A better way to practice repertoires?

Hey all!

A while back, I started finally getting into learning some opening theory, and it occured to me that the two ways of practicing opening lines are both not fully ideal to me, at least on their own.

At the moment, there seem to be two ways of practicing openings:

Firstly, one can memorize a set of lines using chessable or some other spaced repetition program. The issue with doing (only) this is that no matter how many lines you learn, your opponent might still refuse to cooperate and play something dubious. Obviously, you learn the ideas of your openings over time to be able to refute these side lines, yet memorizing lines alone will not allow you to practice this important skill.

The solution to this problem seems to be the other method, namely using the "Practice" section here on chess.com. This allows you to pick an opening and practice it against a bot. The issue here is that bots are notoriously bad at playing like a human, especially at lower ratings. Any practice I (1400 rapid rating) might do on e.g. the Caro-Kann with a bot is going to be of little help against a lot of what real opponents will throw at me.

An ideal way to practice your repertoire to me would be a tool which takes the website statistics of the most common responses for your rating range into account, so if 80% of people at my rating answer 1.e4 with e5, the bot will have an 80% chance of responding that way. Essentially, this could work as a streamlined version of the opening explorer, allowing you to quickly play through realistic opening encounters you might face in your next game. 

What do you all think? Does something like this perhaps exist already?

I haven't heard of anything like that but it's a decent idea.

For learning the ideas - I've found it helpful to maintain my repertoire in a PGN game... this allows you to annotate the game with the ideas in the position after each move. Assuming you can get to the essence of the position and distill that into a memorable sentence you can basically study the ideas alongside the moves this way. This is something Sam Shankland suggested but I've found it very helpful, especially in nonlinear positions.

A more effective way to practice repertoires is to use a structured approach that incorporates both focused practice and creative exploration. Start by breaking down your repertoire into smaller, manageable sections, and work on each segment individually to build proficiency. Use a metronome to ensure consistent timing and practice with different dynamics to enhance expressiveness. Regularly record yourself to identify areas for improvement and track your progress. Additionally, incorporate varied practice techniques like sight-reading, improvisation, and playing along with recordings to keep your sessions engaging and comprehensive. For more tips and resources on effective practice strategies,https://freecinebr.com/ click here

I usually build my opening repertoires with Chessbase. I build opening trees mostly according to best and most common responses and evaluate them with the help of Stockfish. I also break down these trees in single lines that I can practice in the same way you can practice on Chessable. I also make databases on interesting games and analyse them.

I also analyse possible endgame pawn structures in the openings I study. For example when I studied the Semi-Tarrasch I wanted to confirm that the queenside majority wins some king and pawn endings. For example the following position is a win and if the white pawn was on e4 instead of e5, it would be a draw no matter who's turn it is, but it would be easier to go wrong as White.

I use the book Modern Chess Openings which breaks down each opening into different lines and then has sample games of each in an easy to read and follow column format. To practice the opening I enter one of the games into the Analyze feature (select Learn...and then Analyze) and then replay the game using the analyze board as a guide. I also play the opening against the bots over and over until I get a good idea of what the opposition will throw at me.

I don’t see what’s wrong with practicing with humans. Playing blitz is a good way to do so, it’ll get you familiar with thematic positions without sinking in too much time. Why do we need bots at all?

Also. Chessbook is a good opening tool that somewhat matches the description you gave.

Well for one, I don't play blitz normally and people do play openings differently at longer time controls. Even with blitz though, you have to sink an entire 10 minutes into practicing just one variation instead of quickly going through a bunch of commonly played lines.

Blitz games don’t usually take 10 minutes unless you’re playing a very slow time control. It’s still the fastest way to practice an opening in real games outside of the brainrot of bullet. I really don’t think you should play against bots.

I agree that you should not play with bots (which is not what I was proposing). I still think that blitz games do not accurately reflect the kinds of openings I encounter in longer games and that they still take longer to practice openings than being able to just focus on the first few moves. You also can't tell your opponent to please only play the Sicillian because that is what you are practicing.

Personally, I think chessable is amongst the worst things out there specifically when it comes to openings. Memorization is useless. What you need is a book, board, pieces, table, and chair. Which book is ideal depends on how much you already know about the opening. A first time French player should read First Steps: The French. A seasoned veteran that has played the French for 29 years (uh hm, me) should be reading more advanced works.

