Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Do USCF masters specialize in openings? (Read 15025 times)
Antillian
God Member
*****
Offline


Brilliance without dazzle!

Posts: 1757
Joined: 01/05/03
Gender: Male
Re: Do USCF masters specialize in openings?
Reply #20 - 08/27/09 at 13:24:08
Post Tools
TN wrote on 08/27/09 at 07:38:34:
Then it may interest you that an unrated player is playing at IM level in the Malaysian Open at present, beating IMs and drawing with GMs.


Surely you are comparing apples to oranges here. By unrated here, don't you mean "having no FIDE rating"? You can be an active tournament player and never have a FIDE rating. Are you saying that this person never participated in local Malay tournaments?  Because this would be more akin to what Markovich is refering to. A player who has no USCF rating is likely to have not played in any serious OTB tournaments in the US.
  

"Breakthrough results come about by a series of good decisions, diligently executed and accumulated one on top of another." Jim Collins --- Good to Great
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Uruk
Senior Member
****
Offline



Posts: 351
Joined: 02/03/09
Re: Do USCF masters specialize in openings?
Reply #19 - 08/27/09 at 12:44:22
Post Tools
TN wrote on 08/27/09 at 07:38:34:

Obviously whether master means achieving a rating of 2200 or achieving a rating of 2300 in your definition influences the discussion somewhat. For me, it means achieving a rating of 2300+.


Afaik Americans set it at 2200 and Russians at 2400 (calling 2200+ Candidate Master).
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Aziridine
Full Member
***
Offline



Posts: 146
Joined: 04/07/09
Re: Do USCF masters specialize in openings?
Reply #18 - 08/27/09 at 07:47:14
Post Tools
As a kid my first published rating was 1905. Then for a few years it gradually dropped, bottoming out at 1765. But a year later I was back over 1900 and haven't looked back since.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TN
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 3420
Joined: 11/07/08
Gender: Male
Re: Do USCF masters specialize in openings?
Reply #17 - 08/27/09 at 07:38:34
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 08/26/09 at 20:47:12:
"Universal and Deep" is a mere ideal, or at any rate, is very rarely done.  Broad and deep is about the best that anyone goes, and those guys are mostly at the very top. I both agree and disagree with you here. I agree that it is very rare for a player to specialise in every single major opening, and with good reason. However, there are players that can play any major opening successfully, such as Carlsen and Korchnoi.

Also at any level, there is such a thing as Too Deep.  You can spend your life analyzing stuff that you're never going to see at the board.  But the Too Deep marker moves deeper, the stronger you become. Agreed, with the exception of 2700+ level, where the deeper your preparation, the greater advantage one has over the board. There the opening is the most important phase of the game because the level of play in the middlegame and endgame is extremely high.

Also frankly, I doubt that anyone who's never played rated could sit down and play anything close to Class A chess. Then it may interest you that an unrated player is playing at IM level in the Malaysian Open at present, beating IMs and drawing with GMs.

@Smyslov_Fan: I will maintain my view that any reasonably intelligent person can become a master.  Maybe I might qualify that by saying that it does presuppose that you have the fighting qualities that a chess player needs to have, and thinking about it, that does limit the range of possible applicants. Any intelligent person has the potential/capability to become a master, even if they lack chess talent, but the reason the vast majority of people do not achieve this title is because they either lack the diligence to work, motivation or opportunity. The age at which one learns to play chess also has a major influence on the rate of one's improvement. Obviously whether master means achieving a rating of 2200 or achieving a rating of 2300 in your definition influences the discussion somewhat. For me, it means achieving a rating of 2300+.


  

All our dreams come true if we have the courage to pursue them.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
trw
YaBB Moderator
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1414
Joined: 05/06/08
Gender: Male
Re: Do USCF masters specialize in openings?
Reply #16 - 08/27/09 at 04:39:13
Post Tools
yes I know three that did.  Two as low 1800s and one as high 1900.

