Why not to "waste" time studying openings, when GM's do it?

ajedrecito wrote:

Games between players rated under 2000 are almost always decided by tactics, and generally leave 'book' quite early. Yep. 

It doesn't make sense to prepare an opening 20 moves deep if your opponent only knows 4 moves of 'book.' That's me.

Knowing the ideas is more than sufficient in this case.

But if your rating is under 2000, you have serious tactical deficiencies to work out before this type of study will actually affect your results.

I have serious tactical deficiencies.

The game below demonstrates what Ajedrecito articulated.

Comments on a game played tonight over at Chess Cube

My knowledge of the Petroff is scant, but I love to play it because beginners are used to seeing Nc6 on move two, not Nf6! My opponent went off book, not real early, but did take it off the reservation with 7.g3 (?!). It looked odd, and upon review, I made a strong chess engine move in 7...Bg4 (!!). 

O.K. I get excited whenever my chess engines are happy with me. I hit engine moves all the way through 10...0-0-0 (!!). That is not at all typical. Maybe I went even further, but I don't want to spoil a nice evening.

I won a bit of material with a tactic or two, but then my board vision went wacky and I blundered it away when I checked the king with my knight, thinking I was going to win a pawn, and lost my knight. Typical beginner stuff.

Both of us messed up the endgame, it seems, with two rooks and a few pawns each, with my opponent blundering one of his rooks in the end. Pretty sure. I used a simple endgame checkmate pattern that I learned from Silman's endgame book to win the game.

So, tactics, checkmates and basic endgame techniques are what I need to keep working on, not opening theory.

I did manage to beat someone rated much higher than me, and it will be very cool when my rating at Chess.com hits the 1300's. The chess.com players must be better than the Chess Cube guys.

Time Control = 15 0

I am

I agree

 This is so not true, i've seen Ponomariov lose to Carlsen is 3vs3 with 1 rook each on one side of the board.  I don't think anyone has "mastered" chess.

The thing I think some players miss is that "studying opening theory" is relative to level.

If everytime I try to play against 1. e4 as black I end up totally passive because I don't know how to do anything but get into a bad version of the Steinitz defense because I'm trying to follow simple opening maxims without knowing any theory, then spending a few hours looking at responses to 1. e4 will help my game a ton.

This isn't about learning the opening out 20 moves. It's about having a robuts enough opening repertoire to get into playable middle games where the positional ideas of the structure are understood at a level appropriate for the player in question.

On the other hand, if you are good in strategy, then you would be able to prevent yourself from getting into the passive position, wouldn't you?

You would have to do that with any opening you play, then hope your opponent goes into the line.

When I have looked at my games, I noticed a very consistent thing: one side would be better in the opening. We play some moves. He blunders. I blunder. I blunder. I lose. It's not that nothing happened in the opening of interest, it's just that it doesn't seem like whatever was going on there would have changed the overall result, because I can blunder in any opening position -- good or bad, closed or open.

Games like this are why I think you're not being perfectly honest with yourself:

http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=47334615

Losing a piece up -- it happens, but this is definitely a tactical issue -- you want the percentage of games you win up a piece to be really high, because there is a lot of leeway to win those games.

Another game of yours lost due to Tactics:

http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=47097796

Missing tactics often gives your opponents a quick win.

First, I'm not saying I'm tactically perfect.

Second, I play turn based games here somewhat like one move blitz. I pull up my games and find a move and move on to the next game. No game I play here is anything other than mindless fun. If I've ever spent more than 2 minutes on a turn based move I'd be surprised. My OTB games are rarely lost due to simple tactics. It does happen, but it's not the normal reason for my losses. And trust me, I have a lot of losses.

Third, I am not saying I don't work on tactics, I spend quite a bit of time on chesstempo.com.

Fourth, you've missed my point repeatedly, I'm not talking about spending time learning lines. To me memorizing lines has nothing to do with knowing an opening. If I don't know why I'm putting a piece on a square, then I'm not learning anything I can use. At some point you have to make a move based on your own evaluation of the position.

