I think Aagaard's thoughts on studying an opening in Excelling at Chess are interesting.

He divides the work into basically into the 3 phases of the game. He creates a database of relevant games, recommending only games with players rated over 2350. Then first he will search for endgames and study those. Next he will work on the middlegame by playing through the 100-150 highest rated games. Every time he encounters a positional concept he adds it to a list of them for the opening. He will play through a group of games that contain the same concept to get a better grasp on it. Finally when all of that work is done he will start to work on theory.

Antillian wrote on 08/31/09 at 18:15:06:


Karlsbad. Probably the best pawn formation in the world.

LeeRoth wrote on 08/29/09 at 16:20:14:


I agree whole heartedly! This what I do when I put a new opening into practice in corr.

Sylvester wrote on 08/28/09 at 22:22:38:


I am no chess book writer nor an Expert of Master but your question raises an issue I have long thought of and am still mulling over. Having introduced my son to chess and "train" him up to Elo 1200 and at the same time have myself now reach Elo 1100, having also "imbibed" the lessons frequently iterated on this Forum, eg, by Markovich et al, on the importance of tactics, tactics tactics and endgame, having also looked at the late Ken Smith's article on improvement in chess, having also read lots of books on the teaching/training/coaching of chess including those by Chris Ward, Jesper Hall, Tim Harding, Matthew Sadler, Edmar Mednis, Chris Baker, Daniel King, et al,
when it comes to opening study, my proposition:

After a beginner has learned enough to play the game esp how to checkmate, I believe it is time for the player to learn an opening and as GM (cannot remember who) says, learn it well enough to get to the middlegame. I am not in favour of memorisation but when I say learn it, I mean the player must understand the ideas behind the opening enough to play through the first 10-15 moves (with the most common variations). Now, to tactics: if tactics is crucial, why is it we cannot combine tactics with opening by making available material on tactics arising from the opening of choice? Ie, if the Italian is chosen, then get the player to play through lots tactics which arise from the Italian.

My bugbear about the advice to concentrate of tactics, tactics etc is that chess knowledge has exploded exponentially. I think there is more to learn now than there was, say, 30 years ago. If so, why not be smart about it and prioritise learning of tactics or the type of tactics?

Now, I do understand there is an argument which says that a player should also play through tactics arising from other openings so as to broaden the chess knowledge. Yes, but why not couple this to opening study as above? That way, a player learns tactics as well as opening motifs and plans.

The same can be said for endgame as well. After all, Shereshevsky produced a two volume work on endgames based on the different openings and middlegames which arise.

Back to tactics arising from different openings, I suppose John Watson's point in Mastering the Chess Openings must be given due weight. This is his point on cross-pollination. However, surely that is for slightly more advanced players?

There are some old threads (which I found very useful) recommending learning openings via pawn structures. There was the series of books along these lines, usually beginning with "mastering ...". I had managed to get hold of one or two of these and for example, I found the one on the sicilian pawn structure useful when I had to understand the marocsy bind pawn structure (when playing 1 Nf3 and meeting 1...c5). However, I wish there were "workbooks" to supplement these where there are exercises with typical middlegame structures for the student to test him/herself. Learning the pawn structures is good but surely not enough......

In one of the regular blogs I read, ChessExpress (http://chessexpress.blogspot.com/2009/05/be-chess-hero.html), I came across this:

Quote:


Now I have not had the time to try it as yet, but I presume this is exactly what I need to complete my "chess traing" as outlined above?

Any comments? Anyone used "Chesshero"?

As said, I am still mulling things over so the above may come across as a bit of a muddle?

(PS: There was also a thread some time ago by (I presume) an ex-member along similar lines to what I said above.)

IMJohnCox wrote on 08/27/09 at 22:21:01:


Thanks IM Cox and JEH. I had a look at Silman's website last year, full of good stuff for novices but have forgotten about this. I guess the brain filters stuff as well at different stages in any process of learning new things.

The article is very good and clear and emphasises the hard work required to "master" an opening. I guess too many chessplayers (me included) fall into the trap of buying chess books and skim-reading it and then think we own the openings.

Sigh! At this rate, I won't make Master for another 10 years at the very least ......

I think we have to define our terms. Does 'specialise in openings' mean 'make opening study the main focus of their work on chess', or does it mean 'have certain openings which are their repertoire and which they play most of the time'? It seems to me that some posters are taking it with one meaning and others with the other. If the former, then it is obviously not true that all strong players do this; Jon Speelman, for example. If the latter then I guess most players play some openings more often than others, although there are players who are very unpredictable.

In any case the OP's plan sounds fine to me, as does the customary tactics-tactics-tactics (and endgames) advice. There used to be a really good article online somewhere by Randy Bauer about how to learn the Pirc. Annoyingly I can't find it now, but if someone cleverer than me can, that might inspire the OP.

POINT:  Comparisons are generally undertaken between/among things that are alike in some way(s).  In this case, the "way" in question is (well, aside from being carbon-based, belonging to the species Homo sapiens etc.) not having played in rated OTB tournaments.  Comparing people who have played in rated OTB tournaments with those who have not would be what is (in this case) referred to by the expression "comparing apples to oranges."  All clear, I hope.