In fact, a guy at our club now (who also has no repertoire) I'm not sure what his rating would be if he played uscf but I would bet my life savings it wouldn't be a single point below 1900 but possibly as high as 2100 if he started play uscf rated events.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
dfan
God Member
*****
Offline


"When you see a bad move,
look for a better one"

Posts: 766
Location: Boston
Joined: 10/04/05
Re: Do USCF masters specialize in openings?
Reply #15 - 08/27/09 at 01:25:03
Post Tools
kylemeister wrote on 08/26/09 at 23:51:45:
trw wrote on 08/26/09 at 23:09:58:
I agree with everything Markovich said except for unrated not being able to start out Class A. I known several players that started out class A after their first tournament.

Really, several?  And were they still class A after several tournaments/when they got a permanent (non-provisional) rating?

I was, although admittedly quite low class A: http://main.uschess.org/assets/msa_joomla/MbrDtlMain.php?12603571.  Click on the tabs to see more info.

I misremembered slightly: I was 1748 after one tournament, but 1876 after two, and my first non-provisional rating was above 1800.

(I'm just providing data, not bragging! I'm sure my rating is below average for this forum, and I'm embarrassed that I haven't made any progress since then.)

Here are two other people from my chess club.  It's possible the second one played in tournaments overseas before USCF ones.

http://main.uschess.org/assets/msa_joomla/MbrDtlMain.php?12842960
http://main.uschess.org/assets/msa_joomla/MbrDtlMain.php?13426034
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4989
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: Do USCF masters specialize in openings?
Reply #14 - 08/26/09 at 23:51:45
Post Tools
trw wrote on 08/26/09 at 23:09:58:
I agree with everything Markovich said except for unrated not being able to start out Class A. I known several players that started out class A after their first tournament.

Also, I should point a similar thread in which a master admits to not having a repertoire. http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1247611863/11#11


Really, several?  And were they still class A after several tournaments/when they got a permanent (non-provisional) rating? 

Also, having a somewhat incomplete/not very firm repertoire isn't quite the same as "not having a repertoire."
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
trw
YaBB Moderator
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1414
Joined: 05/06/08
Gender: Male
Re: Do USCF masters specialize in openings?
Reply #13 - 08/26/09 at 23:09:58
Post Tools
I agree with everything Markovich said except for unrated not being able to start out Class A. I known several players that started out class A after their first tournament.

Also, I should point a similar thread in which a master admits to not having a repertoire. http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1247611863/11#11
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
dfan
God Member
*****
Offline


"When you see a bad move,
look for a better one"

Posts: 766
Location: Boston
Joined: 10/04/05
Re: Do USCF masters specialize in openings?
Reply #12 - 08/26/09 at 21:55:47
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 08/26/09 at 20:47:12:
Also frankly, I doubt that anyone who's never played rated could sit down and play anything close to Class A chess.

I started out as Class A (and have not improved since then!), but I studied a ton beforehand, and in general I learn very well from reading.  I would not recommend this technique in general, though, and I certainly agree that most people who haven't played tournament chess but assume they're Class A are being pretty optimistic.  (I was actually just expecting Class C when I started Smiley.)
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Markovich
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 6099
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Joined: 09/17/04
Re: Do USCF masters specialize in openings?
Reply #11 - 08/26/09 at 20:47:12
Post Tools
"Universal and Deep" is a mere ideal, or at any rate, is very rarely done.  Broad and deep is about the best that anyone goes, and those guys are mostly at the very top.

Also at any level, there is such a thing as Too Deep.  You can spend your life analyzing stuff that you're never going to see at the board.  But the Too Deep marker moves deeper, the stronger you become.

Also frankly, I doubt that anyone who's never played rated could sit down and play anything close to Class A chess.

@Smyslov_Fan: I will maintain my view that any reasonably intelligent person can become a master.  Maybe I might qualify that by saying that it does presuppose that you have the fighting qualities that a chess player needs to have, and thinking about it, that does limit the range of possible applicants.
  