I change my mind about this.  You can study openings or anything else any time you want.  Openings are a part of chess after all.  One great thing about modern times is that there's a lot of good books written specifically for class players.  That wasn't true 20-30 years ago.

I'm pretty sure you were. Of course, there's a big distinction between memorizing and trying to understand a variation.

But indeed, I am going as far to say that even if you're not memorizing a lot of moves, but instead trying to see the idea behind the moves, it's still often not worth taking too much time for something as specific as an opening variation.

Those kinds of mistakes in the games quoted are pretty basic errors (and by the way, the sole reason that 1900 was able to beat you was the tactical ideas you missed -- otherwise your position was fine for a long time -- once again, you can play 25 good moves and still lose the game in one or two critical moves), and these simple things are all it takes to lose the game. It seems that you are ignoring the games where you do blunder, insisting that they are the exceptions and only looking at the games where you don't blunder. It sounds like excuses to me. Now again, it's not always losing pieces that is the problem, but sometimes a tactical idea can force a slight positional concession too. You be the judge though -- I can't know your game nearly as well as you do -- I just wanted to help and provide a perspective that hopes that you're being honest with yourself.

I apologize if you feel my advice is pretentious. I've given it with no offensive intentions, but I'll stop pushing it now. Again -- I wish you luck!

In any event, it's hard to actually prove which way of learning is the best -- we would need a study for that! And since we don't, we're just guessing.

daw..., I think you should appreciate Elubas' comments. He even took time to look at some of your games, to point something out for you.

Maybe he did. Still, he did do an effort to help.

"I think Elubas was misreading something, as daw was definitely saying he doesn't think you should spend time memorizing variations but rather learning the reasons behind the moves."

Perhaps other people were misreading my post, because I was talking about opening study in general, whether it's ideas or memorization. They're both less than ideal . But ideas is better, and might be worth some study even at relatively low levels, but it should be of less priority than anything else, frankly.

Elubas I do appreciate that you took time to look at my games here, btw. But as I don't play chess seriously here, it's probably not the best place to look for evidence of how well or poorly I play.

And I do appreciate the importance of tactics.

This isn't a binary question. I already spend a considerable amount of my available study time on chesstempo.com doing tactics. I tend to focus on recognition, so I have a custom set of problems, two move tactics rated 0-1250, where I'm scoring a little under 95%.

I also play through full games, work on endgames, do problems, and analyze my own games, analyzing GM games, memorizing famous games, and looking at openings.

I would guess through all of that, I spend 75% of my time either doing analysis of my own or other's games and tactics. The remaining 25% or so is all the rest.

And I'll say this: I've  won games I would have otherwise lost because I took the time to learn something about an opening I got creamed in previously.

I got creamed repeatedly trying to play against the sicilian at my local club (we have running g/120 tournaments every week). I got trashed over and over again. I picked up two books on the opening ("Tactics In The Sicilian" by Nesis and "Mastering The Sicilian" by Kopec.). I played through all the games, read the commentary, focused on the ideas of the moves, and so on.

I'm still losing (heck, I'm rated 1300 and am playing against 1600+ typically) but I'm not losing in 15 moves anymore. And I've won one due to what I learned as well. (Oddly, one was not in the sicilian, but in a french where I used an idea I had seen in Nesis' book).

I didn't memorize variations, I don't know any "lines" in the opening. But I do understand why various moves are being made and can see where different ideas will or won't work, and I'm able to get into playable middle games and end-games where the computer says I'm at least close to even rather than "why are you still playing?"

Now, could I have improved more spending that time studying tactics? Maybe. But I also know that it's a lot more fun to play a game and feel like I'm being competative than it is to get crushed like a bug out of the gate. So I'll take enjoying the game over improving quicker.

"But as I don't play chess seriously here, it's probably not the best place to look for evidence of how well or poorly I play."

