Jurassic Pawn wrote on 03/12/09 at 01:45:37:


As many others have said, it has not much sense learning a 20 moves-array in a precise opening and it has no sense at all when you do not understand why those moves are plaid.

You should concentrate on three things:
- knowing the principles and possible plans of the opening you have chosen 
- knowing something about which types of tricks may appear in this opening (on either side). Example: I may give my pawn on c5/b5 away because then I can take his pawn on e4 and his knight cannot take it back because of Qa5 or Bxb2 (typical for the Pirc or the Benoni with black)
- if your opponent plays a surprising move, do not be afraid of taking some time to understand the reason of this move. Many moves you will never see in an opening book are not that silly (= are not so weak as you first could think and may be even strong). In general it is always good to take 10-20 minutes after having plaid the very first moves to start thinking about what you are to do further during the game (looking at your opponent's weak points, setting up a plan, looking for (cheap) tactics, identifying your own weak points). You will then have a good idea of what is possible and you will be less surprised by your opponent's moves. It may not work the first time you will try but after some bad experience(s), you will be able to do this at a very acceptable level.

So once again: do not be afraid of using a lot of time in the early stage of the game, you will (nearly) get it back some moves later and very often it will be your opponent who will have to solve unexpected (and maybe already unsolveable) problems.

I didn't say you should not play mainlines, I just said overtheoretical openings like the najdorf or semislav (by the semislav I mean the moscow gambit or botwinnik variation) will make it hard for you to score against stronger players.
Because I played an IM once in a tourney, I had black, he chose a sideline in the Bg5 najdorf variation, I played natural moves, made no real blunders, but my position just collapsed and I lost, and until today I do not really know why. I just should have played some moves in the opening differently, but the rybka moves do nowhere have a plus of more than 0.2 in comparison to my moves ...
And in the semi slav it is the same, do you still remember how Topalov won against Kramnik with the Nf7 sacrifice, or do you still remember the win by Carlsen against (I believe) Aronian where he sacrificed two pawns with white, a sacrifice that was dubious from a human point of view, but in the eyes of the computer it gave full compensation and struck by this novelty Aronian blundered and lost ... or have you seen the recent game from the eu-ch, e.g. sjugirov-van wely where sjugirov  just sacrificed his bishop on e6 in a najdorf and continued to win ... 

it's just not my cup of tea, and neither that of most amateurs I guess ...
And these stronger players normally do also know theory better than you, and they tend to know certain ideas that you don't know ... and if you don't know the theory in the najdorf you are basically lost ...
There are many other mainline openings that are not so theoretical,
other sicilian variations, e.g. kan/taimanov or the dragon,
of course there is also a lot of theory, but you can still play them without knowing too much theory, the positions are just more rational.


Zatara wrote on 03/14/09 at 04:02:39:

chess is like music or art, there are different styles of play,
and so there are openings that fit better to the style of the player.
You have to find out which openings these are,
this means TRIAL & ERROR => A LOT OF WORK.
But one thing I can tell you, if you want better results against stronger players, I wouldn't play supertheoretical openings like Najdorf, Semi-Slav. 
There are also many viable sidevariations, in 1.e4 for example the c3 sicilian instead of thep open, etc. ...

Jurassic Pawn wrote on 03/12/09 at 01:45:37:


In general novices should not pay very much attention to chess opening theory and  should not embark upon a program of learning some opening system in any depth.  The most important things are to play a great deal of chess, preferably against players that are strong enough to challenge you but but not strong enough to dominate you; to study a great many tactics exercises, indeed all that you can get your hands on; and to study up on basic chess opening, middlegame and ending principles.

However, it is fairly widely (but not universally) accepted that novices should try to play as much as possible into open positions where the emphasis is likely to be on piece play and tactics.  The Italian and the Scotch Four Knights would be good choices with White; 1...e5 versus 1.e4 as Black.  The Tarrasch is a good choice against all the closed systems.  However don't learn any more theory than you need to win your games.  Don't be disturbed by someone's playing a move not in your book; you just have to try to figure out what your best move is, which is what chess is all about anyway.  The most important thing to remember in open positions is to pound on the enemy as much as you can; don't just play developing moves but play developing moves that create definite threats.

Only when you've become a weak-to-middling club player would I advocate your paying any serious attention to openings variations.  If you must study an opening in any depth, start out with the Black side of the Two Knights.

I have moved my post from the other thread with the same title to this thread:

TN wrote on 03/11/09 at 04:16:32:

(Originally incorrectly posted in Chess Publishing General > Discussion)

I would like to pose an interesting question about general opening theory.  I am a fairly novice player in terms of the standards of many who contribute to this site.  I often try various openings but I am continually frustrated by 'unorthodox' replies.  Allow me to elaborate.

I don't try to learn long lists of moves, responses and variations.  I have several books on openings, but they all cover a broad range.  I don't have sufficient skill to spend my time absorbing a book dedicated to a particular opening e.g. "Everything you ever wanted to know about the Sicilian Defence Najdorf Poison Pawn Variation" et al.

My main problem is coping with responses to opening moves that simply don't appear in any book (when I look them up after a game).  This may be because many of these moves are inadvisable, just plain wrong or perhaps too 'ridiculous' to be covered in the written theory.  However, that's not much use to me when I end up losing.

I have studied much advice on general opening strategy and have posed a few questions to the site on particular problems I have faced.  I have received very knowledgable and helpful replies to these, often with links to further information.  However, the level of discussion then simply goes beyond my scope.  I don't the expertise to comprehend an opening variation 20 moves in when I'm have trouble after an unexpected response after 5 or 6 moves.  I'm sure that some other players must experience and appreciate this problem.

Is there an area on this site where some general opening discussion is given?  As I said, I do have books on the subject, but it would be of great benefit to me to seek more advice.  Furthermore, it would be great to have a subject area not devoted to specific openings, but more directed to questions such as - "I played this opening and this happened - where did I go wrong?", maybe inviting some general comment rather than a list of variations with little further explanation.

This isn't a gripe about the site or the way it's run and maintained - I think it is excellent.  I'm just exploring the possibility of finding a 'midway' means of presenting opening problems and receiving some useful advice.

If there is already an area on the site devoted to this and I've just missed it during my visits, then I do apologise, but please inform me how to proceed.

BTW, does anyone else concur with my plight and wish to obtain similar advice?

Many thanks in anticipation.