David’s take on opening study has helped me get off the chessable drug. Doing my own analysis without the engine makes me just as fatigued as doing calculation. Also, when I do the work myself in an analysis file the difference between studying an opening and a middlegame isn’t clear to me.
The best opening studying I did was an FM who played my sideline and I studied his games in full. Even noticing patterns I didn't fully understand in the late middle game and early ending helped me immensely.
Re: Openings I understand how to get to roughly a nice position that makes me happy. Cool. And then I play Chess. The way to improve is to play more chess, and having a general idea of like the first 5 moves then lets me play more of the chess-y chess.
Amatures are way over studying openings, every 800 to 1400 player asks me about opennings and almost never endgames or tactics. Most opening books are bad for low rated players and written above the heads of most chess players. Kostya is right lots of amatures are doing daily puzzles. No one I know under 2000, or without a coach is doing daily end games.
8:50 this is very true. I'm only 950 but I am pretty weak outside of the opening. I have opening courses for e4 and caro that I study just so I don't get in a losing position to begin with but when people my level play non-ideal moves, I have zero methods for punishing because I tend to just want to make my normal moves to get to a position I'm comfortable with. I see it in my analysis of my games and I am trying to get better.
The thing is most players only play chess online casually, so i guess you can play rapid, but noone will play timecontrol longer than 15 + 10 at home online
Really enjoyed this podcast. I'm a lower level player who definitely spends too much time reading about and learning openings. They're just really fun! Heh. I am forcing myself to do more puzzles and play more rapid though.
Its about control. It is like walking through a swamp and you know hillocks here and there to get you through. At some point you fall into the swamp, but until then you have a chance to control the game. So thinks the mindset.
I got well passed 2000 online by focusing exclusively on calculation and endgames. I have some strategic and positional understanding but surely its an area in which I need to work in. That said, my blatant disregard for opening study has now come to haunt me. I've hit a wall that is very difficult to climb because beyond 2000 rating most players have sorted out their opening repertoire long ago. As you clearly mentioned even low rated players are booked up. The easy accessibility to opening knowledge has changed the game over the past few years. I would say if you're over 1500-1600 and not learning a proper opening repertoire you're going to get punished a lot by booked up opponents. My advice is to start learning main opening ideas and key lines at intermediate level and by 2000 (online or otherwise) have a solid opening repertoire that goes beyond main ideas. Of course, everything should be done in moderation so opening study should be accompanied by learning endgame, strategy, calculation, etc...
I think you'll find you can catch up quicker than you'd think. You have much more context to help you understand why moves are made and that in turn helps remember them.
Your idea is similar to what ChessDojo recommends in their training program. I think around 1200 FIDE (1300 or 1400 Chesscom Rapid, maybe?) they suggest starting opening study, beginning with a response to 1.e4 to play as black at about the depth of a Chessable Short & Sweet or Quickstarter.
@@Evilanious . I think you're right. For the last two months I've been aggressively building a proper opening repertoire using databases and engine analysis and I'm probably no more than 70% of the way done to have a complete opening repertoire backed by theory and engine analysis. For example, I play the KID as black with ...e5 and I plan to keep playing it. There are several ways white can reply which are backed by theory so I count each one of those replies (bayonet, classical, saemish, etc...) as an individual opening. I've played the KID for a long time so the only thing changing is that I'm actually taking the time to learn how to properly play the structure. I figure over the next two months I'll be done with 95% of the work when I can shift my focus back to what I was doing. Surely, 3-4 months to build an opening repertoire is a small investment considering how difficult it is to improve 100+ rating points past 2000. I do expect to gain another 100 elo points this year - already gained about 45 points above my previous peak.
I'm sure you'll cover this, but I wanted to mention it before watching. For me, I think the number 1 reason Openings are so appealing is because they're honestly not actually that hard for most levels. You get a few lines and you memorise those lines. It's a kind of immediate faux-progress where you feel like "oh, I was able to memorise that line, I'm getting better at chess". I think puzzles have the same gratification (that is, lower level 2-move tactic puzzles, rather than the complex studies you sometimes get). It's bitesize chess that makes you feel smarter immediately. Endgames it's almost impossible to get that, you're essentially delaying the dopamine until later when you are winning more games as a result of successful endgames. But I will say, I don't think we should change endgame study to try give that immediate gratification, I don't actually think that'd be better for people's chess. If you're doing more study, but but the study is thoughtless and instant are you really going to take in the concepts? I find the endgames I remember the best, are those where I sit and actually understand *why* it's winning before being told why it's winning. I think it's much more valuable to give someone the Lucena and say "this is winning. Prove why." Than it is to show someone how the Lucena is winning. But I do think that's ultimately why openings are so popular, it's the least intensive study as it's basically just a memory game.
Depends - unless you are learning a full repertoire for tourney play, you just have to have one opening for white, against e4 for black and d4 against black and c4. Everything else just take the center...
Who was it that said the purpose of the opening is to get a playable middlegame? I learned long ago that there is no "silver bullet" for the opening. If there was then chess would be "solved."
