Smyslov_Fan wrote on 04/23/14 at 02:35:33:


I don't know about memorising openings, but I do think you need a range of tactical ideas or tricks and strategic devices. I also think you need to know what is regarded as normal play. I found an opening "trap" by this method recently. The game had started 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. g3 . This is an opening idea tried recently by Michael Adams amongst others. Black responds with the logical 3. .. d5. White now continues with 4. exd5 exd5 5. d4. I expect it's also possible to delay d4, I may check out the ideas some time. Black now continued with 5. .. Nc6 6. Bg2 Bg4. Again this looks logical, trying to get a concession with 7. c3 or 7. dxc5. I puzzled why I hadn't seen this played and it then dawned on me why. So just ignore the threat with 7 0-0. Now 7. .. Nxd4 8 Qe1+. Black tried to hold the pawn with 8. .. Ne6, but after 9. Ne5 and 10. c4, he's in some difficulty. If he doesn't try to hold the pawn by retreating the Knight, you can take on d4 and then play to win either or both d pawns with moves like Qe5.

Checking against some recent games, this "trap", if you can call it that, has come up a few times recently, no doubt a consequence of the increased popularity of 3. g3 as an anti-Sicilian. So is this opening knowledge or just knowledge? In practice, it was enough to demolish a player in the 2100s.

As a play through

No doubt about the correlation, but I wonder how they could possibly make the difference between a known book move and a book move found OTB by the master. Besides, 100 000 moves sounds incredibly high... I would have thought 10000 moves would already make you a living encyclopaedia...

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 04/23/14 at 02:35:33:


So a player that independently comes up with a theoretical move over-the-board is credited for having "memorize(d) openings" (your words).  This seems highly flawed to me.

Clearly Masters are going to have memorized many opening moves (to use the terminology from the abstract).  Masters will probably have more chunks in their memory relating to openings than amateurs will.  Clearly, Masters can solve opening problems better than non-Masters.  

But this is all true of "endgame moves," chunks relating to the middlegame, etc.  A study like this seems absolutely irrelevant in determining which phase of the game one should study, or which phase of the game more closely correlates to overall strength of play, as it doesn't address the obvious question: is the difference in number of memorized opening moves between Masters and amateurs significantly greater or smaller than the difference in number of "endgame moves" memorized, etc?

In my opinion, Masters (and this is all especially true the higher up the Master chain you go) are much better than amateurs because (in no particular order):

1. They make better decisions,
2. They sense which decisions in a game are critical and devote more of their energy at those times,
3. use prophylactic thinking,
4. blunder far less,
5. calculate better (more efficiently, faster, and further),
6. see the thread in a position (cut through the clutter/crap to see the truly important features; I'm often surprised at the weird crap weaker players obsess with during a game.  Your king is getting mated and you're worried about having a bad bishop??!?),
7. are less dogmatic,
8. are much better at maneuvering/playing strategic chess, and 
9. formulate long-reaching plans that can actually come about on the board.

I'm sure that we could all think of many more.  

All that study really showed, to me, is that Masters are making better opening decisions than amateurs.  Whoop-dee-doo.  It hasn't shown that it's a significantly higher percentage of better decisions than middlegame or endgame ones, or whether the decisions are a result of memorized knowledge at all in the first place!  Which seems to be the crux of the implied argument that you are making: that amateurs should memorize more opening theory because that is a significant source of Masters' chess strength.  

The article is interesting though, and it would be nice if similar work could be done on theoretical endings and the results compared.

Miki wrote on 04/22/14 at 00:53:58:

OK, if you don't throw away this book this is the second best option. It will only work if you first read it while sitting in your favourite chair or lying on the couch with your legs comfortably in the air.
Next step after you have finished a chapter: make a list of games, turn your computer on, leave Houdini off, open your database and click through the games without paying attention to any notes.
Then make a list of interesting/important/relevant things you want to investigate (the book will undoubtedly inspire you).
At the very end, as a psychological reward so to say, you can give in to your obsession until you feel sick again. Chances that you waste your time will be considerably reduced. And you will feel like to reiterate the procedure with the next chapter.

