Chess Dojo did a series on how to study openings (according to them) with some decent advice:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG878S2A3sY
My general feeling is that it should be treated as a necessary evil - if you're generally getting on alright as black against 1 d4 by knowing the first three moves of the slav and then following your nose then that's great, if you find that you keep getting massacred by e4 players who play aggressive gambits then you might want to look up how you're supposed to deal with the most common ones, if you keep struggling to work out what to do against the French then you might want to pick a line to play against it and then look at typical middlegame plans in the structures that arise.
The other thing is to be realistic about how much value you're going to get from stuff. There's no point memorizing long lines if your opponents aren't playing theoretical moves. It's arguably even dubious learning "typical plans and ideas" if your opponents generally go off the rails before you get to the normal structure, although that might be less of a problem at your rating. It's probably bad to just pick a Lifetime Repertoire on Chessable and memorize the whole thing.
I like Fundamental Chess Openings as a good overview book, kind of a buffet to choose from when you do need to pick a concrete line to play.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=SG878S2A3sY
My general feeling is that it should be treated as a necessary evil - if you're generally getting on alright as black against 1 d4 by knowing the first three moves of the slav and then following your nose then that's great, if you find that you keep getting massacred by e4 players who play aggressive gambits then you might want to look up how you're supposed to deal with the most common ones, if you keep struggling to work out what to do against the French then you might want to pick a line to play against it and then look at typical middlegame plans in the structures that arise.
The other thing is to be realistic about how much value you're going to get from stuff. There's no point memorizing long lines if your opponents aren't playing theoretical moves. It's arguably even dubious learning "typical plans and ideas" if your opponents generally go off the rails before you get to the normal structure, although that might be less of a problem at your rating. It's probably bad to just pick a Lifetime Repertoire on Chessable and memorize the whole thing.
I like Fundamental Chess Openings as a good overview book, kind of a buffet to choose from when you do need to pick a concrete line to play.
What about studying first pawn structures, for their transversal perspective across the lines? Instead of specializing through the depths of the lines? one line at a time. Would the hard study energy spent there not be more rewarding, if one prefer to look at board features and understand their logic relationships to plans through the game rather than through repertoire depth first traversal or line first. People talk about dreaded opening transpositions, when they go the repertoire track it seems. Would having more board based understanding, allow one to better find their ways (perhaps with slower execution in the opening phase, but maybe with more planning imagination even the sequence goes sideways?
I am not an expert talking of experience either way. But, I seem to be unable to find chess appealing at all, going the line way...
So, my questions is to all the others, who have gone through the line way. and might have gone beyond, and see transversally a bit better. Did the repertoire after repertoires way constitue a necessary learning prerequisite, or was it more about getting some knowledge based advantage wins to make it through games in some competition context. I am not not studying chess with that ambition anyway, although the op is, but I find the op question to be also about playing better chess, social competition or not. Which might mean understanding what happens by one self on the board i think, without the need for explicit repertoire knowledge. It might be a requirement, though in that one then has internalized some critical mass, toward exploring sideways, not just the repertoire rating strategy, based on historical knowledge information advantage.
Anyway, I could not do it. But if everyone has certitude, I might just drop having ever a clue in openings... and just understand middle-game+ "from position" chess games. (or use the opening explorer as a tourist, until a middle-game position I want to explore seems within reach, to continue my equal information game with opponent.
I am not an expert talking of experience either way. But, I seem to be unable to find chess appealing at all, going the line way...
So, my questions is to all the others, who have gone through the line way. and might have gone beyond, and see transversally a bit better. Did the repertoire after repertoires way constitue a necessary learning prerequisite, or was it more about getting some knowledge based advantage wins to make it through games in some competition context. I am not not studying chess with that ambition anyway, although the op is, but I find the op question to be also about playing better chess, social competition or not. Which might mean understanding what happens by one self on the board i think, without the need for explicit repertoire knowledge. It might be a requirement, though in that one then has internalized some critical mass, toward exploring sideways, not just the repertoire rating strategy, based on historical knowledge information advantage.
Anyway, I could not do it. But if everyone has certitude, I might just drop having ever a clue in openings... and just understand middle-game+ "from position" chess games. (or use the opening explorer as a tourist, until a middle-game position I want to explore seems within reach, to continue my equal information game with opponent.
