If you browse through the material published to help beginner-level chess players to improve, you will often see the advise of not studying openings. I used to believe that myself, but now I have reason to change my opinion on that: Studying openings made me a more successful chess player! And I can even prove that statistically!

First of all, I'd like to say that I never consciously tried to memorize opening lines, and I still believe that memorizing tons of moves doesn't get you anywhere. What I did is that I decided to learn more about the general plans and ideas behind the openings I play by analyzing complete games. Until very recently, I was firmly convinced that this does not make me a more successful chess player in terms of winning games. However, it had one immediate success: I got exposed to a few plans for attacks I could try out in my own games. And having a plan, particularly when it is a plan for an attack, makes playing much more fun!

How did I find out that studying openings gives me also the skills to win more chess games? Well, I was simply too lazy to study all the openings I play. Because of limited time, I decided to look only into my repertoire as White which is based on the Colle-Zukertort opening system. I started that sometime this year in the spring by looking at a master game in my opening repertoire may be once a week, probably even less often because I still have only a dozen games in the database I use to analyze these games. In the months before I started my opening studies, I won 31% of my games as White and 32% of my games as Black. Since April, I still win about 30% of my games as Black. However, I am now winning 47% of my games as White, a significant improvement. I don't think that the color of the pieces I move around has a significant impact on my tactical or strategic skills, and in fact, at all times during my short chess career before I started studying games in my White repertoire, my winning percentage with Black and White was roughly equal. Furthermore, I did not change the openings I play. I still start out pretty much with the same moves I used before.

So what has changed? Before I got to know a few ideas behind the opening I play, I pretty much decided my moves based on searching database trees. This can be very conveniently done in correspondence games. However, I did not know the reasoning for these moves and as soon as the games entered uncharted territory it was like driving in a dense fog - I had no idea what to aim for. Now that I know a few typical plans that are possible in typical positions that arise from my openings, I have a plan and can move my pieces on positions that make sense. Or at least more sense than before. In a strict sense, one may therefore say that I did not study opening moves but opening specific middlegame strategy.

Does it mean that I now win all my games as White when I have a plan? Of course not. After all, winning requires assistance in form of mistakes by my opponents. And for the most part, I still need a lot of "assistance" to obtain the big advantage I need to win, because my tactical and strategical skills are not (yet) good enough to capitalize on small advantages. But more often than before, I am now able to start an attack that puts pressure on my opponent's position, making it more likely that he/she makes a mistake before I do.

Only too bad that my ability to make a reasonable plan is still restricted to a handful positions. In fact, I do not have any plan at all when things get chaotic. Last night, for instance, I was playing a couple of blitz games at ICC. Andorrano, a good player I met there saw my games and compared my play with that of a chicken - no plan whatsoever. I will have to learn some strategic concepts to get better at chess. Only too bad that my board vision is so bad that I am still leaving pieces en prise during blitz chess games. Tactics, strategy, openings, endgames - so many things to study and so little time.

Read more about openings:
Why chess openings are so addictive
Beginners playing off-beat openings: good or bad?
Mystery chess position VI: opening tactics
How much opening knowledge does a novice need?

Comments (8)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

...
written by likesforests, August 31, 2007

"Andorrano, a good player I met there saw my games and compared my play with that of a chicken - no plan whatsoever." LoL. I've also found it helpful to understand the middlegame plans that arise from my opening, as opposed to memorizing variations.

...
written by Sciurus, September 01, 2007

Likesforests:
yes, having a plan definitely helps. The only problem is that I know my way only in very few specific situations. Otherwise I get lost easily, particularly in chaotic positions that do not resemble anything I have seen before.

The success in my statistics might be also due to the fact that the Colle-Zukertort system is relatively easy to learn. Gotta think a bit on how to expand my knowledge.

...
written by Dan, September 01, 2007

I agree Sciurus, however, don't forget to play through those main lines. Make sure you see how to attack out of a particular opening. that is what has helped me the most. I can get through the opening, but where and how to attack once i reach the midgame is the real struggle. So you pick the Kings Indian, what are the strengths of that opening, and how are better players attacking out of it? The answers to those questions help me more than studying the opening itself! =D

Cheers mate!

...
written by Sciurus, September 01, 2007

Hi Dan,
that is exactly how I am doing it: Playing through a couple of master games trying to find attacking plans. No memorizing at all, although the first couple of moves tend to 'stick' because they are repeated so often.

...
written by Loomis, September 02, 2007

This is a great post. Everyone who tries to learn chess should read this. Other very good players have put a lot of effort into finding good plans and good moves in positions similar to ones we'll be in. It only makes sense to borrow those ideas when looking for moves.

Of course, this message is more powerful when coming from someone who has done it in practice and tracked their statistics to prove it! That's awesome.

I also like the part where you talk about needing mistakes from your opponents to win. But that you're not sitting around waiting for these mistakes. Having a good plan and making good moves leads to mistakes by the opponent.

Great post through and through.

...
written by Sciurus, September 04, 2007

Hi Loomis,
as I started chess I (like probably many other people) hoped that I could win a game by learning a nice opening that gives me an edge and pull the victory from it. A bit later I realized that this is far from the truth Anyway, I guess this is one thing that makes chess a great game. It is (almost) perfectly balanced, so that you really need 'help' from your opponent to win.

I was told once that there is some proof showing that you can always force a draw with perfect play. However nobody has a recipe for that method and I feel it would be rather boring to play for a draw anyway.

The chance to use statistics was really more due to laziness and time issues. I simply don't have time for both colors.

...
written by Robert, September 11, 2007

I agree with Loomis--a great post on the right way to study openings (middlegames!)

...
written by Sciurus, September 12, 2007

Hi Robert-

I do think that is the way of studying openings. After all, when you just memorize a lot of moves, you won't know what to do when your opponent comes up with something you haven't memorized, even if he made a mistake.

However, after writing this post I slowly start to think that I might be better off trying to learn some more general strategy concepts. There are not that many openings that are as solid and (relatively) simple like the Colle/Zukertort. So I am afraid I will have trouble applying this method to other openings without a solid foundation in strategic knowledge.

Show/Hide comment form

Name

Website

Comment

Write the displayed characters

Add Comment