Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

Is opening study really pointless below 2000 ?

@tpr said in #17:

... Most study openings. Most do not progress.

"... The level at which one plays is governed by a number of vague and poorly understood factors. ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)
"It is important for club players to build up a suitable opening repertoire." - GM Artur Yusupov (2010)

@tpr said in #17: > ... Most study openings. Most do not progress. "... The level at which one plays is governed by a number of vague and poorly understood factors. ..." - GM John Nunn (2006) "It is important for club players to build up a suitable opening repertoire." - GM Artur Yusupov (2010)

@tpr said ^

"Do what you want, at any rating, find your own way..."

  • Progress, or do not progress. Most study openings. Most do not progress.

Most people would not progress no matter they do. Not chess specific thing but in general. Progressing quantum mechanics or chess f.ex takes effort and concentration beyond what most people are willing to put in.

but why openings. Because superficial study of them is easy and gives a false sense on progress. But chess is entertainment activity and if that makes people happy...

@tpr said [^](/forum/redirect/post/k1lOktxf) > "Do what you want, at any rating, find your own way..." > * Progress, or do not progress. Most study openings. Most do not progress. Most people would not progress no matter they do. Not chess specific thing but in general. Progressing quantum mechanics or chess f.ex takes effort and concentration beyond what most people are willing to put in. but why openings. Because superficial study of them is easy and gives a false sense on progress. But chess is entertainment activity and if that makes people happy...

"Progressing ... chess f.ex takes effort and concentration beyond what most people are willing to put in."

  • Yes, progress takes effort.

"openings. Because superficial study of them is easy and gives a false sense on progress."

  • Yes, they study openings, because they think it leads to progress, but it does not.
"Progressing ... chess f.ex takes effort and concentration beyond what most people are willing to put in." * Yes, progress takes effort. "openings. Because superficial study of them is easy and gives a false sense on progress." * Yes, they study openings, because they think it leads to progress, but it does not.

And how do you know for sure it does not?

And how do you know for sure it does not?

"how do you know"

  • Experience.
"how do you know" * Experience.

Actually if anything problem is resources available at each stage. For example if you look at books at https://chess.co.uk/ and count books you get the following:

640 Books in openings collection (62.6%)
206 Books in middlegame collection (20.2%)
176 Books in endgame collection (17.2%)

So if you work on assumption that a new player will pick up a random book then 62.6% of books they'll read will be opening books. In reality it shouldn't be more than 10-15% if they want to improve. This also gives the false impression that openings are a lot more important than they are as they'll be flooded with opening resources.

If you assume that most chess improvement is driven by middlegame expertise and that excessive studying of opening means you only spend 1/4 of recommended time on middlegame then your chess improvement will be around 4x slower. That's fundamental problem with spending too much time studying openings. It's not awful per se to study openings but it's inefficient especially if you neglect more important aspects.

Actually if anything problem is resources available at each stage. For example if you look at books at https://chess.co.uk/ and count books you get the following: 640 Books in openings collection (62.6%) 206 Books in middlegame collection (20.2%) 176 Books in endgame collection (17.2%) So if you work on assumption that a new player will pick up a random book then 62.6% of books they'll read will be opening books. In reality it shouldn't be more than 10-15% if they want to improve. This also gives the false impression that openings are a lot more important than they are as they'll be flooded with opening resources. If you assume that most chess improvement is driven by middlegame expertise and that excessive studying of opening means you only spend 1/4 of recommended time on middlegame then your chess improvement will be around 4x slower. That's fundamental problem with spending too much time studying openings. It's not awful per se to study openings but it's inefficient especially if you neglect more important aspects.

@KMcGeoch

Indeed, it is not as important to study the openings as it is to study the other stages. However, my argument is that it is not "pointless" (see thread title).

@KMcGeoch Indeed, it is not as important to study the openings as it is to study the other stages. However, my argument is that it is not "pointless" (see thread title).

"resources available at each stage"

  • Available resources follow supply and demand. As many want opening books and hope to overrun opponents by memorized variations, there is high supply of books.

"a new player will pick up a random book"

  • He will not, he will pick an opening book, preferably one on gambits or traps.

"it shouldn't be more than 10-15%

  • 0% ven better: 10-15% faster progress.

"most chess improvement is driven by middlegame"

  • And endgame.

"your chess improvement will be around 4x slower"

  • Much slower, as you can easily devote 100% of time on openings for 0 progress.

