Well said, Musikamole! I am in strong agreement.
Beginners Should Learn Opening Theory!
Sort:
Oldest
I think it's an excellent idea; I've recently been picking up chess again after a long break, and I've definitely realized that my biggest weakness is in the opening. I know some of the basics of the Italian opening, but, still, I feel like I'm just making random moves! Really sets you back in a lot of games.
I'm a beginner and I think italian game is too complicated, I'd rather play the scotch or centre game
Please
yea italian game is alright, there ar emany traps to play, and traps to fall into, so i choose not to play the italian game. just my opinion, i like the english opening. but great explanation Musikamole
Feb 4, 2013
0
#7
what people mean when they say beginners should not bother with opening theory they do not mean the first few moves of an opening.
They generally mean that you shouldn't bother learning theory more that 10 moves deep because it is rather time consuming hard work that for beginners has little affect on their game.
the reason being is, it is very unlikely your opponent would've stayed within theory to make your time worth it and after ten moves of theory to get an advantage as white or equalize as black within another ten moves your opponent who instead used their time to get better at tactics would have won your queen and the game.
on a sidenote there is nothing wrong with what you suggested.
Feb 4, 2013
0
#8
A few decades ago, Larry Evans published an explanation of the first moves of the Ruy Lopez (Spanish), with a detailed explanation of each move. It's almost certainly available online for anyone who wants to learn how to learn the openings.
It's absolutely fine to learn the openings. But do so organically. Learn why each move is important, what the threats are, and what the ideas behind the opening moves are.
Do not just learn which moves are best, learn why each move is played and whether or not there are tactical considerations. You can learn the openings and learn tactics at the same time!
Musikamole, you notes are good, except they don't discuss BLACK's motives and cues.
What does white do, for instance, after 6...d5?
Aside from improving your game, there can be some other reasons for studying a particular opening. It's interesting to me how an opening defines certain issues to be resolved in the middle game and how the resolution of those issues can define predicable end games. Sometimes, in spite of all the speculation about the above, an opening actually resolves on a different basis. Anyway, the integration of the phases of the game can be interesting.
In other words, studying an opening can just be entertaining.
Feb 4, 2013
0
#11
Yes,
- understanding 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 is fine
- learning theory step by step, game after game is fine
However, what you should avoid is :
- blaming your lack of theoretical knowledge for your losses
- thinking that your game is in shambles because you're out of book
- trying to remember why 19.Qf1 is the main line in the Marshall...
It's all about balance...
hicetnunc wrote:
trying to remember why 19.Qf1 is the main line in the Marshall...
Oh no... so that's why I lost that game...
hoynck wrote:
When I was a young player in the ‘70’s trainers used to stipulate the importance of the endgame. It was of use to me. Now 40 years later I still profit from those lessons.
But later this changed. 25 years ago, at least in Holland, the idea arose that chess consists merely out of tactics. Since then nearly all young players get educated along the lines of the Stappenmethode (developed by national trainer IM Cor van Wijgerden and Rob Brunia). Tactics in the opening, tactics in the middlegame and tactics in the endgame. And I must agree, the level of play by youngsters got better and better by the year.
Studying the openings was not much of a topic in my youth. If you persisted – and I did – they came up with books like Ideas behind the Chess Openings by Ruben Fine, something by our national hero Max Euwe and later for instance How to Play Good Opening Moves by Edgar Mednis. General advise on opening play.
In the mean time I got addicted to the Yugoslav Schachinformator, as sexy as a telephone book, but the best source you could get your hands on to learn about modern opening play and novelties. I thought they were great books, I loved them. For a very long time they were my companions for razor sharp opening play.
But now I am getting old and I can not recall all those variations any more, sitting at the board. 20 years ago I could easily reproduce let’s say my last fifteen games or so. Now I am glad if I remember the last two. So I changed opening playing style, to survive.
Two years ago I started playing ‘dull’ positional openings, like the Torre with white – mixed with a ‘Petrosian like’ prophylactic middlegame approach. First equalize and then get the better of them. At least that is how it went during my way up here at Chess.com. I became a member 10 days ago and won my first 40 games – although I blundered several times, even at the cost of whole pieces. But I survived. So the days will soon come to lose a few, but not in the opening I think.
Where can i find "IM Cor van Wijgerden and Rob Brunia" i have some unfinished business on several levels.
I think it is important to keep the balance with opening theory. No opening theory would be stupid.
HoweverI, and many other people, have made the mistake of over-empasizing opening theory when I had little understanding of chess. Result is that I got frustrated with the labyrinth task of remembering opening moves. Which is pretty pointless.
An absolute beginner should learn the opening principles and then shown games where these principles are adhered to to a certain extend. Like the italian game. The beginner players will apprechiate and understand that, maybe memorize it a bit and hopefully incorporate it into their own games.
Teaching children opening theory beyond that will bore them and let them lose interest in chess. It is better to teach them cool tactics and checkmate patterns.
Now that I have a better understanding of chess (in my second attempt of getting into this game after a few years pause due to frustration) I am better at learning opening theory because I have a better understanding of the thought behind it.
Adult players should start learning openings like french, russian, italian and spanish once they have an understanding of basic tactics and principles of positioning. They should not feel the need to reinvent the wheel.
