brabo wrote on 03/07/18 at 06:34:47:

Well I almost never provide proof of anything. Sometimes I provide evidence, sometimes not. Even when I am 100% convinced of my position I more often just state it as an opinion. Basically I try not to put too much effort into convincing other people of the correctness of my ideas, which anyway are not better than some of the other smart people here and elsewhere.

brabo wrote on 03/07/18 at 06:34:47:

Since this is book lite vs book pro it does not directly refute my claim. I'm not saying my claim was correct, I'm just pointing out your evidence did not prove it wrong.

brabo wrote on 03/07/18 at 12:38:54:

Again, this may not prove what you think. It's possible that openings knowledge correlates rather well with middlegame and endgame ability.

In my club there is every year a Fischer Random tournament. I am not interested in that kind of chess so I normally don't participate. However looking to the final standings then I notice that there is a very strong correlation with the standard ratings see e.g. http://www.skdeurne.be/Nieuwjaar/FR2018.php
or http://www.skdeurne.be/Nieuwjaar/FR2010.php

It is just another proof of how little opening-knowledge influences somebodies rating.

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 03/06/18 at 22:04:01:

I still have 2 important remarks.

1) I see a lot of amateurs which have very little opening-knowledge. However they are still able to overcome this deficit quite easily by clever selecting their opening-moves so avoiding any theoretical or sharp unknown positions. In the past some FMs have been playing 1.a3, 1.e3 ... just to avoid any of my theoretical knowledge. With black things are much more difficult of course. A often used strategy for black willing to avoid desperately theory is to play systems behind 3 rows see e.g. http://chess-brabo.blogspot.com/2014/04/universal-systems.html

2) The typical player is extremely lazy. They will only spend effort if there is a direct return. So automatically the opening will be their first station to stop as that is the most likely thing to see on the board. Most of my students don't work seriously at home. They are only willing to look at some chess when they know the pairings are out to check what the repertoire is of the opponent. In other words don't waste time by looking at the typical player.

an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 03/06/18 at 22:04:01:


Opening books these days often analyze positions deep into the middle game, or even the endgame, or have a complete games format, which doesn't necessarily specify where the opening ends and the middle game begins. Thus, perhaps we have to agree on where opening study becomes middle game study in the first place, which seems much harder to do than to define where middle game study becomes endgame study (I would generally define this transition as the part of the game where promoting a pawn becomes more important than king safety, and hence the kings generally become active).

So, if the average game is 30-40 moves, perhaps the first 1/3 of the game could be considered the opening phase, but some opening lines are so long that a critical tabiya is not even reached until move 20 or later. So in that case are we still in the opening, or is it now 'middle game theory' ? Likewise, many openings lead straight into an ending by force, with no real middle game at all...

What is my point? I am not exactly sure, but I am one of those players who spends too much time on opening study, yet because it is usually the strongest part of my game (opening depending, some lines I play horribly), I am often able to get a clear advantage which carries into the middle/endgame and win by just playing good chess after the opening phase is complete -- with both colours. Furthermore, going back to my point about it not being clear where the opening ends and the middle game begins, I would argue that most of this time I spend on opening study is going towards middle game study, and sometimes endgame study, as well. I remember very few long variations move for move when playing real games, but the fact that I know the typical pawn structures, plans, tactical motifs, etc. better than my opponents often allows me to just find strong moves and get an advantage without really remembering more than the first 10 or so moves (again, opening depending).

Thus, can we really isolate opening study and the opening phase from the rest of the game?

Just some food for thought....

brabo wrote on 03/06/18 at 20:02:44:
I don't read Dutch, so I can't really critique your research project. But the difference between master-level openings knowledge and absolute-zero openings knowledge must be way more than 50 ratingpoints. This is easy enough to test by an engine self-match, one side with opening book turned on, the other turned off. The 50 ratingpoints you report must be at the upper end, after the law of diminishing returns kicks in.

I am reminded of the quip about self-esteem: It's only important for those who don't have it. Although it is *possible* to play an opening without any prior knowledge, using just general principles and brute-force calculation, OTB it takes way too much off the clock. Even meeting a novelty on move 15 is hard enough, never mind move one. So we prepare ahead of time.

I think "the opening" represents about 1/3 of a chess game, and therefore about 1/3 of ability. I don't agree in *general* that the opening is the least important phase of the game, but that can certainly be the case. On the other hand, for a player who is weak in the openings, it can be the most important phase. From what I observe, the typical player spends anywhere from 50% to 100% of their study time on openings. But we can't say a priori this is wrong, because in addition to the player's own ability, it also depends to a great extent on the opposition's approach. In some respects opening study is like an arms race. Unilateral disarmament is hardly the answer.

Stigma wrote on 03/06/18 at 18:52:40:

You are changing my words. I never stated that my computer analysis was just about the opening. I put countless hours in also analyzing the middlegame and endgame. Besides my article http://schaken-brabo.blogspot.be/2012/07/schaakopeningen-studeren.html contradicts that openings have a big influence on somebodies rating. The conclusion of my small research project was that studying openings has a direct impact of only 50 ratingpoints.

Bondefanger wrote on 03/06/18 at 08:38:43:

I agree with ReneDescartes that such disparaging words are not called for. Everyone has their own peculiar strengths and weaknesses, so we shouldn't be that hard on others. People could call me an idiot for losing concentration and half-points in so many endings, getting into too many time troubles, never having played classical defences with Black, etc. etc.

It's entirely possible to be, say, 2200 strength in the opening and roughly 1800 strength in all other parts of the game. Then your speculation and hunt for the big weakness would come to nothing. Though of course you would still conclude getting that kind of player out of book with an opening surprise is a good idea.

If you are better than your rating at some parts of the game , you must be worse than your rating at other parts of the game.

So the negative connotation to being an "openings expert" or "booked up" is that people know that you must really suck (relative to your rating) at something else.

So what is it? Can't you spot elementary tactics? Can't you handle your clock? Do you break under the slightest pressure? Can't you win completely won endgames? The speculation is on, the moment someone is identified as an opening expert.