With a computer, it is too easy to just click and try to memorize. On a board, where you must reset pieces after going through a sideline, it actually reiterates what you have studied. When studying an opening, you need to take time for each move. Ask yourself, "Why this? Why not some other move that at first appearance makes sense?".

For example, let's take the Advance French and compare to 3.Nc3.

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 - What is Black's point? With 1.e4 and 2.d4, white has an ideal center. No black piece can safely go to c5, d5, e5, or f5. Black needs to break this up. By attacking e4, which is unprotected, white needs to react. He can exchange, advance, or protect e4.

If 3.exd5, then I can take back with the pawn. White has lost all control of d5 and f5, and Black's light-squared Bishop is no longer blocked. Black should be happy.

If 3.e5, White has extra space, but with both his pawns blocked on dark squares, he no longer has control of the central light squares

If 3.Nc3, he protects the pawn. Black must act now. He can trade pawns, which removes White's control of the central light squares, but it does centralize a knight for White. Black can directly attack it again with 3...Nf6, trying to entice White to play e5 and again gain light square control.He can also attack e4 indirectly by pinning the knight with 3...Bb4.

But no matter what White does, Black must react. Well, why does it appear as though Black always plays 3...c5 against 3.e5, but never against 3.Nc3? Don't I want to hit the center? There is a reason behind that. A reason that memorization will not tell you. The whole point in the French is to try to ENTICE White to play e5. By removing light-square control from White and enticing White to advance, the d5-pawn has no pressure against it, and so Blact strikes the base of the pawn chain with 3...c5.

But if 3.Nc3 c5??, White has not resolved the tension in the center, and can still play exd5, and in this case should. The d-pawn will become isolated and weak with a White knight already attacking d5. So the point behind both Nf6 and Bb4 is to get White to take all pressure off d5, allowing him to play c5. If White trades on d5 instead of advances, then the c-pawn will usually go to c6 instead to protect the d-pawn.

OK, so now 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Nc6 5.Nf3.

Why 5.Nf3? Why not 5.f4, which also covers e5? Why not 5.Ne2, which also covers d4 and leaves open f4 to cover e5? The answer is tactics on d4 and the weakening of the diagonal. If White ever castles with f4 played, White must watch out for captures on d4. It may look like it is protected enough times, but if c5 is covered by Black, he can capture on d4, and at the end of the trade down, White may emerge up a piece, but with the final capture being with the Queen, the White King on g1, and the f-pawn advanced - OOPS! Black has ...Bc5 winning the Queen via a pin to the King! All of this is WHY White plays 5.Nf3.

I have faced 5.f4 and 5.Ne2 over the board. Another idea is 5.Be3 Qb6 6.Qd2, but I avoid this line by playing 4...Qb6 5.Nf3 (if 5.Be3, 5...Qxb2) Nc6. If you are a 5...Qb6 player, play it a move earlier to avoid 5.Be3. If you play 5...Bd7, then you must deal with that sideline.

The problem with memorizing is that chess is not about your opponent cooperating. Just because he plays a different move does not make it wrong, per se, unless you can prove it wrong.

Like 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 c5 4.c3 Qb6 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.Bd3 cxd4 7.cxd4 and now 7...Nxd4?? Is a blunder as Black loses at least a piece because after 8.Nxd4, if 8...Qxd4, then 9.Bb5+ wins the Black Queen.

Now a memorize will say "But, but, but the book says after 7...Bd7, then 8.O-O Nxd4 9.Nxd4 Qxd4 10.Nc3 that I can play 10...Qxe5 or 10...a6. What is this 9.Nbd2 garbage? Or 9.Ng5? White must take on d4!

Uhm, No! White does not have to take on d4, and these are two common side lines. You need to UNDERSTAND the pros and cons of both.

So as you can see, studying openings is NOT about rote memorization.

Anybody can spew memorized lines. I could tell you the first 13 moves of the Exchange Grunfeld, Seville Variation. I could tell you the first 23 moves of the Queen sac line of the Semi-Slav Botvinnik Variation. I could tell you the first 9 moves of the exchange Alekhine with 5...cxd5. Does this mean I UNDERSTAND these openings? NO! ABSOLUTELY NOT!