The Great Oz has spoken!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
chk
God Member
*****
Offline


a pawn is a pawn

Posts: 1063
Location: Athens
Joined: 10/26/06
Gender: Male
Re: Do USCF masters specialize in openings?
Reply #10 - 08/26/09 at 10:42:30
Post Tools
I'd suggest if you decide to do some opening preparation after all, to start with your White repertoire. Your seem to feel OK with your current Black repertoire so "if it ain't broken don't fix it". But if you want to improve, better choose a White repertoire that is quite different in nature - 1. e4 is my recommendation - and would expose you to many different positions.

No need to do to much work - focus mostly on understanding the ideas and learning the basic set-ups (no memorisation of variations for the time being). In this way you can start employing this repertoire quite quickly and your middlegame skills will also improve (esp. regarding positional play). I agree with other posters that study time spent on the middlegame & endgame tends to bring more benefits than studying the openings; but cannot answer your question re if you specifically need openings specialisation to become a master.

And following ΤΝ's classification:
My repertoire has been always "Narrow & Deep". I believe that in lower levels understanding your opening plays a greater role than the surprise factor. It has also to do that I don't get bored easily and have faith in my opening choices. What also helps in keeping your enthusiasm for an opening and avoid boredom or cleistophobia is the choice of versatile (usually main line) openings.  Cool
  

"I play honestly and I play to win. If I lose, I take my medicine." - Bobby
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
TN
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 3420
Joined: 11/07/08
Gender: Male
Re: Do USCF masters specialize in openings?
Reply #9 - 08/26/09 at 08:11:18
Post Tools
In this post I will answer the original question, 'do USCF masters specialize in openings'. 

Firstly, I recommend you read this book:  http://www.chessville.com/reviews/Build_Your_Chess_Opening_Repertoire.htm

The short answer is that yes, nearly all USCF masters (ie anyone rated over 2200) specialize in openings. However, the extent and nature of this specialisation varies considerably.

Here are some varying levels and types of specialisation that masters exhibit:

Narrow and Deep

This is what I would recommend to the majority of players aspiring to become a Master. With this repertoire, one plays only one first move as White and one (mainstream) defence to each of White's main first moves. For example, playing 1.e4 (Open Sicilian, Italian Game, Tarrasch French, Advance Caro-Kann) as White and playing the Scheviningen, Grunfeld and Symmetrical English as Black. 

Although a 'narrow and deep' repertoire is easy for your opponents to prepare against, often your greater experience and understanding (this is the main advantage of specialization) will enable you to outplay the opponent in the middlegame, especially if they play a variation that is not one of the main variations in their opening repertoire. This disadvantage can be negated by specialising in several variations within your opening, e.g. playing both 6...h6 and 6...Nc6 against the Keres Attack. 

Narrow and Shallow

This is similar to 'Narrow and Deep', but with the difference that instead of specialising in mainstream openings, one specialises in less common openings with an inferior reputation. For example, playing 1.c4, 2.g3 exclusively as White and playing the Scandinavian, Budapest Gambit and 1.c4/1.Nf3 Nc6 as Black. The main advantage is that your opponent will usually be less familiar with the theory, making it easier for you to outplay the opponent. 

However, the disadvantage (which for most masters outweighs this advantage) is that your opponents can prepare more specifically for these variations as they contain less theory, and as the surprise effect wears off, you are more and more likely to face a well-prepared opponent. In these instances, relying on your specialised knowledge and understanding may be insufficient as your opponent will be able to focus on this as well in their preparation, to a greater extent than if they were preparing for the Najdorf.

Somewhat Versatile and Deep

This type of repertoire is my recommendation for the majority of players in the 2000-2400 range. It involves playing two first moves as White, with one being your main weapon, and another a sideline that one uses as a surprise weapon as a back-up. For example, usually playing 1.e4 but also playing 1.Nf3 as a backup, with the KIA (both via. 1.e4 and 1.Nf3) as a surprise weapon, and usually playing the Dragon/KID/Symmetrical English, but also playing the Modern, Chigorin and Reversed Sicilian as back-up openings. 

