Opening learning

Main

Date: 12 Nov 2005 07:05:47
From: Alberto Virgili
Subject: Opening learning

Which is the best practical way to learn openings?

Alberto

Date: 18 Nov 2005 17:31:19
From: Inconnux
Subject: Re: Opening learning

>Odds are your "tactical mistakes" are the result of a series of inferior
>moves in the opening catching up with you.

hmmm Ray or Fritz analysis... I will go with Fritz on this one...

After every game I play I run my game through Fritz 8 on full analysis,
and it is usually a poor
move in the middle game that kills me ... I suppose thats why I bought
Convektas 'Chess
Tactics for Beginners' and 'CT-Art'. From everyone Ive read whos
actually reached Master + level
they suggest studying tactics first and foremost.

J.Lohner
ICC 'Inconnux'

Date: 18 Nov 2005 13:23:19
From: Angelo DePalma
Subject: Re: Opening learning

Whatever you do, don't use one of the formula openings for more than a few
months. I'm talking about the KIA, Colle, etc. Black equalizes too easily
against those. If you're a beginner play a lot of different stuff for a
while and then settle on something you like and learn it.

Chess is one of the few enterprises where you can afford to be really bad
for a long time and still enjoy what your'e doing.

"Alberto Virgili" <alberto.virgili@libero.it > wrote in message
news:1h5wmee.1o11ch05cb36kN%alberto.virgili@libero.it...
> Which is the best practical way to learn openings?
>
> Alberto

Date: 19 Nov 2005 15:07:22
From: Paul Henney
Subject: Re: Opening learning

"Angelo DePalma" <angelodpnospam@nospam.gmail.com > wrote in message
news:VGydneFeBdbXgePeUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> Whatever you do, don't use one of the formula openings for more than a few
> months. I'm talking about the KIA, Colle, etc. Black equalizes too easily
> against those. If you're a beginner play a lot of different stuff for a
> while and then settle on something you like and learn it.
>
> Chess is one of the few enterprises where you can afford to be really bad
> for a long time and still enjoy what your'e doing.
>

I've got that down to a fine art :-)

pj

Date: 19 Nov 2005 15:40:16
From: Terry
Subject: Re: Opening learning

"Paul Henney" <ph014a5309@blueyonder.co.uk > wrote in message
news:KcHff.37580$375.24118@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Angelo DePalma" <angelodpnospam@nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:VGydneFeBdbXgePeUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>> Whatever you do, don't use one of the formula openings for more than a
>> few months. I'm talking about the KIA, Colle, etc. Black equalizes too
>> easily against those. If you're a beginner play a lot of different stuff
>> for a while and then settle on something you like and learn it.
>>
>> Chess is one of the few enterprises where you can afford to be really bad
>> for a long time and still enjoy what your'e doing.
>>
>
>
> I've got that down to a fine art :-)
>
> pj
>
>
>

LOL

Regards

Date: 12 Nov 2005 18:57:24
From: Inconnux
Subject: Re: Opening learning

>>Which is the best practical way to learn openings?

>>Alberto

As a beginner, I use Chessmaster 10k. I play in 'training mode' and
have the chess coach/opening Moves on. I also use the Game analysis
after each game. This analysis will tell you how long you stayed in
the 'opening book'.

Chessmaster10k also has some good opening training in its 'chessmaster
academy'. In the 'chessmaster series, it has some basic 'opening
moves' tutorial by Bruce Pandolfini.

I have found with this method some openings that have helped me survive
the openings (I usually blunder in the midgame by some tactical
mistake).

just my 2cents :)
J.Lohner
ICC 'Inconnux'

Date: 18 Nov 2005 05:32:48
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Opening learning

> I have found with this method some openings that have helped me survive
> the openings (I usually blunder in the midgame by some tactical
> mistake).

Odds are your "tactical mistakes" are the result of a series of inferior
moves in the opening catching up with you.

Date: 18 Nov 2005 07:08:03
From: Terry
Subject: Re: Opening learning

"Ray Gordon" <ray@cybersheet.com > wrote in message
news:4Idff.32149$u43.16628@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>> I have found with this method some openings that have helped me survive
>> the openings (I usually blunder in the midgame by some tactical
>> mistake).
>
> Odds are your "tactical mistakes" are the result of a series of inferior
> moves in the opening catching up with you.
>
>
>

There is only one answer to this.

Bollocks

Regards

Date: 12 Nov 2005 18:31:07
From: Mike Leahy
Subject: Re: Opening learning

"Alberto Virgili" <alberto.virgili@libero.it > wrote in message
news:1h5wmee.1o11ch05cb36kN%alberto.virgili@libero.it...
> Which is the best practical way to learn openings?

