For beginners? Opening Principles are all you need.
Setup Openings vs Theory? Which is better for Beginner players?
Sort:
Jul 27, 2021
0
#3
Given the two choices, I'd tell the beginner to go with a system opening. Simply because theory isn't something I'd recommend to any beginner.
But I agree with Bacon -- focusing on principles would be ideal.
IMBacon wrote:
For beginners? Opening Principles are all you need.
I completely agree, although personally for me, I've noticed a lot of gambits and traps are easy to fall into if you go off of opening principles. What's your opinion on that?
Jul 27, 2021
0
#5
Mpirani wrote:
IMBacon wrote:
For beginners? Opening Principles are all you need.
I completely agree, although personally for me, I've noticed a lot of gambits and traps are easy to fall into if you go off of opening principles. What's your opinion on that?
You would need to provide an example of what you are talking about. Its difficult to give an answer off of a statement like: " I've noticed a lot of gambits and traps are easy to fall into if you go off of opening principles."
System opening
IMBacon wrote:
Mpirani wrote:
IMBacon wrote:
For beginners? Opening Principles are all you need.
I completely agree, although personally for me, I've noticed a lot of gambits and traps are easy to fall into if you go off of opening principles. What's your opinion on that?
You would need to provide an example of what you are talking about. Its difficult to give an answer off of a statement like: " I've noticed a lot of gambits and traps are easy to fall into if you go off of opening principles."
For example, someone playing with the white pieces might find it tricky to deal with the fried liver attack without knowing at least some basic theory. I would assume similar for the Stafford gambit. While obviously there are clear counters to these I feel like sometimes the moves required are counterintuitive and need very good foresight to be able to do without knowing the theory. The kind of foresight that perhaps a beginner may not have.
An obvious response is to just not take the gambit, however some gambits such as the Vienna gambit and Halloween gambit can sometimes be difficult to keep a stable position (At least from my experience as pretty much a beginner)
That's why I've been pretty interested in theory openings because gambits seem to be played a lot at lower levels and slowly start to be played less and less when players become stronger.
Basically what I'm saying is (correct me if I'm wrong since I'm only a 800-900 player) Wouldn't players that play system openings, or just go off of opening principles be more susceptible to these gambits?
Jul 27, 2021
0
#9
Mpirani wrote:
IMBacon wrote:
Mpirani wrote:
IMBacon wrote:
For beginners? Opening Principles are all you need.
I completely agree, although personally for me, I've noticed a lot of gambits and traps are easy to fall into if you go off of opening principles. What's your opinion on that?
You would need to provide an example of what you are talking about. Its difficult to give an answer off of a statement like: " I've noticed a lot of gambits and traps are easy to fall into if you go off of opening principles."
For example, someone playing with the white pieces might find it tricky to deal with the fried liver attack without knowing at least some basic theory. I would assume similar for the Stafford gambit. While obviously there are clear counters to these I feel like sometimes the moves required are counterintuitive and need very good foresight to be able to do without knowing the theory. The kind of foresight that perhaps a beginner may not have.
An obvious response is to just not take the gambit, however some gambits such as the Vienna gambit and Halloween gambit can sometimes be difficult to keep a stable position (At least from my experience as pretty much a beginner)
That's why I've been pretty interested in theory openings because gambits seem to be played a lot at lower levels and slowly start to be played less and less when players become stronger.
Basically what I'm saying is (correct me if I'm wrong since I'm only a 800-900 player) Wouldn't players that play system openings, or just go off of opening principles be more susceptible to these gambits?
There is a reason you dont see these openings at higher levels of play. Because they dont work at those levels. This is precisely the reason why I dont teach scholars mate and fools mate. I found that students fall in love with them, thinking they will work forever. I would rather they fall for them an then ask "why"? That is when the real learning begins.
The openings you mention are fine for the cheap/tricky win, and they work in speed chess. But in real OTB play? Again....there is a reason you dont see them played at higher levels.
The Stafford Gambit? Just throw it in the trash pile. Because that is where it belongs.