The opening is closely linked to structural ideas and typical plans, right through to the endgame, which 2000 minus players still have no idea about. How can one drive without knowing all the parts of the car?
Yes exactly, which is why endgames and middlegames should be studied first, so that you have some road map for what you're "trying to achieve" from the opening.
I always disliked learning openings. I never read a book about openings. I always had many questions never answered in the books when I tried. And I quite frankly I thought it was boring. In the last years with improved technology it was easier (still a lot of work). Before that I was stuck at about 1800 OTB. My opening theory got me about 150 rating points. It’s actually good to know some opening theory and most people do at this level.
I think they’re a bit too negative on openings. Memorizing moves is bad but understanding what you’re doing is good. Studying the Ruy Lopez and Italian games gave me a ton of ideas and little tricks that help you get a good position. Once I was able to get out of openings without blundering and having decent positions that’s when I actually started seeing tactics in my actual games. I initially started by doing a ton of puzzles and my tactics were decent but when you get garbage positions to start tactics are harder to come by.
At my club heyday 20 years ago, 80% of the time was on openings. At least. All the club talk was typically on openings. Now, I realise it should be 20% or less. Even now, I've spent most weeks thinking about the Réti. So openings are a time pit.
I guess the point of the video is that amateurs should focus on learning Chess Fundamentals and not much on memorizing Openings. This way, they will be able to build the decision-making skills needed to determine which moves are the most reasonable, if not the best ones right from the get go. Eventually, they will be able to tailor their Opening repertoire based on the skills they have developed during training.
No. But you will hit a wall in your progress, and hit it hard, if you don't study openings. I speak from experience. So everything in moderation and in the correct ratio relative to the rest of your studies.
@@MrSupernova111 I don't agree. I mainly look over games, and what you pick up in the process is quite enough for amateur level (up to 2000+). For example, I play the Najdorf with black, but hardly ever get there in my games, since most people tend to vary early. It's much more important to understand positions (which you get from studying games) than know lines.
@@fundhund62 Playing the najdorf with black doesn't just mean you only know the najdorf position but also the alapin and closed systems as well as the moscow variation and potentially other more offbeat responses, then 1. d4 is an entirely different story. At a 2000 level all of that helps a lot.
Here's the problem with "oh you don't need to learn Openings, you need to learn Middlegame plans and endgames!" Let's say 2 beginners start a game; e4, e5, Nf3, d6, Nc3, Bg4 So this is a pretty simple Philador. But White is rated 500-800 and so is his/her opponent. Just starting out. ...so what do you do? Let's see what beginners think! - h3! Let's kick the bishop away (wrong, breaking rule of not developing your pieces) - Be2! Stop the pin (wrong, too passive) How many would find d4! (Best move)? Maybe 2 out of 10? Point is if you're lost after move 3/4 there's no point studying endgames. You'll be dead by the middle game. Need to stop teaching people to avoid this part of the game. They should spend equal time learning the start, middle, and end of the game.
Learning to play actively (not passively) and learning opening theory are two unrelated things. You don't need to learn opening theory to play actively. In the Philidor scenario you mention between two 500-800's, the problem isn't lack of opening theory. The problem is passive play. So even if those two players know the Philidor line correctly for X number of moves, the moment they get to X+1 they will start playing passively. What they need to know at 500-800 are opening principles (central control, active development, king safety), and then how to play actively all through the game.
Okay but you are not lost in that position if you play something other than D4. Furthermore if you do play D4 it is overwhelmingly likely that any advantage you have after playing that move will disappear one or two moves later.
At the 500 level, they could play Ng1 hanging the queen, and still come back to win the game. No way is Be2 or h3 going to lose them the game. In fact, white is not even worse after either of those moves. As Chris says very well, what they need to know are just a couple principles and to think for themselves. Memorizing a couple moves just means you will make a mistake one move later if you have not learned how to think.
I'm around 2000 lichess and hearing people say openings aren't important is massively frustrating as they definitely are as you can get a -1/-2 position if you don't know what to do for at least the first 8 moves! It's hard to recover from this at this level so when I hear that openings aren't important below 2000 FIDE I have to disagree! Great episode again though chaps
Of course very few people say the blanket statement "openings aren't important". It's all about the degree to which they matter at various levels. And of course there is a big difference between analyzing opening play and trying to memorizing opening moves. Many newbies do the latter, which is far from useful
The overwhelming number of chess players today have a video game mentality. Between online chess and the increased popularity of fast time formats, including OTB rated chess, the massive majority of games are going to be games with time controls 30 minutes or less. In such an environment, there is a greater chance of success spending time on openings, in comparison to middle-games and endgames. The overwhelming number of games below 1500 USCF will be decided due to opening errors. Given this, it seems that spending the majority of your time on openings and maybe tactics in this environment is wise time management. This is not the 1970's when club players were playing their rated games no slower than 45/90 with no delay or no increment.
I don't study openings cuz it's fun or rewarding, I study them because I want a middlegame+ pawn structure that I really understand! Knowing my plan my tactical motifes the main pawnbreaks the common endgame that arise from my opening etc... Like what is the point of studying a sicilian middlegame or e4 e5 middlegame If I don,'t play them for either color??
