Question about engine choice in opening

Originally posted by exigentsky
With rare exceptions, if you need to memorize moves, you shouldn't play those openings. After looking through a book, surveying the databases and trying to understand everything, theory should come naturally.

If you are claiming that GMs and even strong OTB players aren't required to memorize moves in the Ruy and many of the Sicilian lines, then you must be joking.

Originally posted by Korch
I prefer to make moves which leads to win. And I really don`t care if there are "objective better" moves which would lead to draw.

Very well said.

Originally posted by no1marauder
If you are claiming that GMs and even strong OTB players aren't required to memorize moves in the Ruy and many of the Sicilian lines, then you must be joking.

I don't think he's saying just that. I think that on this point I and exigenstky share the same approach that is trying to understand the ideas and themes of an opening.

I have a book on the sicilian that has the following text: "Ask any GrandMaster what knowledge is essential to play the openings well and he is almost certain to reply An understanding of the opening and the types of position which arise It is much more important to UNDERSTAND an opening than to know it (in the sense of rote learning of moves). However, there is no alchemist's stone in chess, least of all in the openings; as Larsen as pointed out: if you know only the ideas behind the openings, and he (your opponent) knows the ideas and a lot of variations, he is likely to beat you. But how many chess players do know both? Not very many; the grandmasters, yes; the international masters, probabily, the rest. ...?"

For instance Aronian a world expert on the Marshall gambit has said that in the that gambit it is more important to feel the position than to know variations and variations. I don't know in which article I read that but it was on chess news. But then jornalist quipped that probabily Aronian also knows a lot of variations on the Marshall.

I personally like to try to understand what's happening on an given opening by looking through games than to face the danger of following booklines and then when the other guy goes astray I don't know what to do. I think that is happens to a lot of people on the lower levels: tHey go and book up and then when the opposition strays from the book they smirk thinking "poor patzer, playing an inferior move!" and then don't know hot to punish it and end up losing the game because the patzer that didn't study the opening did in fact study a lot of tactics and ended up winning the game on a 3 move combo that won material.

Another thing that I don't like is the books the gives lots and lots of lines (I think this is done with the idea of telling what people should do if the opposition doesn't follow the main-line and how to correctly punish it). But then again there's a lot of things that the other side can do and if the writer of the book is trying to covcer most of them I'll be like 😴 in no time.

For instance I'm now taking the Schliemann, the two knights defence, and the Falkbeer counter-gambit in my repertoire (don't laugh) but I'll be damned if I'll go getting books on this openings for now. I got other things to do (as many other people that play chess). I went through some games, tried to identify common themes, important squares, commom maneuvers and for now I'm more than satisfied. If in the future I want to know some things a little bit more maybe I'll get the said books.

One other thing that I think it's more important now is tactics. At all levels of chess games are decided by tactics (I'm not saying that games are always won on combos, even though some are on the higher levels what happens is that you have to loosen up your position in order not to lose material. And after a few concesions of this kind one GM has gotten himself on a miserable position and either is smothered to death or ends up on the losing combo after all). So what I do is that I look at tactis more (To tell the truth for the last times I'm only solving exercises instead of refreshing my tactical awareness).

So my summary is: At first learn opening principles and tactics. I think this is best because tactics will tell you when to ignore opening principles. Then choose some openings and go through some games in them and try to get a feel of what's happening. And keep on improving those tactics. Then get some positional/strategical amnd endgame knowledge. I think that by now those microplanls should work fine. Most of the time you won't even get to make a full game plan since if things flow normally you will have to adjust to what the other guys is doing in the board too. And then study openings. On this study plan I'm currently at the second/third stage and I have no plans to one day really study openings. That is because I don't want to become a chess pro.

Originally posted by adam warlock
... as Larsen as pointed out: if you know only the ideas behind the openings, and he (your opponent) knows the ideas and a lot of variations, he is likely to beat you. But how many chess players do know both? Not very many; the grandmasters, yes; the international masters, probabily, the rest. ...?"

