RoleyPoley wrote on 12/11/21 at 12:26:22:
I am often caught between competing voices in my head as to what to play. Some sort of "correct" openings that may offer broader learning opportunities, while others that provide you with your own ground upon which to commence battle.
Both of those voices are correct!
I knew about those Greg Shahade articles, but although I find myself agreeing with him sometimes, I also find him annoying at other times. (Greg also uses the word annoying; what goes around comes around.)
Quote:Greg Shahade wrote:
I think studying openings is very valuable and should be an important staple of every chess player’s study regimen. (p/) Why do I think that? Well first of all, it’s exceptionally easy, especially if you are already a high rated player.
That was at the top of the article, and then at the bottom we find Greg completely ignoring his own comment.
Quote:Greg Shahade wrote:
If they (openings) didn’t matter why would anyone bother studying them at all, and why would all the stronger players know them much better than weaker players?
I find the problem of openings in chess to be like the problem of money in real life. People generally agree that, while important, money is far from the most important thing in life. Of course, if you have
zero money then it is incredibly important to get
some money. At the other end of the scale, even after having acquired
more than enough money to last for the rest of their life, people still spend

most or indeed all of their time acquiring
even yet more money. The reasons are complex; the simplest summation I heard was: people go after more money because they know how to do it. To that I would add, having money makes it even easier to make money.
I'm not being silly and telling anyone not to earn money, nor am I telling anyone not to study openings. I'm just pointing out that saying GMs know enormous amounts of opening theory is not a conclusive argument for deciding how much time to spend studying openings -- not even for GMs.