|
No offence intended, Trevor, but your experiences look irrelevant to me. The reason can be found in TopNotch' post. Even on the highest level games are usually decided in the middlegame stage. Exactly there the difference between short and long time controls is the biggest. For blitz things like quick decision making, quick eye for simple tactics are decisive. At long time controls developing plans, accurate calculating and correct evaluations count.
So in blitz it does not really matter, which openings you play. For developing players it does at long time controls. For instance, I agree completely with Markovich, that such players should avoid playing the Pirc as Black. In fact I recommend a mixture of Markovich' and TopNotch' approach. It is very useful, almost mandatory to include the Open Games either as White or as Black or both. The rest can be thematical, eg playing with or against (or both) the isolated queen's pawn, heading for the minority attack or the variations mentioned by TopNotch.
Willempie actually is not contradicting my point. I enjoy this quote: "The pathetic spectacle of someone playing the first twenty-five moves like a grandmaster and the next ten like a gorilla is becoming quite common nowadays." Botterill in Open Gambits, 1985. Aspiring "deep understanding" of openings is futile below ELO 2000.
The relevance of studying openings on this low level (mine, actually) is another. In fact evaluations like +=, =, =+ and unclear have little meaning for me. +- and -+ do, of course. My goal in the opening is simply to get a reasonable, comfortable starting position for the ensuing middle game. So, in the time that I played the Danish Gambit and Morra Gambit, I also had to study the theory of the isolated centre pawn - because of 1.e4 e5 (c5) 2.d4 exd4 3.c3 d5. That is exactly the link TopNotch was writing about.
Of course this all will be fruitless, if the study of tactics is neglected. TopNotch is completely right about that. Again, such a study cannot stand on itself. After all, winning combinations usually occur in superior positions. To get these, one needs some understanding of positional play (yes, that even applies to most gambit openings). Such play is easier from a comfortable position after 10-12 moves. To get this one must know what variations to play.
In the meantime don't forget to study some basic endgames as well. It feels rotten, to play a good game, see and play a nice combination and then spoil your decisive advantage, because you don't know how to handle the resulting endgame.
With such an integrated approach one avoids jojo games like described by Trevor. One does not avoid overlooking mates in one though, an experience I seem to share with Willempie - of course almost always on the receiving side.
My solution to solve the "French problem" (it was a problem for me in the 80-s) was quite different. I did not buy a half dozen opening books; I studied typical middle game positions. The best sources then available were annotated games by strong players. Then I chose some variations - actually not the main lines - that enabled me to apply this new knowledge. Within a couple of months I began to enjoy meeting 1...e6.
A solution I never considered, but could have before spending time on these middle game positions, was just playing 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.c4. Once again, chosing this line only makes sense when combined with a study of the isolated centre pawn.
Trevor, I am amazed, that you knew when you left opening theory. I hardly ever do. Maybe it is because I have a bad memory. Studying openings just to get your opponents caught in a cheap trap is a waste of time. First of all it hardly happens, that I can set a trap from the books; when I can, my opponents usually do not fall for them.
All in all - and that is an answer to X as well - avoid learning long move sequences by heart by all means. It just does not make sense.
|
Pages: [1] 
What to do if you cant decide on an opening? (Read 12639 times)