What I "Understand" are the French, Dutch, Petroff, King's Indian, and QGD, and could play any of those as Blck with confidence. I choose to play the first two. Grunfeld? Alekhine? Semi-Slav? Uhm, NO!

Thanks for your detailed response ThrillerFan!

I agree with you that it is important to understand the ideas of an opening rather than just move sequences, which is exactly why I made this post to discuss how one could train/test that skill efficiently.

I think I agree about the move trainer, because I don't use it... and it probably forces authors to stick with a very rote format. But still, I think memorization is an inescapable part of chess, so we need to distinguish between memorization and blind memorization. You can memorize ideas, too. Most chessable authors will explain the ideas while showing the lines. Though I think it is ideal to go through the process of choosing the moves yourself... if for no other reason than your play will be very well-trodden and predictable otherwise. But also you'll be figuring out the ideas in the process. So I don't use the move trainer since usually I end up diverging from whatever the author suggests... and I also just prefer to use my own PGN for that. But it's still nice to listen to an expert discuss the ideas of the opening and show you some options they prefer before making a decision on what line you want to play. But maybe some other format would encourage that more from authors... On the other hand, at least authors are forced into covering the opening comprehensively - we have all these lifetime repertoire courses which usually show all kinds of novel ways of dealing with sidelines. Often you can just watch the intro video and get ideas from that, you don't even need to buy the course.

The problem with beginners is that they don't always play the most interesting games. Many beginners try for early checkmates. They bring out the Queen and the bishop early. Some won't trade pieces. I really like to enter a game from a book like MOdern Chess Openiings in the analysis board and then try to replay the game. I have no desire to memorize moves. When I replay the game I play what I think is the best move and then use the analysis board and the book to judge my move. I am just trying to get a feel for a more interesting way to play chess.

When you say "efficiently", if you mean in a way that reduces your study time from hours to minutes? You are out of luck.

Well if you're content not climbing very high in elo that's all fine, but the moment you start taking chess seriously you're going to have to memorize some moves.

How far into a game do you memorize moves? I'm using the book Modern Chess Openings and know that it is easy to memorize an opening and some variaations but at some point you can't predict whaat the other side will play and that is where you had better have the ability to use logic to plan your next move.

What I mean is that when you practice your opening skills by playing blitz games, you are often not getting the opening you want to practice, your opponents will play different lines than what you might see at longer time controls, and a lot of your time is spent actually playing those games (which is of course valuable in different ways, but sometimes I just want to practice my understanding of the French defense, say).

In that sense, efficiency is just about being able to cut out things you do not want to be practicing at the moment or speeding up the time it takes to go through example (similar to how electronic flashcards might be more efficient than a unsorted stack of physical ones)

So you want to play the French in real games without any other openings in the mix. Selecting black will help, but you still have to deal with 1. d4 etc. Your only other choice is to go to a chess club or online community and ask for training games in a specific opening. Someone might agree to them.

As far as playing blitz games, there is no way to force said opening you are studying. They come up sometimes and not others.

The second half of your comment is exactly what I am talking about. Those that say they study e-books because it is faster don't realize that it is actually costing them. How you study is just as important as what you study. If you are merely going through a game collection on a subject you are already well versed in, then an ebook is not an issue. If you are learning the X-Ray or Deflection tactic, or the French or Sicilian Defense, for the first time, an ebook or video will have a lower outcome in the long term than studying at a physical board. You could study an ebook and play 3 games online and win all 3. Too small of a sample size to validity judge. Speaking long term here. How well will you know what you are studying when you play it or face it for the 200th time?

I agree that different methods work for different things. However, I was trying to argue that even within one method, there are ways of doing or more or less efficiently (such as studying a language using flashcards, which may be sorted better or worse etc.).

My whole point is that when people suggest playing blitz games to practice openings, there seems to be (to me at least) a relatively straightforward way a program could achieve the exact same benefits while "cutting the chaff" so to speak. If you simply programmed a bot to randomly play lines weighted by how often they show up in online games at your rating and preferred playing time, you get something that is, for the opening phase of the game, indistinguishable from an actual online opponent. The benefit, however, is that you *could* end any game after the opening and you could also force the bot to start from an opening line you want to practice.