For every ten players, you'll get eleven opinions on the best practical way
to learn openings.

First, notice that lots of folks are asking the same question. Occasionally
(rarely) someone will ask about the best way to learn endgames, tactics,
something other than openings. Every is concerned with openings. I've met
many players who bolster their self esteem by constantly bragging that they
don't study openings at all. YMMV.

Someone once pointed out that there are more book titles published on chess
openings that on all other sports combined. If only one or two of those
books were the best practical way.

I'd say the 'best practical way' changes based on your current playing
strength. Lots of beginners try to emulate the opening choices and study
techniques of world champions when they would be better served studying
tactics.

I'd also assert that beginners must study some opening ideas (and perhaps a
few lines) if only because they will constantly face opponents who are doing
just that. While the beginner who relies on opening cheapo's is unlikely to
get better as fast as s/he could, the beginner who gets mowed down by
cheapo's that s/he failed to study is not only going to lose a lot but also
become demoralized. It's no fun being crushed by someone else's opening
preparation.

My thinking for higher level players is at www.bookup.com and click on Bobby
Fischer's Chess Opening Secrets.

One of the best opening books I've ever read is Neishtadt's (not Plaskett's)
_Catastrophe in the Opening_. I don't even know if it's in print today. It
holds a tremendous amount of wisdom for class players. The idea is to get
really great explanations of why things go right (and wrong) in the opening.

Mike Leahy
"The Database Man!"
www.bookup.com

Date: 12 Nov 2005 19:02:54
From: Terry
Subject: Re: Opening learning

"Mike Leahy" <mikeleahynospam@bookuppro.com > wrote in message
news:Lxqdf.8079$Kv.965@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "Alberto Virgili" <alberto.virgili@libero.it> wrote in message
> news:1h5wmee.1o11ch05cb36kN%alberto.virgili@libero.it...
>> Which is the best practical way to learn openings?
>
> For every ten players, you'll get eleven opinions on the best practical
> way
> to learn openings.
>
> First, notice that lots of folks are asking the same question.
> Occasionally
> (rarely) someone will ask about the best way to learn endgames, tactics,
> something other than openings. Every is concerned with openings. I've
> met
> many players who bolster their self esteem by constantly bragging that
> they
> don't study openings at all. YMMV.
>
It has nothing to do with bolstering self esteem. Opening knowledge
is not required at the lower levels.

Regards

Date: 18 Nov 2005 05:28:02
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Opening learning

>> For every ten players, you'll get eleven opinions on the best practical
>> way
>> to learn openings.
>>
>> First, notice that lots of folks are asking the same question.
>> Occasionally
>> (rarely) someone will ask about the best way to learn endgames, tactics,
>> something other than openings. Every is concerned with openings. I've
>> met
>> many players who bolster their self esteem by constantly bragging that
>> they
>> don't study openings at all. YMMV.
>>
> It has nothing to do with bolstering self esteem. Opening knowledge
> is not required at the lower levels.

It is required if one wants to leave the lower levels, however.

Date: 18 Nov 2005 07:07:21
From: Terry
Subject: Re: Opening learning

"Ray Gordon" <ray@cybersheet.com > wrote in message
news:CDdff.32146$u43.16212@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>>> For every ten players, you'll get eleven opinions on the best practical
>>> way
>>> to learn openings.
>>>
>>> First, notice that lots of folks are asking the same question.
>>> Occasionally
>>> (rarely) someone will ask about the best way to learn endgames, tactics,
>>> something other than openings. Every is concerned with openings. I've
>>> met
>>> many players who bolster their self esteem by constantly bragging that
>>> they
>>> don't study openings at all. YMMV.
>>>
>> It has nothing to do with bolstering self esteem. Opening knowledge
>> is not required at the lower levels.
>
> It is required if one wants to leave the lower levels, however.
>
>
>

2200 - lower levels !. Most players would love to get to that level.

Regards

Date: 13 Nov 2005 00:20:14
From: CeeBee
Subject: Re: Opening learning

"Terry" <terry@tbean.freeserve.co.uk > wrote in rec.games.chess.computer:

> It has nothing to do with bolstering self esteem. Opening knowledge
> is not required at the lower levels.

Of course opening knowlegde is required at the lower levels. Basic opening
knowledge is as essential as knowing how to move the pieces properly.

What isn't necessary at lower levels however, is the kind of opening
knowledge that is required at higher levels. Routinely we see here people
rated around 1100 to 1300 asking what to play after 18. Nb5 in the
"Swashbuckler Variation of refuted Queens Atytack in the forehand without
33.b5". It's totally uninteresting for them to study it to improve, as
they already didn't know what the meaning of move 4. Bb5 is instead of 4.
Bc4.