Daw, please don't misunderstand me -- I am not posting those games to embarrass you in any way!! I mainly posted them because they seemed to contradict what you were saying. I really am trying to help, and I'm saying that if you are still losing games to those kinds of things, you could probably use even more improvement in tactics.

I'm not going to say I don't believe you when you say you are not trying to play to your full capabilities in these online games; I do. You are probably good at tactics; you can see a lot of tricks. The problem is, you don't just need to be good at them -- you have to be outstanding at them. You need to see them in your sleep. You need to understand a knight fork so well that not only can you find one, but that you can find one with a second left on your clock; that you can sense one coming in the next five moves. Eventually, you can recognize simple patterns so well that even with little time on your clock you can avoid some tactical disasters!

"Now, could I have improved more spending that time studying tactics? Maybe. But I also know that it's a lot more fun to play a game and feel like I'm being competative than it is to get crushed like a bug out of the gate. So I'll take enjoying the game over improving quicker."

I really apologize -- I was not, in any way, trying to criticize your attitude towards improvement. If you want to just enjoy the game, that is absolutely fine -- I really wasn't trying to imply otherwise with my advice. I hope my honesty didn't appear too blunt -- I was trying to incorporate both respect and honesty, but sometimes it isn't always easy.

And you really do make some good points -- and as you said generalizations don't always apply to anyone as everyone has different styles and weak points. I guess I'm only stressing this in case you don't appreciate tactics enough. That was the same mistake I made -- I made an excuse for myself to learn more openings, because that's what I like to study, but found that, even though part of my play looked like the play of a titled player, I would commit a blunder that a total amateur would normally make. I'm not saying that's how it is for you -- I just wanted to warn you that this thing happened to me, and it stunted my growth just a tad.

Elubas,

I'm not embarrased by the games you linked (well, outside of the embarrassment any 1300 OTB player has at their own play :) ), nor do I take any offense at your comments. I do see you as trying to be helpful.

As I said, I do appreciate the importance of tactics. I am not in any way trying to suggest that tactics aren't increadibly important and probably the single biggest weakness in most people's games at the under-2000 level (including my own).

Nor am I trying to say I'm great at tactics, I'm not. But the tactics that beat me in OTB play aren't the simple tactical shots (anymore). I'm not falling victim to leathal pins or one or two move cheapo shots. I'm falling victim to weak color complexes, and lack of coordination between my pieces and the like. That doesn't make me great at tactics, but I do think I'm about right for my level, and improving.

I don't, as a general rule, just decide to randomly drop pieces off the board or hang my queen.

Now, you're right  that those losses happen because of more subtle tactics being used against me. And one of the reasons I do spend the majority of my study time on tactics is precisely because I still need to improve if I want to get up into that expert range at some point in my life.

But there's also the point that it's not the only weakness in my game. When I do find myself getting tactically pushed around it's usually not because I made one dumb move. Rather, it's because I just didn't understand the demands of the position in general and made a series of sub-optimal moves.

And that is where opening study does help -- it's not about learning memorized lines, but about learning the kind of middle game play that the positions that arise in that particular opening demand.

Let's face it, I'm not rated at under 1400 OTB because I'm a genius at this game. And I'm not going to say that I can see every weakness in my own game. But I do know some of them, and one of the reasons I do spend some time studying openings is precisely because that is a weakness of my game!

I don't expect that I'll know lines 20 moves deep. But I should be able to talk intelligently about general ideas in the sorts of things my opponent might do in the openings I play.

Opening preparation at lower levels is not necessary when it comes to deciding who wins, but it can bring more enjoyment to the game. 

I'm debating on whether to play 5...d3 or 5...d4 in the Italian opening. Why? The style of play is different, and I'm not sure yet which move will be more fun in my 15 0 games. Will either move decide the outcome of my games? Heavens no. It will still come down to a tactic.

