Openings Requiring Understanding of Theory
Sort:
Sep 23, 2007
0
#2
well most openings in general have two levels of theory - an overall conceptual understanding of the main point (like sicilian - giving up a c pawn for d pawn in exchange for activity and two semi-open files). then there are deeper points to theory that are not apparent and only make sense after intense preparation or novelty. what are those? i'm not sure :) i'm not that good. i play easy-to-understand openings.
The Indian defenses, for example, are some lines where it helps to have a good conceptual understanding of what's happening. All hypermodern strategies make use of the theory that the center does not necessarily have to be occupied with pieces, but can be attacked from the flanks. Most openings in chess have some general ideas behind them. An example of an opening that is crappy and devoid of theoretical considerations would be something like 1. a4 for white.
Vtan wrote:
What does it mean when someone says that an opening requires study of theory or understanding of theory before it makes sense. Can someone please give an example of an opening that requires some theory versus one that is purely non-theoretical?
Thanks.
When you say 'opening', I assume that you mean an opening such as the Sicilian, Nimzo-Indian, English, etc.; and NOT an opening move (ie; 1 h3). If so, then openings by definition are theoretical because they deal with a series of moves which are based on certain themes and ideas. And in order to play any opening properly, one must know what its themes and ideas are.
There are 2 ways to learn them:
1. Figure it out yourself (which would take 3 lifetimes)
2. Learn from the work of all the GM's of the past, since they have already done this work for you (a.k.a. STUDYING)
Personally, I prefer the latter since I hate reinventing the wheel.
That's why cats are so good at chess. They have can master it three times over.
pawnshover wrote:That's why cats are so good at chess. They have can master it three times over.
Well, often times grandmasters can (supposedly) play a game and the first 20 moves will have already be practiced and played out by both camps.
However, often times grandmasters will play very uncommon moves to break off from the main line(s), therefore bringing it more into the realm of theoretical (never really played).
Just a guess, however.
All hypermodern strategies make use of the theory that the center does not necessarily have to be occupied with pieces, but can be attacked from the flanks.
Just a slight adjustment: so called hypermodernism says that the center does not have to occoupied with pawns. Occupying the center with pieces is the exactly what hypermodernism is about. E.g. in the french defense, White pieces occupy d4 and e5 after those squares are vacated by pawns. That way, the Black center is kept under restraint even though no White pawns hold it in place.
Theoretical openings are those openings where there are many, many variations to learn, different themed traps that appear, and you won't have great results if you don't know that stuff and your opponent does. The sicilian defense is a great example of an opening that is very theoretical. A good example of a non-theoretical opening is the classical CaroKann. It's very easy for the uninitiated to follow book lines without ever having seen them.
Right, "theoretical" openings are openings that are a) heavily analysed and b) highly tactical.
Openings like the dragon/najdorf/schveshnikov sicilian, the grunfeld, and the King's Indian are considered theoretical because they are very tactical in nature, one screw up and you're immediately finding yourself worse.
Openings like the Caro-Kann and Queen's Indian are considered "positional" and "easy to learn" because they are less tactical and do not require the same amount of memorization in order to stay alive.
Whichever opening you pick is largely a matter of taste and amount of studytime available. Personally, I used to play the king's gambit and schvesknikov sicilian when I thought I had the time to memorize oodles of lines. Now that I have to work and have to ration my chess studytime, I've switched to the English and the french. They aren't so dependant on tactics and instead focus on positional ideas and knowing where to put the pieces.
"An example of an opening that is crappy and devoid of theoretical considerations would be something like 1. a4 for white."
I don't quite agree. 1. a4 can be used with good effect.
WEdgards wrote:
I don't quite agree. 1. a4 can be used with good effect.
...only against players who have no idea what they're doing. 1 e4, 1 d4, 1 c4, and 1 Nf3 are much, much better. 1 a4 is unsound, plain and simple.
Oct 6, 2007
0
#13
WEdgards wrote:
"An example of an opening that is crappy and devoid of theoretical considerations would be something like 1. a4 for white."
I don't quite agree. 1. a4 can be used with good effect.
Against 1200 players, yes.
I didn't say it was the best opening. :) I just don't think it's entirely valueless. Ware himself didn't have much success with it of course, but the point is he won occasionally. I personally play it for shits and giggles; I wouldn't play it seriously unless there were a good reason. Like some sort of bet or such :)
Oct 6, 2007
0
#15
Well, you can win with any opening, but a4 is an inferior opening, and therefore should not be played seriously.
I'm seldom serious. What is the quote... "The only people who are serious are the people who aren't serious about living"
Studying some common openings in chess can be beneficial, however, trying to overwhelm yourself with a bunch of openings is like trying to memorize every word in a 1,000 page dictionary along with every variant of definitions that may follow within each word(s). If you want to join the world spelling bee, this may help you, and it's going to take a lifetime of devotion to memorize everything unless remembering all these is your jist. I'd recommend memorizing a few standard openings, and play some games, quicker games of 1 minute are preferable. Yes you will lose a lot, but if you learn from your mistakes and you play an opening so far you can extend that opening or modify it in the next game to make it a new opening that will suffice your needs. Eventually, you use if then logic and your memory to react to the players sequence of moves with your sequence of moves, if you get it down fairly well you probably won't have to know much about the names of the openings or what square to move too, your brain will contemplate that ahead for you by matching with your own logic.
What does it mean when someone says that an opening requires study of theory or understanding of theory before it makes sense. Can someone please give an example of an opening that requires some theory versus one that is purely non-theoretical?
Thanks.