IMBacon wrote:
Mpirani wrote:
IMBacon wrote:
Mpirani wrote:
IMBacon wrote:
For beginners? Opening Principles are all you need.
I completely agree, although personally for me, I've noticed a lot of gambits and traps are easy to fall into if you go off of opening principles. What's your opinion on that?
You would need to provide an example of what you are talking about. Its difficult to give an answer off of a statement like: " I've noticed a lot of gambits and traps are easy to fall into if you go off of opening principles."
For example, someone playing with the white pieces might find it tricky to deal with the fried liver attack without knowing at least some basic theory. I would assume similar for the Stafford gambit. While obviously there are clear counters to these I feel like sometimes the moves required are counterintuitive and need very good foresight to be able to do without knowing the theory. The kind of foresight that perhaps a beginner may not have.
An obvious response is to just not take the gambit, however some gambits such as the Vienna gambit and Halloween gambit can sometimes be difficult to keep a stable position (At least from my experience as pretty much a beginner)
That's why I've been pretty interested in theory openings because gambits seem to be played a lot at lower levels and slowly start to be played less and less when players become stronger.
Basically what I'm saying is (correct me if I'm wrong since I'm only a 800-900 player) Wouldn't players that play system openings, or just go off of opening principles be more susceptible to these gambits?
There is a reason you dont see these openings at higher levels of play. Because they dont work at those levels. This is precisely the reason why I dont teach scholars mate and fools mate. I found that students fall in love with them, thinking they will work forever. I would rather they fall for them an then ask "why"? That is when the real learning begins.
The openings you mention are fine for the cheap/tricky win, and they work in speed chess. But in real OTB play? Again....there is a reason you dont see them played at higher levels.
The Stafford Gambit? Just throw it in the trash pile. Because that is where it belongs.
Its a good point, but knowing theory would let you punish players for playing gambits more often.
Jul 27, 2021
0
#11
Mpirani wrote:
IMBacon wrote:
Mpirani wrote:
IMBacon wrote:
Mpirani wrote:
IMBacon wrote:
For beginners? Opening Principles are all you need.
I completely agree, although personally for me, I've noticed a lot of gambits and traps are easy to fall into if you go off of opening principles. What's your opinion on that?
You would need to provide an example of what you are talking about. Its difficult to give an answer off of a statement like: " I've noticed a lot of gambits and traps are easy to fall into if you go off of opening principles."
For example, someone playing with the white pieces might find it tricky to deal with the fried liver attack without knowing at least some basic theory. I would assume similar for the Stafford gambit. While obviously there are clear counters to these I feel like sometimes the moves required are counterintuitive and need very good foresight to be able to do without knowing the theory. The kind of foresight that perhaps a beginner may not have.
An obvious response is to just not take the gambit, however some gambits such as the Vienna gambit and Halloween gambit can sometimes be difficult to keep a stable position (At least from my experience as pretty much a beginner)
That's why I've been pretty interested in theory openings because gambits seem to be played a lot at lower levels and slowly start to be played less and less when players become stronger.
Basically what I'm saying is (correct me if I'm wrong since I'm only a 800-900 player) Wouldn't players that play system openings, or just go off of opening principles be more susceptible to these gambits?
There is a reason you dont see these openings at higher levels of play. Because they dont work at those levels. This is precisely the reason why I dont teach scholars mate and fools mate. I found that students fall in love with them, thinking they will work forever. I would rather they fall for them an then ask "why"? That is when the real learning begins.
The openings you mention are fine for the cheap/tricky win, and they work in speed chess. But in real OTB play? Again....there is a reason you dont see them played at higher levels.
The Stafford Gambit? Just throw it in the trash pile. Because that is where it belongs.
Its a good point, but knowing theory would let you punish players for playing gambits more often.
I dont know what beginner started this insane idea that beginners need to learn and understand theory. That person should be strung up by their thumbs. No one at that level is going to "punish" someone for not following opening theory. Your games are decided by blunders and missed tactics. The opening serves one purpose. To get to a playable middle game. But...If you want to learn openings and theory? Then by all means go ahead.