This contains the advantages of combining specialisation with flexibility. The only two disadvantages of this are that there is more theory that one must learn and, especially at club level and below, there is a danger that playing a range of openings could lead to superficiality in understanding and therefore prevent a player from specialising in the middlegames arising from the opening. However, at higher levels this can be solved quite easily through hard work and playing plenty of tournaments.

Universal and Shallow

This repertoire type can either work very well or backfire badly. It involves playing a wide range of openings with both colours, usually (but not always) openings which are not the most fashionable at present. For example, playing 1.e4, 1.d4 and 1.c4 as White (with a range of options within, e.g. playing both 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 and 2.Nf3/3.Bg5), and playing the Winawer French, Classical Sicilian, Berlin Wall and Pirc against 1.e4. 

Often this style involves playing to exploit your opponent's weaknesses, being willing to deviate slightly to force your opponent into variations they are uncomfortable facing. The risk is that the opponent may achieve a middlegame position they are more comfortable with and which you are unfamiliar with. This style works best for players who have time to prepare for their opponents and are adept in relatively uncharted territory, although I wouldn't recommend it until you are at least 2300. 

Universal and Deep

This repertoire type is the most flexible of all possible styles, but also requires the most work. It involves playing every single major chess opening, but with knowing the theory of each opening in enough depth to play them at a high level. For example, meeting 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 with 2...g6, 2...e6, 2...c5, 2...d6 and 2...e5. 

It is nearly impossible for a player to prepare for such a repertoire, but obviously it requires a huge amount of work and for the vast majority of players it is far better to focus on far more important aspects of chess. 

At the moment, my repertoire as White and Black is a combination of 'universal and shallow' and 'universal and deep'. 

Spend most of your time doing tactics and calculation (this includes analysing games).
  

All our dreams come true if we have the courage to pursue them.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
JEH
God Member
*****
Offline


"Football is like Chess,
only without the dice."

Posts: 1456
Location: Reading
Joined: 09/22/05
Gender: Male
Re: Do USCF masters specialize in openings?
Reply #8 - 08/26/09 at 06:14:23
Post Tools
Players have reached Grandmaster level specialising in the repertoire you posted. 

If you ask formative years repertoire suggestions on this forum, you tend to get 1. ...e5 shoved down your thoat, but of course it is a very correct answer.
  

Those who want to go by my perverse footsteps play such pawn structure with fuzzy atypical still strategic orientations

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right, stuck in the middlegame with you
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
GeneM
Senior Member
****
Offline


Tournament winner gets
two fun filled knights!

Posts: 303
Location: near Seattle WA USA
Joined: 01/12/08
Re: Do USCF masters specialize in openings?
Reply #7 - 08/26/09 at 05:02:36
Post Tools
.
Thomas wrote on 08/25/09 at 22:35:01:
I do not know exactly what my current strength is since I do not play USCF tournaments, but I would estimate that it is somewhere in the Class A range.


.
kylemeister wrote on 08/25/09 at 23:55:16:
Given what you said regarding your chessplaying history, I'd be pretty impressed/surprised if you are actually Class A strength.


You can obtain an objective measure of your chess strength by playing against Fritz with Fritz set to play at a fixed level; menus....

File > New > Long Game , then....
Game > Levels > Fixed Depth


Set Fritz11 to a fixed depth=7, and play against it under strict touch rules.  Fritz will usually reply with 3-4 seconds, but you can take minutes per move.  If you win, increase the depth by one; but decrease it by one if you lose.  Play a few games to tune in to your level.
Ego Caution: your true touch-rule level may not be as high as you would like to guess.

At depth=7 there are not going to be given any shot opportunities of the kind the F.Reinfeld 1001 puzzle book has you focusing on.