A lower rated player should develop an opening repertoire as well as a
strong chess player, althoug much more limited - both depth and
variationwise.

Before selecting such a repertoire you should find out what positions give
you the creeps and what positions give you regular winning chances. Both
tell you something about your understanding about what the opening means
for the resulting middle game setup.

If you play 1.e4 c5 2.f4 you want to avoid extensive Sicilian theory and
do something along the f-rank. It means that all your moves should be
doing something both in terms of development _and_ attacking on f7 or so.
After 5 or 6 moves most are out of theoricial opening territory, and then
it doesn't matter what you both play, as long as the guy playing 2. f4
doesn't start to swap that d-pawn against the c-pawn, because that's what
you were trying to avoid.

That's the kind of opening knowlegde everyone needs at his or her own
level.

Create an opening tree that limits your choices based on those
preferencesand knowlegde of what happens with your game after those
choices you make, (choices like always starting with e4 as white, and
always responding with 1...e5 on 1.e4 or with 1...Nf6 2...g6 3...Bg7 and
4...0-0 after 1.d4); then find out all responses by your opponent, and
find moves that limits your and his choice again.

If you've been through that drill, you know what to choose and why, and in
that case you can simply start the "remember opening moves drill". It will
be a lot easier, because memory and knowledge will coincide.

A good program for that purpose of drilling is Bookup. No plug, leave that
to Mike Leahy himself :)

A good program for managing opening repertoires are ChessBase or
ChessAssistant. Both have freeware versions, although I would prefer
ChessAssistant if you want to go freeware, as this is a newer version.

And second, if you know what opening to play but don't know what to do
exploiting the tactical opportunities, that's another flaw that should be
addressed as quickly as possible.

At lower level: study dozens and dozens of tactical exercises to learn
positions and key squares; study dozens and dozens of endgame situations
so you can see if you're able to promote that pawn or not, and you can
mate that king with king and rook with eyes closed; and study your
carefully developed opening repertoire.

--
CeeBee

***The Place Where The Faith And The Flavour Meet***

Date: 18 Nov 2005 05:30:37
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Opening learning

>> It has nothing to do with bolstering self esteem. Opening knowledge
>> is not required at the lower levels.
>
>
> Of course opening knowlegde is required at the lower levels. Basic opening
> knowledge is as essential as knowing how to move the pieces properly.
>
> What isn't necessary at lower levels however, is the kind of opening
> knowledge that is required at higher levels.

Which is fine if one never aspires to the higher levels.

>Routinely we see here people
> rated around 1100 to 1300 asking what to play after 18. Nb5 in the
> "Swashbuckler Variation of refuted Queens Atytack in the forehand without
> 33.b5". It's totally uninteresting for them to study it to improve, as
> they already didn't know what the meaning of move 4. Bb5 is instead of 4.
> Bc4.

That's part of the opening as well.

> A lower rated player should develop an opening repertoire as well as a
> strong chess player, althoug much more limited - both depth and
> variationwise.
>
> Before selecting such a repertoire you should find out what positions give
> you the creeps and what positions give you regular winning chances. Both
> tell you something about your understanding about what the opening means
> for the resulting middle game setup.

Better to play the openings one doesn't understand to push their knowledge.

> If you play 1.e4 c5 2.f4 you want to avoid extensive Sicilian theory and
> do something along the f-rank. It means that all your moves should be
> doing something both in terms of development _and_ attacking on f7 or so.
> After 5 or 6 moves most are out of theoricial opening territory, and then
> it doesn't matter what you both play, as long as the guy playing 2. f4
> doesn't start to swap that d-pawn against the c-pawn, because that's what
> you were trying to avoid.
>
> That's the kind of opening knowlegde everyone needs at his or her own
> level.

That type of preparation will only cement a player's weaknesses.

