Originally posted by SquelchbelchI was just picking on your comment lumping hypermodern stuff with unorthodox and unsound. I should have read the previous comments first. 🙂
... and exactly which of these is Game 4407164 ?
As for masters posing as patzers, that just seems like a strange logic. You're basically saying that if there are any counter examples, they suddenly don't apply. It's like the old argument about how some super-religious Christian/Muslim/Etc. that acted immorally isn't really a Christian/Muslim/Etc. because that's not how s Christian/Muslim/Etc. act. In a sense, ignoring any opposition. Sorry for that incredibly convoluted example, lol. You're right, I can't give you an example but why is it so impossible for a player to be very adept and knowledgeable in some openings and still be under 1800? After all, after the opening "God put the middlegame and then the endgame."
Originally posted by chessisvanityI'm quite a lot closer to an 1800 level player than you are, and have passed the milestones along the way that you have yet to reach. And sorry, but even though some study of tactics helped, so did studying some strategy, end games, and even some opening theory.
and you a 1600 telling me what an 1800 would be like?
please...i'm 1400 otb and "openings" have no place here...
Excuse me if me and all the other GM's who say opening are useless under 1800 level....
we may be wrong....
The idea of a 1200 rated player preaching to myself and others about what we should be doing to get to 1800... please. What a joke.
Oh, and opening 1.g3 and just hoping that some tactics will materialize out of nothing that will win the game for you without your ever having a clue about what is going on the game... sorry, but I find it very hard to believe you are anywhere even close to 1400 OTB. 1000 perhaps. On a good day. When your opps all hang pieces for you.
Originally posted by chessisvanityWhat a comedian you are. Comparing yourself to Benko? 😀 When the slap at my 1680 rating fails (which it would coming from a 1200) you go off on a tangent on the irrelevant.
Typical canadians......
1. I've only been playing here about a month. Why is it a big deal that I haven't decided yet whether I want to subscribe or not? And what does it have to do with the thread topic?
2. What does my being Canadian have to do with anything at all?
3. Nothing wrong with 1. g3 in and of itself. That said, when a 1200 opens 1.g3 he is admitting that since his opening knowledge is on par with the rest of his game, he hopes to simply defer his beating (probably after being mated a few times too many with Scholar's Mate, and still without ever understanding what happened) for a little later while he trots out a few random moves, undisturbed, first. 😏
Originally posted by chessisvanityI'm not bad at openings but it depends how many moves you class a line to be
No player(under 1800) follows main lines...if we did then it is just a memory game.
And anyone below 1800 will not benefit from "openings study"
Yes we may learn a few lines...but we(under 1800) won't know why we are playing the moves we memorized.
And also...just because your opponent didn't play the "main line" or "best move"...doesn't mean his/her move is wrong.
To reply to the origional post, I'm a 1400 at the mo and have been a 1800 cc player in the past and i have never studied. I don't know any openings really, I can recognise them but i don't know them.
I would say you don't need to worry about until at least A class.
Max Euwe said that the development of a player is the same as the development of chess it self. I.e.
1. Basics, Threats.(greco)
2. Tactics, combinations, mating patterns, Kingside attacks.(Morphy)
3. Strategy (Steinitz)
4. Endgame (rubinstein, capablanca)
5. openings (alekhine, Euwe)
6. dynamics and preparation (botvinnik)
Originally posted by stockton1984Let me get this straight: you say you are upset because you have learned some opening theory and your opponents, who have not, are making opening errors? Isn't that a good thing? You have the knowledge to exploit that error, and they don't have the knowledge to avoid it. You can also avoid those "obvious traps" when set by others.
Well again, most of my losses are due to obvious blunders that I've been too distracted to see at the time.
What I'm mainly referring to is not someone following strict book in the sicilian, carokann, etc.......but just making definite errors in openings. For example, the Petroff example I gave before, The error in the Ruy Lopez exchange variation ...[text shortened]... t be studies to the extent of not falling into obvious traps that at first sight look correct?
Personally I think that openings shouldn't be completely ignored by beginners, since openings lead to middlegames and learning how to manage an opening competently can leave you with more and better opportunities in your unprepared middlegame play. Having said that, it remains true that many opponents will deviate from book, so merely memorizing openings won't help, and THAT is why opening study is so frequently labeled a waste of time for beginners. On the other hand, if you are attempting to understand the purpose of opening moves, then through that process you are also learning about general principles of how to play openings, and that can help you deal with deviations. Another tip is to study your games using databases that contain amateur games and research how your opponents' deviations from opening theory might be exploited; sometimes a deviation by your opponent calls for a deviation by you in reply -- a so-called punishing move. Sometimes a deviation should be ignored while you continue on course with your own plans. A weak move by your opponent is only weak if you know how to exploit it.
In many chess games[more than 72 percent as otb games] I have never encountered any of my countless game opponents who were able to play well against me, without a sound and correct knowledge and understanding of atleast the most popular known openings.-[Except through my own mistaken moves made for a variety of reasons]. In more than four centuries of varying degrees of chess theory and opening study it has been firmly established that'known opening lines ' result in superior play and position than any randomly selected move choices,for both white and black.Although the ability to remember recall and apply that knowledge is essential to the critical elements of sound play,memorization in itself is insufficent to play to a good standard. The ability to recognise tactical opportunity positional advantage opportunity and opponent mistake or poor move selection is of equally critical importance,which are achieved by a combination of practical chess play in any format,and practical study of all the phases of chess,regardless of current chess playing ability.