
Our board 1 (a GM) lost one game with white in the French defense (by the aforementioned reason).
I remember another GM losing with white in the French defense (against a player which is in my rating region).
Of course, from a theoretical viewpoint, French is perfectly ok for White, but the classical game Fischer-Uhlmann illustrates some dangers. Even strong players get easily deceived by the visually "good looking" white positions and lose sometimes in the endgame.
That's why I nowadays avoid the space-grabbing variations with e5 in the French defense. But there are alternatives.
Even Nimzovich tended to over-estimate the role of space advantage in the e5-French advance-varations (some positions in which he favoured the white side might even be slightly better for Black considering the evalualtion by modern engines).
Euwe seemed to prefer Nd2 (Tarrasch) against the French.
But Nc3 followed by exd5 and Bd3 is also a good alternative.
Only learning with databases is not enough. It's easier to memorize when we understand why it is worth to move a knight here or to push a pawn there.
And even during an opening, tactic apply. Trying to be agressive.
Here, Be2 does not ask any question and could be pinned.
Bb5 is a good candidate move
And even during an opening, tactic apply. Trying to be agressive.
Here, Be2 does not ask any question and could be pinned.
Bb5 is a good candidate move
<Comment deleted by user>