A year ago I had a talented pupil (I teach math and physics) with a similar problem as yours. I seriously considered the idea to visit her at home and confiscate her books and notebooks say two days before her exam. In the end I rejected the idea, but I have told her and why.
Imo you have a serious problem with your learning attitude and you must figure out something positive to change it. Then the intention "I'll try to not...." (like yours "I'll try to keep it brief", which is just code for "I'll try to not getting distracted by interesting sidelines") won't work, like all serious dieticians can tell you.

I still think my original proposal will work best for you though, combined with looking up stuff in your books after your games and then analyze interesting sidelines (ie the ones that deviate from your games).

I would draw no conclusions about what people are playing from online games. In online games, a lot of opponents will be staring at a book while playing you. There's that telltale pause (while they look the line up), then x moves of perfect theory banged out quickly. Thus armed, many online opponents will play the likes of the Winawer Poison Pawn against me, whereas over the board very few venture this because they're afraid I'm more booked than they are, even if I'm not.

Miki wrote on 04/21/14 at 02:23:42:

Absolutely right-- Nimzo is rich enough in itself and can be played many ways.  Only bother is the Catalan which will probably require something independent and there your most economical option is Bogo-Indian since if I'm not mistaken 3.g3 Bb4+ will usually transpose to 3.Nf3 Bb4+.  In that case you might select Bogo and QID as your two variants.  It is also not a big jump to include Benoni or Blumenfeld gambit as an alternative line.  Benoni is thought to be good after Nf3 since it avoids the 4-Pawn-Attack variants.

If you're familiar with Colle-Zukertort you might look into Nimzo-Indian "Petrosian"/"Classical Fianchetto" system after 1d4 Nf6 2c4 e6 3Nc3 Bb4 4e3 b6 5Bd3 Bb7 6Nf3 and Black basically plays a sort of Zukertort-system reversed.  Honestly I have no idea how the extra tempo matters if at all.

Just start playing whatever you want and try to solve the problems at the board, trusting that you're a decent enough chess player to be able to solve opening problems.  Later, you can look up what you and your opponent "should" have done in an opening book or database.  You'll learn a lot more that way.   

What, do you feel confident enough in solving tactical problems, middlegame problems, endgame problems, strategic problems, calculation problems, etc, etc, but not in solving some opening problems on your own?  Why is that?  Why single the opening out for this kind of anxiety?  Why not get anxious every time you have to decide between keeping or giving up the bishop pair, grabbing a potentially poisoned pawn, conducting an initiative, calculating accurately, or defending precisely?

Hi Miki, my strengh is similiar to yours (around 1900 fide, around 2000 local elo).

Another point to pick one opening or other is the mateial you will have to study that. In favour or Taimanov Sicilian is outstanding Emms book (the Move by Move one). Andrew Greet's book on the Accelerated Dragon is very good too (as an alternative to the Taimanov). The problem with the Sicilian is that you will play a lot of antis (not a problem in itself but it's a pitty to study deeply a mainline and then never play that).

The Petroff has the problem of White playing 2.Nc3 or 2.Bc4 or 2.f4... I don't know if they are played too much in the tournaments you will play. In my country, not played too much, by he way. More Antisicilians that anti-Petroffs!! xD

Vs 1.d4 I play also Nimzo-QID-Bogo complex.... and lots of non-c4 openings by black (usually with g3), lots of Torre-Attack, lots of Trompowsky's... ChessBase DVD's of Bologan and Tiviakov are very good in the nimzo and queens indian. Khaliffman "Openings according to Kramnik" is good, Emms Move by Move book on the Nimzo is very good, too. 

Just things to consider.

A single book covering all of that I like a lot is Dzindzi's "Opening Reprtoire for Black Explained" (or similar name) that gives you a complete repertoire, very well explained covering Accelerated Dragon Sicilian + Nimzo + Bogo + all other deviations (c4, antisilicilians, antinimzos, Bird, Larsen...). As a starting point (as you are starting now) it's very very usefull.

Good luck !

PS: I think it's by far (for me) too much difficult to pick a rep for white than for black