37 ( +1 | -1 ) why study openings?I never really studied openings much. This makes players follow moves without understanding the rationale of the postion and fail to grasp potential combis. I just play moves to develop my position, and avoid tactical traps. I'm sure i have played many openings deep into theory this way without knowing it.
65 ( +1 | -1 ) I study openings a lot!I study Openings a lot.
Whenever I, in a game, meets something new to me, I try to investigate that opening, as much as possible. I search the web for info, and consults my opening books.
From that info I try to figure out "my way" of playing that opening. This will be knowledge I can use next time I meet that opening. I even sometimes start new games to explore that Opening and my new knowledge. ------------------------------------------------
An example: I played a guy who used Evans Gambit on me. He played white, I played black: 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Bc5 4.b4!
- so I began to study Evans Gambit. I searched and found info from the www -
Now, I use this opening myself, with great pleasure!, when I play white.
88 ( +1 | -1 ) good for you indiana-gayyou're doing the right thing by avoiding too much opening study. You also hit the nail on the head about players blindly following main-line theory without bothering to learn the thematic concepts of the debut they are playing. They naively assume just because some GM recommended that line that it's automatically good. Then,when they get squashed,and later analyze the game,they'll rezlize,too late,that they never had a clue on what was really going on in that opening. Anton Sandor Levay,in his book,the satanic Bible,put it best:"The truth never set anybody free;it's DOUBT,alone,that will set you free." Very apropo for chess,where blind faith doesn't work. In this game you must trust no one,believe nothing,question everything.
32 ( +1 | -1 ) I agreeI'd prefer to know the theory of the opening than to know specific moves. That being said I do have a couple of pet openings that I love to play and know them inside and out. If I find an opening being played against me that I'm not familiar with I can always fall back on the theory.
54 ( +1 | -1 ) Why study openings...If you aren't ready to study openings you play, doesn't it mean that you've to play quite passively in the opening? Because you must relay purely on your own computing and assessing capabilities. I'd think that your opponent has a far easier task, not needing to fight so hard for the initiative.
That may be just a question of the playing style, though...
Besides, studying opening theory is a good way to learn tactics, in my opinion. ...and, if one counts to the "theory" also possible/efficient plans in certain opening -it can't be useless to study it.
88 ( +1 | -1 ) thanks guyssome very informative answers there. I've been doing some self-training on 10 move opening combos looking at the best and worst calculated positions of conventional chess "wisdom". So what does this show us?
Only that a small error in move 10 (for example Ng3 rather than Qb8) could become huge after 20 moves. A huger supercomputer could tell us this in 3000 years time but we only have 3 days on the clock, so what is to be done?
I tend to go for the harder more obscure line knowing that my depth of analysis is better than my oppnents, and his blunders will be more superficial and frquent than mine. Is this the correct line? who knows - not me, but then neither does my oppenent so it is not important.
you may not agree, but then without the truth there is only opinion and not fact.
47 ( +1 | -1 ) I've never really studied openings, but I know my fair share; I've "absorbed" my opening knowledge through experience, learning the name and main line of an opening once in a while when a friend plays something new on me. I think the best way to familiarize yourself with an opening is to learn just the main line and then play a bunch of blitz games with that opening, just to get a feel of the types of games that it leads to.
57 ( +1 | -1 ) "I tend to go for the harder more obscure line knowing that my depth of analysis is better than my oppnents, and his blunders will be more superficial and frquent than mine. Is this the correct line? who knows - not me, but then neither does my oppenent so it is not important.
you may not agree, but then without the truth there is only opinion and not fact."
You grant yourself *knowledge* that your analysis is more skillfull and your blunders more profound than your opponent's; and then say we can't tell you you're wrong! Please, tell me more!
32 ( +1 | -1 ) Studying openingsOffers to player a chance to relay your memory rather than think every move out. It makes possible to play openings quickly. In GK it's propably not so important becouse games leave the opening lines so quicly.
21 ( +1 | -1 ) my opinionI think you're a little off in your opinion. You're right about it being poitnless to study openings if you're not understanding the reasoning behind them. But if you study them.. you should be "learning" the reasoning behind them :p
45 ( +1 | -1 ) So it seemsindiana-gay and fattycunny were the creations of brainattack. I think his/her ability at mocking people is second to none. It looks like Mike has rightly taken action against these accounts but I've got to say I enjoyed reading these posts.
27 ( +1 | -1 ) Well, it was pretty obvious that indiany-gay is bogus. However, I wouldn't have known who was behind it.... I guess you are judging from the "people playing from the same computer" list.
48 ( +1 | -1 ) clemensYes, that is what I used and after brainattack's mocking of davism in this thread:
(sadly the logo is gone from his/her profile)
I think it makes sense that it is the same person.