@tpr said in #2:
> ... One hour of endgame study rewards you with more half points than lots of hours of opening study.
"... 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
“... I consider the approach towards the study of the endgame must be multi-staged and always keep the same pace as the player’s overall playing level. ...
In the first stage, it is enough to master the basic checkmates, King + Pawn vs. King endings, and to know which main material relations are winning or not; in addition a few exceptional and frequent situations, such as the Bishop + Wrong Rook’s Pawn ending, etc.
A second step in this first stage would involve the Philidor and Lucena Positions in Rook + Pawn vs. Rook endings, as well as some more ideas in pawn endings and opposite-coloured bishop endings. In this book, this would amount to Chapter 1 and Endings 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 65, 79, 80, 82, 86, 89, 90, 91 and 92.
... and actually that is enough until the moment one reaches, say, a FIDE rating of around 1900-2000. ...” - 100 Endgames You Must Know by GM Jesús de la Villa (2008)
https://www.amazon.com/100-Endgames-You-Must-Know/dp/9056916173?asin=9056916173&revisionId=&format=4&depth=1
@tpr said in #9:
> ... The most you can get after the opening phase is a winning advantage of +1.
> Can you convert that to a win? If no, then chasing any opening advantage is fruitless.
"... It is especially critical not to continually fall into opening traps – or even lines that result in difficult positions ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2007)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627062646/https://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman81.pdf
@kindaspongey said in #7:
> ... We have notations like
> +
> =
> (for "white stands slightly better"). ... how can the advantage be anything other than it being harder for Black to avoid a decisive mistake? ...
@tpr said in #10:
> ... Grandmasters play ...
"... everyone is different, so what works for one person may likely fail with another ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2002)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627084053/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman19.pdf
@tpr said in #10:
> #8
> "You need to have studied how to get sharp lines and avoid dull positions if you want to play for a win."
> * That is not true.
> Grandmasters play the dull Berlin Defense of the Ruy Lopez to play for a win and play the sharp Marshall attack of it to draw.
> Likewise the dull Giuoco Pianissimo (quiet game) is the opening of choice of grandmasters to play for a win, and neither the sharp Evans Gambit, the Möller Attack, the Two knights Defense with 4 Ng5, or the Max Lange Attack.
> The dull French Exchange variation is played for a win.
> The dull Petrov Defense is played for a win.
Well I guess that it depends on how you see it then. Because the Marshall *was* considered sharp till people realised it is a draw whereas in the *dull* Berlin you can play as of move 9 or 10 all kinds of different moves with different complications compared to the forced variations of the marshall where you either draw or lose. So in my opinion the Berlin at the moment is quite sharper than the Marshall at GM level due to the complications coming from. Same goes for the Italin variations you described.
Id just say the "look" sharp where in reality if you analyse them they are not. These evaluations change over the years as the engines develop. Sharp though always meant unclear. No one can say anymore that the Evans Gambit or the Marshall is unclear since even an 1800 with a few hours of studying can solve them. So I would argue these are not sharp. Whereas dull Italians with a6 or h6 g5 etc with a dozen different choices all equal but leading to different set ups is pretty unclear. Which is exactly why people prefer these nowadays.
para mim as aberturas de xadrez são essenciais para o jogo.Porque:porque se não o jogo não vai ter resistencia para o xeque mate
It's not strictly necessary, especially for beginners. Spending excessive hours on openings is often less productive than studying tactics, endgames, and analyzing your own games. It's more valuable to learn a few sound opening principles (control the center, develop pieces, king safety) rather than memorizing long lines. For intermediate players, focused study of 1-2 openings for each color is sufficient. Ultimately, deep opening knowledge becomes critical only at very advanced levels.
