Day 454: Playing chess every day until I reach a 2000 rating 

Thank you Steve!!! Not sure I’m that level yet lol but I appreciate the comment 😊

Where did it GOOOO :((((

Thank you Richard!

I strongly agree in principle and have said the same, however some very sharp openings like the Kings Gambit or Vienna Gambit do require some knowledge if you are going to play them as it’s a quick loss if not, so if Patrick plays the exchange French he can wing it but here he needs a bit .. obviously the Italian game would not but he will not switch so best he understands a bit

@@steve.k4735 sure, I do agree with that. So maybe a better way to phrase what I was trying to say is: just because you win a (or many) game(s) thanks to your knowledge of one particular, sharp opening, is not an argument for spending time and energy studying openings in general. Again, these wins are actually worthless when looking at the goal of improving your general chess understanding, cause at a level of 1500 strength, you cannot easily abstract things from those games and apply it to others.

The first half of what you said makes sense but “there is no long term merit in learning openings until you reach roughly 2000 strength” is nonsense. The intricacies of different openings take years to master so you have to start young. The point is of course that you don’t spend too much time learning openings and neglect match play, chess theory, puzzles etc.

@@MrRobWalter agreed openings are not what he lacks, he needs positional understanding far far more, he often swaps a great piece for a weak one because they are both worth 3 pawns or leaves a backwards pawn on a open file etc, so in general I strongly agree with you

@@fritzlange7934 well, I guess all the coaches I had, including GM and IM titled players, include nonsense then in their training.

How do you improve on 100% accuracy?

@@plechaim look at the opponents rating, and if he play against a 1600-1700 he is gone, that is why