Thoughts on openings

[jkavanagh]

I'm someone who plays fairly well for a not-serious player - I haven't been in a chess club since high school and will get stomped by anyone who's much smarter or has studied in any disciplined way. However, a friend was asking me about openings the other day - why there wasn't a clearly-defined best opening even after all the study, and whether a smart person could wing it or did you really have to study.

I said that, given close to the same brains and talent, someone who'd studied would pick up a lot of wins from the unschooled simply by short-cutting through lines they knew would or wouldn't work, especially in the first ten moves. I also came up with an off-the-cuff rule of thumb that I like - and I'm wondering if really good players would call it valid:

"For the first six or so moves, good players often aren't really competing - they're more negotiating about what kind of game to have."

Sometimes that sounds right - other times I feel as if I and/or my opponent have blood in the eye and a dagger between the teeth right out of the gate, to mix a bunch of metaphors.

[gmiller]

Studying openings only works if your opponent has too, otherwise they're going to make the "wrong" move and put you both in an unstudied position. You might have read that after a certain move you stand slightly better, but unless you posses the planning and tactical talent to turn it into a win, it doesn't matter. As an intermediate or beginning player, if you're studying specific opening lines, and your opponent is studying tactics, you'd probably loose badly even if you had an advantage early on. That's because IMHO games are normally lost and won on outright blunders until you get near the expert or master level.

[pawnder]

Many traps to remember, I tried one in the match Im in right now,(pillsburys old line, Brucea mustve used a Book, many wouldve surely taken the pawn. Now Im lost theoreticaly, however a close one.
Thats great Chess, but notice the Gambiteers are often lost when they try danish , the fried , lots of Kings gambit, French, etc . If you catch them, usually they lose easily; Some are just good or follow up with a computer brings a whole new side as the Gambiteer executes purely solid play. I like the activity in those lines, even when lost to a better opp.
Lets explore theoretical openings, on this site, I am still trying to replay/understand some moves from some great players, too. Thats all, Happyy 4th at 3.am From Mr Kimball( R.I.P.) From Green Acres ..(acts like he played way to much Chess If you ever seen that show)

[jkavanagh]

...if you're studying specific opening lines, and your opponent is studying tactics, you'd probably lose....games are normally lost and won on outright blunders until you get near the expert or master level.

That certainly sounds right to me. Thanks!

[rr]

If you understand the reasons for the moves in a specific variation, you can certainly attempt to deal with the non-standard moves.
But the biggest advantage that a regular player has over a part-time one is in the end-game. The part-timer isn't aware of simple drawing tactics and ends up losing games they shouldn't.

[rkowalskiii]

I once read that the most complex chess position is the one in which neither side has moved. I agree with this assessment and think that is why there is no defined best opening,only opinions about which is best. Then it comes down to preference, style and familiarity.The well trodden paths of our predecessors is a starting point and that is all, they are constantly being rewritten and updated, old openings being reformed.I think the best route is to test the waters in all openings find ones you like and have a ball.If you dont know the refutation of a move study the position try it write down the best replys play it till you are shown a direct refutation be it tactical or strategic.

[marandreo]

... But the biggest advantage that a regular player has over a part-time one is in the end-game. The part-timer isn't aware of simple drawing tactics and ends up losing games they shouldn't.

Yes, it's partially true. But don't forget that regular (semi-professional)players can plan to take the beginner (who is unaware of it) to an uncomfortable - almost lost notwithstanding the appearances - endgame. It's the technique "the best result through the least effort and risk" (I can't translate it exactly in English, but I think the sense is clear). What about?