"... nobody can wholly escape the dire necessity of compiling variations and of examining and memorising them. And therefore such a compilation, though a brief one, is correctly included in a Manual of Chess.
Here follows a collection of variations essential in Opening play. ..."
That is from page 42 of the Lasker's Manual of Chess sample available at
store.doverpublications.com/products/9780486206400 .
"... When masters ridicule memory, they are warning you about the dangers of reaching the end of your book knowledge and not having a clue as to what to do next. That is memory without understanding. But the other extreme -- understanding without memory -- is just as bad.
Why? Well, suppose you have a solid understanding of the position [after 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Bb4 4 e3 O-O 5 Bd3 d5 6 Nf3 c5 7 O-O Nc6 8 a3 Bxc3 9 bxc3 dxc4 10 Bxc4 Qc7], which arises from the old main line of the Nimzo-Indian Defense. You appreciate all the typical tactics and positional finesses. You know which pawn pushes and piece trades are good and which are bad in the middlegame to come.
But to get a chance to use that understanding, you first have to reach this position. If all you remember is 1 d4, it is extremely hard, if not possible, to find the ten moves that follow it and leave you off in this position.
The same is true of most standard openings. You can't rely on common sense and logic to get to move 5, let alone to 15. ..." - GM Andrew Soltis (2010)
Here follows a collection of variations essential in Opening play. ..."
That is from page 42 of the Lasker's Manual of Chess sample available at
store.doverpublications.com/products/9780486206400 .
"... When masters ridicule memory, they are warning you about the dangers of reaching the end of your book knowledge and not having a clue as to what to do next. That is memory without understanding. But the other extreme -- understanding without memory -- is just as bad.
Why? Well, suppose you have a solid understanding of the position [after 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Bb4 4 e3 O-O 5 Bd3 d5 6 Nf3 c5 7 O-O Nc6 8 a3 Bxc3 9 bxc3 dxc4 10 Bxc4 Qc7], which arises from the old main line of the Nimzo-Indian Defense. You appreciate all the typical tactics and positional finesses. You know which pawn pushes and piece trades are good and which are bad in the middlegame to come.
But to get a chance to use that understanding, you first have to reach this position. If all you remember is 1 d4, it is extremely hard, if not possible, to find the ten moves that follow it and leave you off in this position.
The same is true of most standard openings. You can't rely on common sense and logic to get to move 5, let alone to 15. ..." - GM Andrew Soltis (2010)
@kindaspongey said in #14:
> "... nobody can wholly escape the dire necessity of compiling variations and of examining and memorising them. And therefore such a compilation, though a brief one, is correctly included in a Manual of Chess.
might you be making assumptions about the kind of ambitions or passion one has for the chess board? there are all kinds of memories. there is even that which one is not even aware of having developped, because it was learned the slow way, almost tangentially to where the more conscious attention engagment was being drive to.
I am fed up with such tenets. I don't care about my rating in memory of information advantage layer on top chess games.
really. I am able to skip the arrested development of learning theories being propagated from the gladiator fringe of the population, which sure is occluding the field of vision in our exchanges. to adapt to my outlier user case, which is just enjoying learning what I can first ask a questions about while looking at the board, without a bit of a concern for external measure like rating or social ladder, I have my own abilities of reasoning that give me both intrinsic motivation and intrinsic measure of my eureka reward about things on the board. I would rather not hear about such absolute decrees. It might have been your world, and my people might grind through for their strain of chess motivation or population trait phenotype that can do it.
I really prefer to understand first and whatever is implied in your statement later. Sorry. I have been having some opening "theory" indigestion lately.. I went again, against my own better self-awareness trying to confuse a reference database with a theory of learning about openings. It might be biological you know. I have never been good at learning a dictionary before trying to speak. Although, I did try many times..
> "... nobody can wholly escape the dire necessity of compiling variations and of examining and memorising them. And therefore such a compilation, though a brief one, is correctly included in a Manual of Chess.
might you be making assumptions about the kind of ambitions or passion one has for the chess board? there are all kinds of memories. there is even that which one is not even aware of having developped, because it was learned the slow way, almost tangentially to where the more conscious attention engagment was being drive to.