This is true at any level and shows up at any level. Studying opening always helps. You just shouldn't do it without strengthening the rest of your game. You need to study tactics, positional play, openings, and endings, more or less together. Your study of each gets increasingly sophisticated as you progress. The problem is that many players study openings way out of proportion to the rest, but I don't agree that weaker players should ignore studying opening variations.

Originally posted by adam warlock
[/b]I don't think he's saying just that. I think that on this point I and exigenstky share the same approach that is trying to understand the ideas and themes of an opening.

I have a book on the sicilian that has the following text: "Ask any GrandMaster what knowledge is essential to play the openings well and he is almost certain to reply An understa study openings. That is because I don't want to become a chess pro.

This is a lot of stating the obvious. My point was merely that if exigenstky seriously believes that memorization is unnecessary in many Ruy and Sicilian lines, he is wrong. Sure you can "understand" the basic themes of the opening and try to rediscover the wheel every time out, but if your opponent is well versed in the variations and you're not, he's going to gain the advantage. That doesn't mean he'll win (the tactics!tactics!tactics! refrain is tiresome though) but it does mean that he's accomplished what he desired to in the opening and you didn't.

Originally posted by no1marauder
This is a lot of stating the obvious. My point was merely that if exigenstky seriously believes that memorization is unnecessary in many Ruy and Sicilian lines, he is wrong. Sure you can "understand" the basic themes of the opening and try to rediscover the wheel every time out, but if your opponent is well versed in the variations and you're not, he's g ...[text shortened]... ut it does mean that he's accomplished what he desired to in the opening and you didn't.

This is a lot of stating the obvious. My point was merely that if exigenstky seriously believes that memorization is unnecessary in many Ruy and Sicilian lines, he is wrong.

I don't agree that he is wrong, or entirely wrong that is. I think that opening memorisation is indeed needed in the higher levels. It certain is for me nor for the most people I play against. If you think it is needed for you or it gives you pleasure in doing so keep at it.

Sure you can "understand" the basic themes of the opening and try to rediscover the wheel every time out, but if your opponent is well versed in the variations and you're not, he's going to gain the advantage.

You're not reinventing the wheel you're understanding why the moves that are played are indeed played. Of course some sort of balance on the two approaches would be the ideal but if i have to chose between the two I chose to understand what I'm doing (even if it is inferior).

That doesn't mean he'll win (the tactics!tactics!tactics! refrain is tiresome though)

Tiresom but with a lot of truth in it. But, incurring in the mistake of stating the obvious once again, tactics can only come from a superior position. So that's why I think strategical/positional study should come first than a study of openings.

but it does mean that he's accomplished what he desired to in the opening and you didn't.

Well the first thing I will say about this is that my goal when I play a game is to win and to learn. So if out of the opening the other guy comes out with a slight edge it doesn't bother me nor I feel the king of the hill if get out of the opening witha slight edge. But if someone comes out of the opening with a relevant edge than it's another busyness. But let me stress this one more time: it doesn't really matter if you can come out of the opening with a book edge and then throw it away on a three move combo. For this just shows a lack of chess understanding. Once again tactics can only flow from a superior position so if one guy comes out of the opening better and then is buried on the middlegame it just means he doesn't understands the type of pistions is in. But hey!, if someone wants to think to themselves: "I just lost a game because I missed a tactical shot on the middlegame even though I came with a nice position out of the opening because I was following a book line I didn't really understood" he can continue on that trip as far as I'm concerned.

Originally posted by Erekose
This is true at any level and shows up at any level. Studying opening always helps. You just shouldn't do it without strengthening the rest of your game. You need to study tactics, positional play, openings, and endings, more or less together. Your study of each gets increasingly sophisticated as you progress. The problem is that many players study open ...[text shortened]... to the rest, but I don't agree that weaker players should ignore studying opening variations.

