"Beginners shouldn't study openings"
I think this is dumb. I've won many games in the opening because I know the opening better than my opponent. Also lost games in the opening as well. Of course there are more important things to know like tactics but I fail to see how anyone can play a Ruy Lopez or French defense without studying it first, are they supposed to guess the moves?
Ohhh, that's a good one I can strongly agree with.
Love me openings. Such a horrible myth.
Well, I'm not so sure about that one. If you study basics for middlegame first, you get a better view of the game. Even if you don't know openings that well you can always play something 'normal'. It is more important to know the basics of the middlegame (pawn structures, good and bad bishop, open files etc.).
You will eventually learn the openings by playing (online or otb).
I'm not saying that you shouldn't study, just that it is not very important.
It is one of the most persistent myths: "beginners get stronger by studying openings" Lasker, Capablanca, Kasparov all said otherwise, but what do they know?
.
For me, that was part of the point of studying openings -- understanding the segue into the middle-game. In particular, how you want to respond to things. Studying openings helps understand pawn structure and all of the middle-game tactics.
Openings, like looking through them in a database, are mostly a rote-memorization task. (And, there's only so much space for recall.) So, yes, studying middle-game, pawn-structure, open and closed files, ensuring you don't leave hanging pieces, and having a strategy is all very important. (In the instance you can't recall a particular opening line.)
However, studying openings, in particular masters games and the openings they chose (say, against a particular opponent) helps understand how the game should evolve. Picked that up from Irving Chernev (favorite chess author). Reinforces all of the mid-game tactics.
I should clarify: Reading the notes on the openings, and the analysis done by masters, explaining the nuanced details of why a particular move over another -- this is why I think actually studying openings is as valuable as middle-game. (It is not more valuable, but may have equal weight.)
Personally, I find studying middle-game and "shots" (like Polgar's book) to be a bit maddening -- but that's because I'm not a good chess player. When I do study, openings work to improve my game more. So, while I understand middle-game is important, I think openings are equally important.
Here is one: Bishops are better than Knights!
I think it's clearly a myth and from what I know its not correct. It highly depends on the position... what do you think?
Although the 1/3/3/5/9 system of point totals is the most commonly given, many other systems of valuing pieces have been proposed. Several systems give the bishop slightly more value than the knight. A bishop is usually slightly more powerful than a knight, but not always – it depends on the position (Evans 1958:77,80), (Mayer 1997:7). A chess-playing program was given the value of 3 for the knight and 3.4 for the bishop (Mayer 1997:5)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_piece_relative_value.
Bishops are stronger than knights in open positions, and open positions are more likely than closed ones. If you think of the endgame in particular, many pawns have been exchanged, i.e. many end games are open, favouring the Bishop
The Bishop pair is an advantage, as the light square bishop covers the squares the dark square bishop doesn't and vice-versa. So 2 bishops together compliment each other, but the 2 Knights do not. They actually replicate each other, potentially making one of the Knights rather redundant
In an endgame, a Bishop can cover both the Kingside and Queenside because it is a long distance operator, meaning it can perform offensive and defensive duties at the same time (e.g. help push a friendly passed pawn and stop an enemy passed pawn at the same time in a race). The Knight cannot do the same
Another myth: if you didn't start at the very early age you can't get good in chess.
P.S. Regarding the opening. I've always spent more time on openings than I should've. And now I've got to the point where my opponent said to me:
"Amazing how well you know the openings, but then you play badly, it's suspicious" :D
As a beginner I loved to get my opponent into an opening trap or just a get an overwhelming position just right out of the opening.