"It's not awful per se to study openings"

  • It is awful: you cannot substitute thinking with memorized knowledge.
"resources available at each stage" * Available resources follow supply and demand. As many want opening books and hope to overrun opponents by memorized variations, there is high supply of books. "a new player will pick up a random book" * He will not, he will pick an opening book, preferably one on gambits or traps. "it shouldn't be more than 10-15% * 0% ven better: 10-15% faster progress. "most chess improvement is driven by middlegame" * And endgame. "your chess improvement will be around 4x slower" * Much slower, as you can easily devote 100% of time on openings for 0 progress. "It's not awful per se to study openings" * It is awful: you cannot substitute thinking with memorized knowledge.

@tpr said in #23:

... Yes, they study openings, because they think it leads to progress, but it does not.

"... The game might be divided into three parts, i.e.:- 1. The opening. 2. The middle-game. 3. The end-game. There is one thing you must strive for, to be equally efficient in the three parts. Whether you are a strong or a weak player, you should try to be of equal strength in the three parts. ..." - from Capablanca's book, My Chess Career
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/for-beginners/tips-for-beginners-3

@IamNOTamod said in #24:

And how do you know for sure it does not?

@tpr said in #25:

... Experience.

Perhaps, Capablanca had some experience, too.

@KMcGeoch said in #26:

... It's not awful per se to study openings but it's inefficient especially if you neglect more important aspects.

@tpr said in #28:

... It is awful: you cannot substitute thinking with memorized knowledge.

"... I feel that the main reasons to buy an opening book are to give a good overview of the opening, and to explain general plans and ideas. ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)

@tpr said in #23: > ... Yes, they study openings, because they think it leads to progress, but it does not. "... The game might be divided into three parts, i.e.:- 1. The opening. 2. The middle-game. 3. The end-game. There is one thing you must strive for, to be equally efficient in the three parts. Whether you are a strong or a weak player, you should try to be of equal strength in the three parts. ..." - from Capablanca's book, My Chess Career https://www.chess.com/forum/view/for-beginners/tips-for-beginners-3 @IamNOTamod said in #24: > And how do you know for sure it does not? @tpr said in #25: > ... Experience. Perhaps, Capablanca had some experience, too. @KMcGeoch said in #26: > ... It's not awful per se to study openings but it's inefficient especially if you neglect more important aspects. @tpr said in #28: > ... It is awful: you cannot substitute thinking with memorized knowledge. "... I feel that the main reasons to buy an opening book are to give a good overview of the opening, and to explain general plans and ideas. ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)

@IamNOTamod said ^

At any rate, I have found my progress to be sufficient for my standards, even though I studied and continue to study openings.

@tpr said ^

  • Yes, they study openings, because they think it leads to progress, but is does not.

IMHO the question is not whether you study openings, ignoring openings completely is not a good idea either. It's rather what else you study and how much time you spend on openings compared to the rest. The problem is that for many people, openings are almost the only thing they do or too big part of it. (And often also that "studying openings" is just a nice name for memorizing tricky lines.)

In the end, one should always analyze his/her games to see where he/she has the biggest problem. Are you losing most games due to missed tactics? Focus on puzzles and visualisation. Do you feel clueless in middlegame when there are no direct threats or tactical opportunities? Focus on strategy. Do you get into promising endgames but keep messing them up? Look into endgames. Are you constantly getting worse out of the opening and failing to catch up after that? Focus on openings, preferrably those you have most problems with.

@IamNOTamod said [^](/forum/redirect/post/NBX2o617) > At any rate, I have found my progress to be sufficient for my standards, even though I studied and continue to study openings. @tpr said [^](/forum/redirect/post/hC42Yo3X) > * Yes, they study openings, because they think it leads to progress, but is does not. IMHO the question is not whether you study openings, ignoring openings completely is not a good idea either. It's rather what else you study and how much time you spend on openings compared to the rest. The problem is that for many people, openings are almost the only thing they do or too big part of it. (And often also that "studying openings" is just a nice name for memorizing tricky lines.) In the end, one should always analyze his/her games to see where he/she has the biggest problem. Are you losing most games due to missed tactics? Focus on puzzles and visualisation. Do you feel clueless in middlegame when there are no direct threats or tactical opportunities? Focus on strategy. Do you get into promising endgames but keep messing them up? Look into endgames. Are you constantly getting worse out of the opening and failing to catch up after that? Focus on openings, preferrably those you have most problems with.