I am fed up with such tenets. I don't care about my rating in memory of information advantage layer on top chess games.
really. I am able to skip the arrested development of learning theories being propagated from the gladiator fringe of the population, which sure is occluding the field of vision in our exchanges. to adapt to my outlier user case, which is just enjoying learning what I can first ask a questions about while looking at the board, without a bit of a concern for external measure like rating or social ladder, I have my own abilities of reasoning that give me both intrinsic motivation and intrinsic measure of my eureka reward about things on the board. I would rather not hear about such absolute decrees. It might have been your world, and my people might grind through for their strain of chess motivation or population trait phenotype that can do it.
I really prefer to understand first and whatever is implied in your statement later. Sorry. I have been having some opening "theory" indigestion lately.. I went again, against my own better self-awareness trying to confuse a reference database with a theory of learning about openings. It might be biological you know. I have never been good at learning a dictionary before trying to speak. Although, I did try many times..
Sorry to have displeased you, dboing. By the way, GM Soltis actually wrote, "if not impossible".
can we skip the forward traversal, and get on with the set of ideas. right from the positions where we can see them, and then leave our own competent autonomous practice induce where from. Then at least we would have the pleasure of discovery, if that is still part of the chess pleasure, if not stuck in the information race game..
Why wait for some rating, to start enjoying our own sense of discovery, as we are experts of our own limited experienece set, what we don't know is there to be discovered. why the constant spoling with raw data from previous discoveries by others, just because that is the artificially restricted selective guillotine to start playing real chess over some threshold proving you are in the mold, have done your memory skill proofs.
If this is so much about ideas. Why not teach that first. from any position depth in the tree. Isn't there a growing tree of playable positions. Why not play there? why not even compete from there, if that is such revered knowlege.
I just think chess is bigger than this ... contest. and lack of imagination at the social layer level.. So please, forget the initiation ritual of memory tribe belonging. I am not of that trive. and yet, I do enjoy reading about the ideas.. So what is wrong with not abiding by that religion of learning?
Why wait for some rating, to start enjoying our own sense of discovery, as we are experts of our own limited experienece set, what we don't know is there to be discovered. why the constant spoling with raw data from previous discoveries by others, just because that is the artificially restricted selective guillotine to start playing real chess over some threshold proving you are in the mold, have done your memory skill proofs.
If this is so much about ideas. Why not teach that first. from any position depth in the tree. Isn't there a growing tree of playable positions. Why not play there? why not even compete from there, if that is such revered knowlege.
I just think chess is bigger than this ... contest. and lack of imagination at the social layer level.. So please, forget the initiation ritual of memory tribe belonging. I am not of that trive. and yet, I do enjoy reading about the ideas.. So what is wrong with not abiding by that religion of learning?
@kindaspongey said in #16:
> Sorry to have displeased you, dboing. By the way, GM Soltis actually wrote, "if not impossible".
I like what I read from his book on thinking. not a theory of learning, but a good overiew of existing theses for thinking, I guess at his level of past playing experience and preformance.
I find that such integrative work of others hypotheses, a bit rare, in this boosted ego world of chess theory by the experts.
As if it was difficult to get rid of being right by the voice of their chess moves, we should also take on autority argument that they also are expert at theories of learning, or even a shareed theory of the chess board? I think they would be honest hypothesis builders, but that each book has been aborted thesis, as it would not be part of a system of testing the theory, or responding to each other, in a common language accepting methods of testing, other than wait a lifetime, that it takes.
Also, I don't need to do anyting else than understand. that is my goal. As long as my own ability to undrestand that the board or someine is answering my questios about the board as I visit them study or play, I know I am progressing in that goal.
Is everyone here on lichess within the target audience of
> That is memory without understanding. But the other extreme -- understanding without memory -- is just as bad.
for what exactly, is it bad? for enjoying chess itself, for keeping enjoying chess, playing or studying while understanding? more and more, within each abilites to progress that way. Bad for what exactly. Hidden assumptions. could someone make a lichess population survey about all fitting in that hidden object of badhood?
> Sorry to have displeased you, dboing. By the way, GM Soltis actually wrote, "if not impossible".
I like what I read from his book on thinking. not a theory of learning, but a good overiew of existing theses for thinking, I guess at his level of past playing experience and preformance.
I find that such integrative work of others hypotheses, a bit rare, in this boosted ego world of chess theory by the experts.