I also study the Petroff because I like playing 2...Nf6 after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3.

Ajedrecito was kind to explain the differences to me between 5...d3 and 5...d4 in another topic of mine. It's very good.

Check out the Black win statistic in 5.d4. But also it's a concrete reason: After 5...exd4 6.cxd4 Bb4+, White has 7.Nc3?! which loses a pawn for minimal compensation although the lines can get very tricky, and 7.Bd2 which leads to a drawish endgame after 7...Nxe4 or occasionally to a boring middlegame after 7...Bxd2+ 8.Nbxd2 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Qb3?! (stronger is 10.O-O O-O 11.Rc1, but this sequence is very rare anyway, despite leading to a position where Black can hardly play for a win)

5.d3 leads to rich play similar to the Ruy Lopez. Black's ideas are well-explored here but White can hope for a small edge (the theory in the other line holds that Black is equal, but I doubt Black is equal in the 7...Bxd2+ line, though I know from experience that after 7...Nxe4 it can be very hard for White to generate winning chances)    -  Ajedrecito

1. Maybe going over the first five to ten moves in one's games is what many chess players do. It does help me to slowly get rid of these sub-optimal opening moves. Basically, don't keep repeating the same mistakes.

2. It's great that you are seeing in your OTB games the kind of middlegames that you have studied in your opening preparation. For me, no matter how many moves I might know in an opening line, my Live Chess games always go off book well before move ten, so I can't count on any specific kind of middlegame.

I'm sure it's because my Live Chess rating is low: Blitz = 968, Standard = 1088. At what Live Chess rating will I start to see book moves that go to ten or more on this site?

In Turn-based chess, people can use the Game Explorer here, so it's pretty common to see more book moves.

I've never really studied openings since I was a kid with a very general book containing ~20 openings with just a few variations on each.  If I ever become serious about chess then I maybe would, but I'm just not interested to take the time at the moment to be 100% honest.   I have an exceptional short term memory for passing exams or whatever, but my longer term memory for something like loads of chess openings or learning a new foreign language is not great.

Learning book openings by heart is very distinct from learning opening theory though.  I remember a fair amount of opening theory and key concepts like gaining control of the centre, pawn structures, developing pieces and I remember certain components of openings like fianchetto'd bishops or sacrificing a pawn to gain better control of squares, etc.

I think a knowledge of opening theory is very important for anyone playing regular chess and wanting to be even moderately good about it, but learning openings 20 moves deep is, as others have said, something you do much further down the line when the differences between winning and losing come down to smaller and smaller differences.  Once you are playing opponents who aren't going to give a whole piece or some pawns away at some point then, of course, the more subtle aspects of control of squares and positional advantage come in and they can certainly be rooted in the opening.

1. I go over my whole game -- particularly the losses.

2. Since I don't study particular lines, I can't say. Nor do I know at what level players start playing "book" moves deeper into the opening. I also don't know how live chess ratings on this site translate to OTB ratings. In my experience with USCF OTB play, players under 1200 tend to make opening moves that I, in my limited knowlege, recognize as being mistakes that I can use. Above that the play tends to be pretty "reasonable" into the opening, even if the computer later tells me we left book on move 5 or 6, the moves being played don't strike me as being something I can use as a clear mistake.

I am guilty of studying specific lines as questions arise from my games. I always have questions!

For some unknown reason, I see  f7-f6 fairly often in the opening, which I understand from opening principles to be a bad idea, making Black's king more vulnerable.

I viewed a few lines where Black plays f7-f6, and stumbled upon C40 Damiano's Defense. Here's an example of this defense in a recent game of mine where Black missed the best move after 6.Qxh8 with 6...Qxe4+, a book move.

Regardless of the few opening theory moves that I know in Damiano's Defense, the game was decided by tactics - a tactical threat that my opponent attempted that I caught, trying to win my rook with Nc2+,  and a final tactical blow that I delivered with Nc7+, winning his second rook.