Do you study more than one opening (White/Black) at a the same time?

Hi,

I was wondering what is the general consensus regarding (a) studying just one opening (say with white) until you're well confident with it before studying another one with black or (b) Study one with white and one with black pretty much at the same time, maybe on alternating days.

I'm worried that two openings at the same time could be too much and create a mess in my head, but at the same time I'm concerned with losing time.

I'm trying to understand if a chess coach would recommend one way or the other.

TIA!

AG

The first question that comes to mind is what are you doing to study the openings? I understand the concern about studying multiple topics becoming confusing, but that's usually when the study is in depth and difficult... if you're studying some grandmaster repertoire series that's, you know, 100 hours or from a book that's 100s of pages, that's too much... way too much to be practical at the moment.

Now... if opening study is what you enjoy, and you have a good source (like a GM video series or book) then that's great. You can do one at a time or two at once... the point is you're doing work and enjoying it, and ultimately that's what the game of improvement is about.

But if you want my advice on how to study openings, I'd say play games from 10+0 long to 30+0 long, and after each game, compare the opening to a database. See who stopped playing common moves first, and also check what the common moves are at each step. Maybe you see a common move you like the look of better than what you played. Explore that a bit. The reason I think this is more useful is because when your opponents commonly play something odd on move 5, it's a huge waste of time to have learned 12 moves deep in 100 different variations... you'll simply never see them in your actual games. With my method of referencing a database after each game, you'll only be exposed to what's relevant to you. A sort of learn as you go approach.

But again, if intense opening study is what you're motivated to do, then I don't want to tell you no. Splitting it into first one color then another is fine... afterwards though make sure you don't jump from one opening to another. After studying openings spend time studying each of the other main areas (tactics, strategy, and endgames) before going to a new opening. A common pitfall is spending too much time and effort on openings. The opening is the most forgiving phase of the game. As long as you're completing the 3 main objectives it's not a critical area of study yet (the three objectives are:: 1 king safety // 2 center control 3 // fast development of pieces off the back rank).

Hi @Unicorn_Horn12, many thanks for your thoughtful answer, appreciate it!

Suggestions and comments from stronger players is definitely what I'm looking for.

On to your suggestion and concern: Without going too deep, I just wanted to say I'm using a "method" that is somehow similar to yours. I'm in fact studying the opening - and you're right I really like it! - by using a DB of games played only by Club players. I go back and forth between my GM books and videos and this DB, and I focus (almost) exclusively on those replies that had been played by the Club Players (I mean up to 1999 FIDE ELO). I don't want to spend hours studying lines and variations that a 2700+ player would usually employ. I will never need to know by heart those lines, unless they are (also) played by the Club Players, in which case I would find them in my Club Players database.
I'm also trying to almost stop playing blitz games, and move on to much longer OTB games with my DGT board, but blitz games are like a drug, it's so difficult to stop from one day to the other. But that's a different story.
This would turn the topic to a completely different matter, but in line with your advice, I'm structuring my study plan on Tactics + Opening + Strategy (Positional concepts). I thought for a while if I should have added Endgames as well, but when I tried doing so in the past, I realized that it was too much at the same time on my plate. I'm 53 btw.
At the end, sticking to my plan of Tactics + Opening + Strategy, I was trying to understand if studying 2 openings at the same time would have brought me to the same level of mental confusion I felt when I added Endgames. I loved to hear the experts' advice before trying it myself and burning my fingers again!

I've tried to improve in a few things in life (I'm older than my silly profile reflects) and again, in my mind, motivation is very important. If someone is studying something and by some miracle enjoying the time spent doing that, then that's the ideal scenario... you ask if studying two openings could be confusing. Sure, that may be the case. I tend to like to focus on one topic for at least a month before moving on to something else. So for example I might work from a book on strategy for 1 month.

Sounds like you have a good method I'd say the biggest obstacle at first is simply board vision, and by that I mean how easily can you see where each piece can move, and what is attacked, and what is defended, and for anyone that's a slow skill to build, it just takes time. The best way to do it is by playing games and doing your best not to lose anything for free (not even a single pawn). That will have the biggest impact on your results even though it's not very exciting.

Meanwhile the study you do, while not being dramatically useful at first, does plant good seeds of knowledge that slowly develop as you play more and more.

By itself I don't think the difference between studying 1 or 2 openings at once is an issue. More importantly I'd want to hear you say you're enjoying what you're doing. Time spent with quality material is important, but it's not sustainable if you don't enjoy it. If you're worried adding a 2nd opening will be disruptive, then I'd say don't do it.

And I would confirm this is indeed still an issue for me, despite the years I've been playing chess. Blundering and leaving pieces "en prise" is still, probably, the cause #1 for my defeats. I've read and viewed many videos that try to teach one a method or another to stop blundering, but I still have to find one that really works.