I can only pass on what years of working with kids has taught me. The ones that concentrate on openings do not advance as fast as those that dont.
I know two White opening and two Black I will share this secret.
1.D4 and 1E4. And for Black 1...D5 and 1...E5
It works at all levels
Bah if you wanna learn some openings stick to some solid openings like the Italian game, french etc... you can slowly branch out and takes note etc... You don't really need openings at 900ish... but having a consistent opening eases up for improvement/fluidity etc...
Like I only know few bird and Italian moves (weak squares etc)... but I learned a bit more of Advanced french theory (just a few)... and I am doing just fine...
I recommend maintaining a online Note 12 Great Online Notebooks, I made a OneNote account but it does not have chess diagrams but you can easily create Chess.com blogs & Lichess Studies for chess diagrams and work hand in hand (They both have privatization options)...
I recommend Making a Lichess account as it is Complety free and no ads... comes with unlimited free puzzles, basics and practice series, Unlimited Stockfish 13 (soon to be 14), and more but ESPECIALLY the FREE OPENING EXPLORER (2 Million + master games) to learn and test free theory...
On your online note book aligned w/ blogs/studies you can note down missed tactics, blunder & errors... opening branching and mistakes... endgames etc...
Like I said I only know little theory and a bit more of advanced french theory but I am doing fine near rapid 1500...
Foolsmateinfinity wrote:
Bah if you wanna learn some openings stick to some solid openings like the Italian game, french etc... you can slowly branch out and takes note etc... You don't really need openings at 900ish... but having a consistent opening eases up for improvement/fluidity etc...
Like I only know few bird and Italian moves (weak squares etc)... but I learned a bit more of Advanced french theory (just a few)... and I am doing just fine...
I recommend maintaining a online Note 12 Great Online Notebooks, I made a OneNote account but it does not have chess diagrams but you can easily create Chess.com blogs & Lichess Studies for chess diagrams and work hand in hand (They both have privatization options)...
I recommend Making a Lichess account as it is Complety free and no ads... comes with unlimited free puzzles, basics and practice series, Unlimited Stockfish 13 (soon to be 14), and more but ESPECIALLY the FREE OPENING EXPLORER (2 Million + master games) to learn and test free theory...
On your online note book aligned w/ blogs/studies you can note down missed tactics, blunder & errors... opening branching and mistakes... endgames etc...
Like I said I only know little theory and a bit more of advanced french theory but I am doing fine near rapid 1500...
You talk a lot but play no games.
I play as high as 2200 (and I did lose) almost all (90%) of my games are above my rating I will play you or anyone but not blitz or bullet
@ericthatwho Bah landlubber I played 10 blitz games yesterday...
and weren't you the one who did not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster...
Bah lol you have never really beaten anyone above 1400... I just checked above 1400 and its all weird wins when you down like 4 or 7 pieces of material or 3 move wins lol...
And your daily rating is around a whooping 1000... come on ... landlubber
Your wins above 1000-1400 seem to be weird too... bunch of 2 and few move wins... ahem 35 accuracy games and some decent wins mixed with the bad apples lol
Jul 27, 2021
0
#19
Mpirani wrote:
Its a good point, but knowing theory would let you punish players for playing gambits more often.
I'm 2400+ and I'm only starting to actively study theory.
In my opinion, it's really not necessary to learn theory until one reaches an expert level.
Some would argue even higher.
Keep in mind, though, that this doesn't mean "Don't try to improve your opening play!" You should certainly try to learn what you can, from every game. And if you make mistakes in the opening, you'll want to figure out what they were, and what you could've played, instead.
But that's different from studying theory.
Theory is intensive, exhaustive, and above the level of understanding of most players ...
I can't beat that guy
I'd say something like Kings Indian or London System is setup based, while something like the Sicilian or Ruy Lopez is more theory based.
Which do you think is better for beginners, and even as far as intermediate players?