Date: 13 Nov 2005 08:06:52
From: Terry
Subject: Re: Opening learning

"CeeBee" <ceebeechester@start.com.au > wrote in message
news:Xns970DD9AA675Aceebeechesterstartco@213.75.12.165...
> "Terry" <terry@tbean.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in rec.games.chess.computer:
>
>> It has nothing to do with bolstering self esteem. Opening knowledge
>> is not required at the lower levels.
>
>
> Of course opening knowlegde is required at the lower levels. Basic opening
> knowledge is as essential as knowing how to move the pieces properly.
>
> What isn't necessary at lower levels however, is the kind of opening
> knowledge that is required at higher levels. Routinely we see here people
> rated around 1100 to 1300 asking what to play after 18. Nb5 in the
> "Swashbuckler Variation of refuted Queens Atytack in the forehand without
> 33.b5". It's totally uninteresting for them to study it to improve, as
> they already didn't know what the meaning of move 4. Bb5 is instead of 4.
> Bc4.
>
> A lower rated player should develop an opening repertoire as well as a
> strong chess player, althoug much more limited - both depth and
> variationwise.
>
> Before selecting such a repertoire you should find out what positions give
> you the creeps and what positions give you regular winning chances. Both
> tell you something about your understanding about what the opening means
> for the resulting middle game setup.
>
> If you play 1.e4 c5 2.f4 you want to avoid extensive Sicilian theory and
> do something along the f-rank. It means that all your moves should be
> doing something both in terms of development _and_ attacking on f7 or so.
> After 5 or 6 moves most are out of theoricial opening territory, and then
> it doesn't matter what you both play, as long as the guy playing 2. f4
> doesn't start to swap that d-pawn against the c-pawn, because that's what
> you were trying to avoid.
>
> That's the kind of opening knowlegde everyone needs at his or her own
> level.
>
> Create an opening tree that limits your choices based on those
> preferencesand knowlegde of what happens with your game after those
> choices you make, (choices like always starting with e4 as white, and
> always responding with 1...e5 on 1.e4 or with 1...Nf6 2...g6 3...Bg7 and
> 4...0-0 after 1.d4); then find out all responses by your opponent, and
> find moves that limits your and his choice again.
>
> If you've been through that drill, you know what to choose and why, and in
> that case you can simply start the "remember opening moves drill". It will
> be a lot easier, because memory and knowledge will coincide.
>
> A good program for that purpose of drilling is Bookup. No plug, leave that
> to Mike Leahy himself :)
>
> A good program for managing opening repertoires are ChessBase or
> ChessAssistant. Both have freeware versions, although I would prefer
> ChessAssistant if you want to go freeware, as this is a newer version.
>
>
> And second, if you know what opening to play but don't know what to do
> exploiting the tactical opportunities, that's another flaw that should be
> addressed as quickly as possible.
>
> At lower level: study dozens and dozens of tactical exercises to learn
> positions and key squares; study dozens and dozens of endgame situations
> so you can see if you're able to promote that pawn or not, and you can
> mate that king with king and rook with eyes closed; and study your
> carefully developed opening repertoire.
>
> --
> CeeBee
>
> ***The Place Where The Faith And The Flavour Meet***

Let me clarify my point.

Opening princables is required - book knowledge is not.

Just dont play complex open games.

It seems a shame to me that a lot of people are put off
playing serious chess because of the perception that
a large amount of time is needed memorising openings.

I reached 2200 fide and most 1200 players have a far
greater opening knowledge then i do.

If you want to improve then your time is far better spent
on tactics and endgames.

Regards

Date: 18 Nov 2005 05:32:09
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Opening learning

> It seems a shame to me that a lot of people are put off
> playing serious chess because of the perception that
> a large amount of time is needed memorising openings.
>
> I reached 2200 fide and most 1200 players have a far
> greater opening knowledge then i do.

Which is why more of those 1200 players will wind up 2400.

One can get to 2200 with strength in any one phase of the game. The problem
is that as one improves, the openings they can get away with playing are
narrowed.

A 2200 player with a strong repertoire will go a lot further than a 2200
player with a weak one.

Date: 18 Nov 2005 07:06:10
From: Terry
Subject: Re: Opening learning

"Ray Gordon" <ray@cybersheet.com > wrote in message
news:tHdff.32148$u43.2014@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>> It seems a shame to me that a lot of people are put off
>> playing serious chess because of the perception that
>> a large amount of time is needed memorising openings.
>>
>> I reached 2200 fide and most 1200 players have a far
>> greater opening knowledge then i do.
>
> Which is why more of those 1200 players will wind up 2400.
>
> One can get to 2200 with strength in any one phase of the game. The
> problem is that as one improves, the openings they can get away with
> playing are narrowed.
>
> A 2200 player with a strong repertoire will go a lot further than a 2200
> player with a weak one.
>
>
>
>

My friends agree with me that I would not have a higher rating with
extensive opening knowledge.

Regards

Date: 12 Nov 2005 10:33:56
From: Terry
Subject: Re: Opening learning

Date: 18 Nov 2005 05:27:27
From: Ray Gordon
Subject: Re: Opening learning

>> Which is the best practical way to learn openings?
>>
>> Alberto
>
> Dont bother - not needed until 2200 +

Just like a serve in tennis is not needed until you play Wimbledon.

Date: 18 Nov 2005 13:20:19
From: Angelo DePalma
Subject: Re: Opening learning

"Ray Gordon" <ray@cybersheet.com > wrote
>>> Which is the best practical way to learn openings?
>>>
>>> Alberto
>>
>> Dont bother - not needed until 2200 +
>
> Just like a serve in tennis is not needed until you play Wimbledon.

Your best post ever.