.

  

GeneM , CastleLong.com , FRC-chess960
Back to top
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Smyslov_Fan
God Member
Correspondence fan
*****
Offline


Progress depends on the
unreasonable man. ~GBS

Posts: 6902
Joined: 06/15/05
Re: Do USCF masters specialize in openings?
Reply #6 - 08/26/09 at 04:40:34
Post Tools
Markovich wrote on 08/26/09 at 01:53:42:

... I am fairly sure that any reasonably intelligent person who gives enough to the game can become [a chess master].  

But what openings you play will have little or nothing to do with this.  You must first of all play chess!  Openings theory is like icing; it's very nice, but not fundamental.

But you must play at some sort of chess club, and also in as many USCF tournaments as you can find the time for!  Experience is the best teacher in chess, as in everything else.  You must play, play, play against the best opposition you can find.  Chess is a social game, so find other players and hang around with them, but above all, play against them.  Chess ability isn't something that just grows, like tomatoes in a garden.  You learn it from other people.

Do me a favor, honestly, and forget openings study.  Just learn basic openings principles[.] ... [F]irst of all, play chess.

I doubt there is no chess club in your area.  But in truth, if that is the case and you really do want to make Master, you'll have to move!  That may sound crazy, but I think it's true.



Ok, I usually agree with Markovich, but I find much of what he says here to disagree with.

First:  I do not agree that any "reasonably intelligent" person can become a master.  I know that Emmanuel Laske said almost the exact same thing, but he was wrong too.  Just because Markovich has made master does not mean that everyone can.  It takes time (about 10,000 hours), ability and a predisposition to playing tournament chess.  *If* you have all three, then perhaps you can become a master.  

Here's the neat thing about Markovich's and Lasker's statement:  it seems to be self-deprecating to say that anyone can reach the level that I (or someone else) has made.  But in truth, when a player does not succeed (and more than 97% of all tournament chess players do not succeed), then either the will or intelligence of the player is to blame.  This just is not so.  There are many brilliant people out there who never rise above 1800 in chess despite spending countless hours playing. 

Ok, the second point, on openings:

I have gone through in my head every master in my state. (There  are more professional baseball players in my state than there are chess masters.~ see my first point)  Every single chess master that I can think of is known for playing certain openings.  

Markovich is right in suggesting that it (almost) does not matter which opening you choose.  You should learn something that is sharp enough to cut down your opponents as Black and as White.  There is one master who has made a point of playing every single legal move at least once in a serious game.  However, even he has a limited range that is relatively easy to predict when he faces players who are close to his own strength.

Please note, I agree with Markovich that beginners should not waste time learning specific openings. 

Markovich says,  "Opening theory is like icing" That is, it's nice but not fundamental.

I disagree here too.  Opening theory has been developing along with chess since the 19th Century.  It is an integral part of the game, and the denizens of an esoteric site such as this attest to how popular it is.  Each master should have some sense of his own opening theory.  How a master develops it is often unique to the player.  

Markovich's statement is a common mis-representation of how masters become masters.  In order to become a strong chess player, you should learn how to think for yourself.  To do this, you should play first and research later.  But you will need to research your games to improve.  This means studying the opening, middlegame, endgame and transitional moments too.

You should do as Markovich does, and not as he says.  He obviously studies the openings closely.  You should too.  I give this advice presuming you really are 1800 strength already.  His advice about the opening is generally good advice for novices who often know more chess openings than pawn endings.  

Markovich is right, chess is a social activity. However, if there is no chess club in your area, do not despair!  There are quite a few players who have been able to use ICC to gain the experience Markovich and I value!  ICC can be a wonderful surrogate for the chess clubs that Markovich and I inhabited in the pre-internet days.  

I do not know if you have what it takes to become a master.  It would be great if you do make it.  But if you don't, I hope you realise that even "reasonably intelligent" people who devote time and energy to the game may not make master.  I hope that you enjoy the process!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo