NeverGiveUp wrote on 08/31/11 at 10:39:45:
People spend too much time studying openings. I am no exception.
Which people?
Quote:This forum shows this clearly with loads of groups on all different types of openings, one on general chess, and one on endgames.
ChessPub.com: Discussion forum for ChessPublishing.com, the opening theory site. A pretty good forum too.
Quote:The endgame is obviously neglected by lots of players with explanations like "I don't get endgames". Basically this is nonsense.
The endgame may be neglected, but I find that the more you know about endgames, the more likely you are to say 'I don't know' when you are given an endgame position that isn't a book draw or win! Someone who says they 'don't get endgames' is surely better off than someone who has not tried to understand endgames at all.
Quote:People who think this should study their own games: a lot are decided in the endgame, and good knowledge and skills can make a half point or even a whole point difference here.
Yes, a lot of games are decided in the endgame, but this is due primarily to errors in calculation rather than a lack of theoretical knowledge. Also, with modern time controls, both players are often short of time by the time the endgame arises, making it much more difficult to recall specific theoretical knowledge. Then again, all of this depends on the level of the players: if you look at games between <1000 players, the vast majority of games will be decided in the opening and middlegame because the 'endgames' will rarely have equal material.
Quote:And then there's the middle game.
Take tactics to start with. Most chess games are decided by tactics. It is not too difficult to get better at tactics by putting some serious work into this. You might be able to finish off your opponent when you're better, and you might avoid losing by a blunder / tactical oversight. A related topic is calculating variations.
I am now putting a lot of work into trying to improve my tactics because I know it's a weakness of me and it costs me points.
This advice is hardly original, but I agree with it. Once you get past the 'whoever puts the least pieces en prise and doesn't get mated wins' phase, tactics will play a decisive role in many of your games.
Quote:Being or becoming good at strategy (postional play) is obviously essential as well.
I'd say the two essential differences between a GM and an amateur are (a) GMs are better at calculating variations; (b) GMs are better at the endgame.
The three differences between GMs and non-GMs are that a) GM's usually calculate more accurately and quickly than non-GMs b) GMs usually understand the position better than non-GMs c) GMs have put more work in than equally talented non-GMs.
Quote:It's hard work to become better at this lot though, and if you read lots of books the results (the gain) may not be obvious.
That's because one usually learns better by learning actively (analysing the position themselves, playing practice games, analysing with a coach/trainer) than passively (reading from a book, copying computer variations). However you need to do some passive learning before you can fully benefit from the active learning, at least in the opening phase.
Quote:You may feel you've spend a real lot of time, gained nothing and made no progress. The reason people focus on openings is the quick gain - you can throw your opening novely straight at your opponent if you're so lucky they allow it. But it's hard work and difficult to become a better player rather than one who knows lots of opening tricks.
What level of player are you referring to? Below 2400 you are not going to get your novelty on the board unless it is arises very early, and in that case it is quite likely that your novelty is not very good. In the end what determines your level of improvement from opening study are how effectively/efficiently you study and what rating you are.
Calling someone who studies openings a lot 'one who knows lots of opening tricks' is not appropriate since that is just one (and not a very good) way of studying the opening. I can study the opening by looking at typical endgames from the opening, annotating model games of the old and modern masters myself, analysing my games, discussing critical positions with another person, or playing 'Solitaire Chess' (guessing the moves played in a game). It's quite likely that this study, done properly, would improve my play in all phases of the game.
Pages: [1] 
People spend too much time studying openings. (Read 9855 times)
