It's the opposite actually. A heavy theoretical opening is usually forcing and there is only a few possible moves to keep the balance each turn so the line can be studied very in depth to a definite conclusion. It means you have to know the right moves beforehand otherwise you may lose without playing (eg : the whole Grünfeld, some Sicilians lines, the Semi-Slav, the main lines of the French...)
What does it mean when someone says an opening is very theoretical?
Sort:
add the ruy lopez, nimzo, and kings indian to that list.
llama45 wrote:
Sure, but the Spanish and Nimzo you can understand a lot just by knowing the structures, and mistakes aren't lethal. In contrast something like the king's gambit you need to know the theory.
Yes that is true. But if you are the black side of the Berlin and you do not know what you are doing, you are toast.
Very theoretical = very forcing = very easy to lose tactically if you don't memorise the moves in the right order.
An example: Sicilian Najdorf.
Less theoretical openings are far more flexible and allow you more freedom. You're not going to instantly lose the game if you make 1 inaccuracy.
An example: Queen's Gambit Declined.
I understand that means it's very well studied and has a lot of depth to it but doesn't that mean the opening is also extremely flexible and there are many playable moves during the opening/middlegame?
If the opening is so flexible paradoxically couldn't someone know less theory and still play that opening just using their intuition and skill?