Agreed with everything you said. Mainly with this: he problem is that many players study openings way out of proportion to the rest. And I think that for a beginner studying opening variations right at the beggining isn't that good. Opening principles, seeing/studying master games on the openings and tactical study should be the first things.

One thing that I think that made me improve my game a lot was reading/studying annotated games. Logical Chess Move by Move is excellent for this. It really helped me seeing a chess game more as a whole and helped me on my planning and position understanding too. For me at this moment is strategical/positional study and tactics. And I'm focusing more at the first part. I do this because on thing that bothers me a lot is piece positioning. This is one thing that I have a lot of difficulties on right now but with Berliner's book (take this exigentsky 😛) I think I'm getting the hang of it.

Originally posted by adam warlock
[b]This is a lot of stating the obvious. My point was merely that if exigenstky seriously believes that memorization is unnecessary in many Ruy and Sicilian lines, he is wrong.

I don't agree that he is wrong, or entirely wrong that is. I think that opening memorisation is indeed needed in the higher levels. It certain is for me nor for the most p ...[text shortened]... 't really understood" he can continue on that trip as far as I'm concerned.[/b]

Who said that you shouldn't bother to know why the book move is played? You're not "choosing between two approaches" as you absurdly put it i.e. just memorizing and "understanding". I suppose you think that GMs who memorize the main lines don't "understand" them. This type of misconception is utterly common among players who think they can come up with a stunning non-book move that will totally shock the mechanical memorizers. 99.9% of the time they get an inferior game; book moves are book moves for a reason (i.e. GMs play them after having studied the opening intensely).

Originally posted by no1marauder
Who said that you shouldn't bother to know why the book move is played? You're not "choosing between two approaches" as you absurdly put it i.e. just memorizing and "understanding". I suppose you think that GMs who memorize the main lines don't "understand" them. This type of misconception is utterly common among players who think they can come up with a ...[text shortened]... ook moves for a reason (i.e. GMs play them after having studied the opening intensely).

I never said that the were only two approaches. I said that if I had to chose between the two I'd chose understanding. And since I said that the the best approach would be a balance between the two you're shooting on air here. I think that in my posts it is pretty clear I'm talking about players on my and your level not GM's. So once again you're shooting on air. My advice is for you to read what I wrote and reply to it instead of replying to what you think I wrote.

Most of the times when I play a non-book move I don't do it to shock. I do it because I don't know what the book move is and my move is what I think is a reasonable move given the position. I can't talk about other people but those are my reasons. I want to play something I know why I'm playing. I don't have the time to memorise book moves and understand them. But I do have the time to think about my moves and knowing why I'm making them.

You make it pretty hard for any one to discuss anything with you you know? Everytime someone disagrees with you you have to come with that tone and attitude of yours. So unless you have a more reasonable approach from now on I don't think we have anything to say to each other.

Edit: Who said that you shouldn't bother to know why the book move is played?

Well most players at our level don't care to know why a book move is a book move. And theseare the type of players I'm talking about.

Originally posted by adam warlock
...And I think that for a beginner studying opening variations right at the beggining isn't that good. Opening principles, seeing/studying master games on the openings and tactical study should be the first things...

While I appreciate the sentiment in your post, this is kind of missing the point. Memorizing openings is helpful at almost all levels. To take an extreme example, a beginner is better off playing 1 e4 than 1 f3, even if he doesn't understand why. I have a friend who likes to play 1 g3 .... 2 Bh3. He'd be better off if he "memorized" playing 2 Bg2, even though he doesn't understand the difference.

I agree that a relative beginner memorizing 20 moves of the Ruy Lopez is a waste of time, but not 5 or so moves and most players are better off knowing a lot more than that. And the better you hope to be, the more you need to learn.

Marauder is right too that its not an either or choice. Its a lot easier to memorize when you understand openings (and tactics and positional play) and, to a certain extent "understanding" means you've analyzed an opening an determined what the best moves are in advance .i.e. memorized it.