There are very few questions about chess improvement where you can come up with a specific "one size fits all" answer for every player. Generally we're all ever-so-slightly different
Even the OP's question needs to be broken down
Paraphrasing, I think we have the original question of the thread :
<< Is spending hours studying chess openings necessary? >>
And then a more useful question for most amateurs :
<< Is spending Some of your study time on chess openings helpful? >>
on question #1, Hours a week is probably necessary for professionals. For amateurs, maybe only when they have an important tournament coming up. Then sure, especially if you know your opponents, it would be helpful also for masters, experts, even class players ---> anything that can give you an edge over the competition. But how much study time do you have ? Masters already have deep endgame knowledge ; But Class B or Class C players with one weekend to study before a tournament might be better off doing endgame study.
On question #2, generally yes.
But everybody is different, with different strengths and interests.
I have a very large library of opening lines saved on ChessTempo. I love the science of opening study, and finding ways to hold an advantage with white / equalize with black. But nowadays I only spend a few minutes a day on refreshing my memory. With white, for instance in the QGD, many lines I've played for years, and know them by heart up to 6--9 moves deep. And I actually KNOW some MIDDLEGAME PLANS that can stem from those openings. I don't have to study them any more. To a lesser extent, and much less deep ( maybe only 6--7 moves deep ), I know a few of my pet Sicilian lines with black. What would really help me improve more is serious endgame study (and Lots and lots of tactical training ! ), but I just don't have the chess ambition or patience to do what needs to be done.
Is opening study helpful for us amateurs ? Of course !
But you have to decide what your goals are, and what you're willing to work on to achieve them. Capablana / tpr are absolutely correct in much of what they say.
For many players, so is DStamateleios. It's like choosing which chess authors you decide to emphasize ---> you first have to be able to assess yourself.
@tpr said in #2:
> No, study of chess openings is a waste of time. Openings only become relevant after you have mastered blunder elimination, tactics, and endgames.
could you elaborate on what you mean by 'mastered blunder elimination, tactics, and endgames' ?
@tpr said in #10:
> Grandmasters play the dull Berlin Defense of the Ruy Lopez to play for a win and play the sharp Marshall attack of it to draw.
Likely also to avoid losing and trying to win from a safer side from where they would play for 2 results.
@tpr said in #10:
> play the sharp Marshall attack of it to draw.
Because to throw opponent off-preparation. Also someone may have good preperation in the line, nobody knows.
@tpr said in #10:
> Likewise the dull Giuoco Pianissimo (quiet game) is the opening of choice of grandmasters to play for a win
By no means is Guioco Piano dull. This does not make sense. If you sit and find lines, it is full of wonders you'll never know about. And also, A grandmaster plays Guioco piano in must win games when they have something special to present.
@tpr said in #10:
> The dull French Exchange variation is played for a win.
again, it depends upon your playing style. You simply cannot call anything dull until you know something about it.
@tpr said in #10:
> The dull Petrov Defense is played for a win.
I'm not sure about that. It's rather a provocative opening than a hunter one. It allows white to get impatient. And, I have never seen a game in which it was played for a win.
Please criticize my opinions if you wish to :)
Thank you
"... 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
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/for-beginners/tips-for-beginners-3
#16
"could you elaborate on what you mean by 'mastered blunder elimination, tactics, and endgames' ?"
* The first priority is to eliminate blunders from your game. Blunder check before you move.
As long as you hang your queen or allow a back rank checkmate, all study of tactics, endgames and openings is useless.
The second priority is tactics. As long as you fall victim to some fork, skewer, Greek gift sacrifice... you do not reach an endgame.
The third priority is endgames. You need to know what endgames to strive for and what endgames to avoid. You need to know how to win winning endgames and how to draw drawing endgames. You will not be able te reinvent the Philidor, Lucena, Vancoura positions over the board and even less when low on time.
The fourth priority is openings.
#17
"By no means is Guioco Piano dull." * Fischer called it tame. Giuoco Piano is Italian for quiet game.
"I have never seen a game in which it was played for a win."
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=2042224
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=2291090
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=2292583
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=2692826