tdv wrote on 03/28/18 at 19:55:35:


Very right words, I agree with your opinion here

brabo wrote on 03/06/19 at 06:52:50:


In your examples, the losers failed to keep on board the principle as outlined by Soltis and perhaps others that if you are thinking of going into a pawn ending, don't,  unless you are triple sure of the outcome.

Given how easy it usually is to repair openings that go wrong, you get a stand off. Both players are good enough to not make crass errors in the opening, so the fight gets deferred to the middle game and endgame. That perhaps assumes both players play the opening in a style where non obvious only moves do not arise.

Chessbase was first available in the late 1980s although it took a few more years for big game collections to be built up and useful computer engines to become available.

I gave up playing chess around 20 years ago, when i was 24. Last year, i decided to return.

Back to the past, on that time, the computer era hadn't arrived and having chessbase or any chess software was the exception. Many of my games were long - appart from long time controls, of course - around 40-60 moves and the endgame played an important role.

In this two years i have only played one endgame OTB ... People is much more booked up and you are forced to know well the openings. Also time controls are faster, meaning it's harder that a small mistake advancing a pawn becomes decisive (unless you are IM/GM...).

Now chessbase makes possible to prepare very accuretly the opening, but back to then you only had comments from your mates about their own openings, and your own repertoire basically mirrored your mates one.

Perhaps i'm mistaken, but i would bet now endgame importance is missing. 90% of the game is determined by the opening and the consequent middlegame/tactics. Understanding the openings and their plans/ideas/tactics plays a decisive role (not memorizing, i've also seen ppl memorizing lines up to 20 moves making decisive mistakes on the 21)

PS: i move in the range 2100-2300 FIDE.

This is why I think it's important that opening books include complete games annotated all the way through and not just opening lines.  Amateurs spend all their time studying openings instead of master games, and are usually aware they have their priorities wrong but keep doing it anyway, so a good opening book tricks us into studying master games and thinking we're studying openings.  Probably the majority of annotated GM games I've played through were in opening books.

KestonyChess wrote on 08/17/16 at 18:48:15:


These are great tips. Thanks for the explanation.

I have the feeling that I am constantly changing my opening repertoire over the months / years in search for the "perfect opening" (or defense). In reality there is no perfect opening, most of openings are of the same worth... I wonder it I'd rather study to improve my game, middlegame strategy / tactics / endgame technique... what do you think?? I.e. a GM will beat me equally with 1.g3 and 1.b3, as well as with the most fashionable line in the Ruy Lopez!