As if it was difficult to get rid of being right by the voice of their chess moves, we should also take on autority argument that they also are expert at theories of learning, or even a shareed theory of the chess board? I think they would be honest hypothesis builders, but that each book has been aborted thesis, as it would not be part of a system of testing the theory, or responding to each other, in a common language accepting methods of testing, other than wait a lifetime, that it takes.
Also, I don't need to do anyting else than understand. that is my goal. As long as my own ability to undrestand that the board or someine is answering my questios about the board as I visit them study or play, I know I am progressing in that goal.
Is everyone here on lichess within the target audience of
> That is memory without understanding. But the other extreme -- understanding without memory -- is just as bad.
for what exactly, is it bad? for enjoying chess itself, for keeping enjoying chess, playing or studying while understanding? more and more, within each abilites to progress that way. Bad for what exactly. Hidden assumptions. could someone make a lichess population survey about all fitting in that hidden object of badhood?
@dboing said in #15 (after reproducing part of the Lasker quote):
> ... might you be making assumptions about the kind of ambitions or passion one has for the chess board? ...
Well, it wasn't me making the comment. I would not be able to say what Lasker was assuming when he wrote it.
@dboing said in #15:
> ... I would rather not hear about such absolute decrees. ...
I think that it is interesting to see comments such as the one by Lasker, even if perhaps some sort of modification would have been appropriate.
@dboing said in #15:
> ... I really prefer to understand first and whatever is implied in your statement later. ... I have never been good at learning a dictionary before trying to speak. Although, I did try many times..
Since Lasker himself wrote, "examining and memorising", I would imagine that he himself had some notion of beginning by seeking some understanding.
@dboing said in #17:
> can we skip the forward traversal, and get on with the set of ideas. right from the positions where we can see them, and then leave our own competent autonomous practice induce where from. Then at least we would have the pleasure of discovery, ...
I admit that I am just guessing, but I imagine that Lasker would not have objected to a reader who sought the pleasure of discovery by skipping the part of his book about openings.
@dboing said in #18:
> ... Is everyone here on lichess within the target audience of [the GM Soltis comment, "That is memory without understanding. But the other extreme -- understanding without memory -- is just as bad."]
I doubt that there are very many who go to the extreme of trying to do entirely without memory, but perhaps consideration of the extreme was the author's attempt to indicate something about trying to be near that extreme.
@dboing said in #18:
> for what exactly, is it bad? for enjoying chess itself, for keeping enjoying chess, playing or studying while understanding? more and more, within each abilites to progress that way. Bad for what exactly. Hidden assumptions. ...
I would guess that many would rather not spend a lot of time studying positions that did not seem to have much to do with the positions that appear in one's games.
> ... might you be making assumptions about the kind of ambitions or passion one has for the chess board? ...
Well, it wasn't me making the comment. I would not be able to say what Lasker was assuming when he wrote it.
@dboing said in #15:
> ... I would rather not hear about such absolute decrees. ...
I think that it is interesting to see comments such as the one by Lasker, even if perhaps some sort of modification would have been appropriate.
@dboing said in #15:
> ... I really prefer to understand first and whatever is implied in your statement later. ... I have never been good at learning a dictionary before trying to speak. Although, I did try many times..
Since Lasker himself wrote, "examining and memorising", I would imagine that he himself had some notion of beginning by seeking some understanding.
@dboing said in #17:
> can we skip the forward traversal, and get on with the set of ideas. right from the positions where we can see them, and then leave our own competent autonomous practice induce where from. Then at least we would have the pleasure of discovery, ...
I admit that I am just guessing, but I imagine that Lasker would not have objected to a reader who sought the pleasure of discovery by skipping the part of his book about openings.
@dboing said in #18:
> ... Is everyone here on lichess within the target audience of [the GM Soltis comment, "That is memory without understanding. But the other extreme -- understanding without memory -- is just as bad."]
I doubt that there are very many who go to the extreme of trying to do entirely without memory, but perhaps consideration of the extreme was the author's attempt to indicate something about trying to be near that extreme.
@dboing said in #18:
> for what exactly, is it bad? for enjoying chess itself, for keeping enjoying chess, playing or studying while understanding? more and more, within each abilites to progress that way. Bad for what exactly. Hidden assumptions. ...
I would guess that many would rather not spend a lot of time studying positions that did not seem to have much to do with the positions that appear in one's games.
@RamblinDave
Thanks for the advice!
Thanks for the advice!
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.