Totally agree with much said here. In fact, my game has improved because of me looking into more details of my pet openings, but of course afer the first 8-10 moves you are on your own...here is where your middle and endgame understanding will take you to the finish.
Ok i want to put a twist on this.
I am not a beginner to chess. But when i first started playing online they made me feel like it. Ok i have to take using unfair tactics out of the equation for now. When you play online your opponent can look things up during the game from a book, their games(however they took notes), site to verify which opening their opponent is playing and etc. All of these i was not aware of here(online).
I knew no theory at all. My strategies were good enough to beat or destroy the average chess player that did not play at a site like chess.com and etc. So when i started with game i took a whipping. Started winning some games but it was tougher even when i used my best strategies. Then i went to find a couple openings as i noticed almost every opponent i faced was using one so they have the advantage the first 3-5 moves easy. While looking at these openings i discovered Opening Theory. I felt like i was moving out the basement and a chance to visit the Luxury Apartment. I had new targets to attack and knew why to attack them and how. Less scanning for the board for a target. All i created fewer points in my game. 
Because of theory i can the good moves quicker most of the time. It does allow me to find the best move among the good moves.
Now the question is what is your definition of a beginner? Everybody has their own variation. Mine being better a person who has no won 20 games by forcing mate or rank lower than 1400 or lacking knowledge of general terms and or rules of chess.
I say that a Beginner should start to learn theory....... as they improve towards being a beginner no longer. It also depends on age and maturity of the player. Some players love to soak up all those rules. Some players just want to know of theory and may take some of it and figure that is all i need and feel they do not need the rest.
While we are on the subject what books can i get on Theory?
Im totally confused about the importance of learning openings at present. As black I move d6 in response to e4 normally moving into the pirc. If white plays 2. Nf3 I would still move c6/nf3 allowing a very pirc system. Lately however I am moving IF 2.Nf3 Then..c5 as normally in a game thier is much ado with c5. So my point in all this is that I come to find that i have been playing the esteemed Sicilian Dragon with g6 and Nf6 without even knowing it. Honestly it is a bit of a let down. I was expecting some firebreathing tactical monster when it seems only a logical if not organic response to white where 2. Nf3. I didn't need to memorize this line, or any other I am coming to learn I play. Just recently learned I am playing the Czech defense quite often.. Without having learned this line but simply coming to the move order organically with the theory I've learned from play. Would not simply learning these lines hurt my development? I no the anwser to that is somewhere in the niehborhood of NO but Im not sure what would be a good method of attack where study material is concerned or what area to commit to in an attempt to improve. Any idea's
Seraphimity, maybe you are displaying signs of a good intuitive understanding? There are so many openings, that (I guess) it is actually likely that you did the correct first moves of one if you made some good logical moves at first. I have observed two eight year old boys who did a good italian opening after i have discussed the opening principles with them.
I recommend that you should look at books which explain the openings you have done to understand them even better. In a nutshell: Openings are important, but you need to understand tactics & postioning in order to understand their logic. If you fail to do that, opening theory is a boring and difficult chore.
Seraphimity wrote:
Im totally confused about the importance of learning openings at present. As black I move d6 in response to e4 normally moving into the pirc. If white plays 2. Nf3 I would still move c6/nf3 allowing a very pirc system. Lately however I am moving IF 2.Nf3 Then..c5 as normally in a game thier is much ado with c5. So my point in all this is that I come to find that i have been playing the esteemed Sicilian Dragon with g6 and Nf6 without even knowing it. Honestly it is a bit of a let down. I was expecting some firebreathing tactical monster when it seems only a logical if not organic response to white where 2. Nf3. I didn't need to memorize this line, or any other I am coming to learn I play. Just recently learned I am playing the Czech defense quite often.. Without having learned this line but simply coming to the move order organically with the theory I've learned from play. Would not simply learning these lines hurt my development? I no the anwser to that is somewhere in the niehborhood of NO but Im not sure what would be a good method of attack where study material is concerned or what area to commit to in an attempt to improve. Any idea's
This is the only chess site that once i learned an opening i might pause to wonder why my opponent made that move. I never knew their were so many repsonses to an opening and their variations. I had to learn how to play out the book real quick.
If you really too heavy on your opening skill your going to get burned. Really on your ability to use your pieces to attack and defend. Coordination of pieces and concentrating them on a task like winning a piece, a square, open up a line which might not be in the main line of that opening. But then you do get those games when both sides play their openings out to 13-18 moves. So i say have a healthy balance of all worlds.
Did I get your attention?
Too often, it is advised that no one rated under, pick a number, should learn opening theory. It's only for a very, very small percentage of the chess playing population rated above 1600, maybe 1800, maybe not until 2000.
I see nothing wrong with teaching a flat out beginner the first few moves of the Italian, and that is what I do with new students at school, and my own kids at home. It teaches good piece placement, economy of pawn moves, and castling. It also teaches some strategy, like the purpose of Bc4, to attack f7. And from some decent strategy and piece placement, tactics will flow.
Yep. I am going to go way out on a limb here and say that opening theory is good for beginners. Agree or disagree?