Weekly study tip: What's underrated in chess study/improvement?

I like to focus on what's underrated in chess and chess study.  If you wanted a study plan that is much more correct that what I can give you, you'd grab $500 and start googling local grandmasters.

However, since this is free, I feel there are some decent insights I can give you.

As with most things in life, the truth is somewhere in between, even when it comes to openings.

The "o" word.  In junior high, I managed to get my hands on a copy of MCO.  I was a 1400 player on a very strong junior high team where most of the kids had many more years of experience than me.  I poured over the book.  My nemesis at the time, Jim Duensing, who the coach insisted was the best player on the team despite not being higher rated, played the Blackmar-Diemer gambit.  It gave me a lot of trouble.  Within weeks I was transposing to the Caro-Kann and the French, which I found gave him trouble.

Yes, I will agree with all of the masters and experts who, upon reading this, would be screaming "you were wasting your time!"  Had tactics trainer existed back then, or had I had a car and a tournament budget, my approach would have been much different.

I suppose if one is training a four year old to become the next Samuel Sevian or Awonder Liang, yes, it would be correct that openings are years away.

It is true that openings are only one thing.  Most young players should know that even if their opponents go out of theory, if their opponents just play good solid chess moves, the correct line will only put their opponent behind by .5 or so on the computer (don't worry, their will be a whole chapter on treating computers correctly as well).

I have several students that play on my son's high school team who got their first post-tournament provisional in the 1100-1200 range.  One has already reached 1600 and two others will soon follow.  All of this has occurred in eight months.  The focus has been middle games, where I believe chess talent shows.  However, I have told them they should spend 10-15% of whatever study time they have on openings.

But why?  I thought chess study until you are class A should be end games and tactics?  You will hear many strong players say this.

While chess openings are only one thing, they still are a thing.  Many strong players, players stronger than I, can't verbalize how to study openings as a young player.

Every player, whether they want to admit it or not, has types of games in which they are comfortable and types of games in which they are not.  My strength in a game where I have to worry about what is going to happen to a pawn on e5 is probably much lower than a game in which after 1. e4, I've played c5.  I don't have to worry about the pawn on e5 and I can get on with what makes me comfortable.

That's why I recommend that each player of 1400 or so strength study openings with the following things in mind.

a)  For a long time, the middle game will be most important.  Don't be like I was in junior high.  Spend a little time and get on with it.

b)  Make sure you have something against everything.  If you play 1. d4, look at all of black's plausible replies.  If, after 1. e4, you play c5, know replies to the Smith-Morra, Closed, Grand Prix, KIA against the Sicilian, and on and on.  Have a reply to irregular openings by white and black.  I love the London system.  If someone plays some hedgehog weird stuff against one of the Andrew players, I like watching them play d5, Nf6, Bf5, h6, e6, Be7, Nc6/Nbd7, c6/c5 and just blitz through the opening.  Have replies ready for f4, c4, Nf3.

I can't tell you how many games I've seen my students win because someone played the Dutch Defense and they remembered me saying, "this is one of the few times where, after d4, you don't follow up with c4, you follow up with Nc3 because it's all about controlling the e4 square and getting the push in before your opponent locks it up.

c) Get comfortable, focus on IDEAS, and don't worry about long memorization trees.  Their may come a time where you have this massive tree where on move 13 you know if black does this, you do that; if he does this, you do that.  And that's fine.  I look forward to the day where you are rated 2257 and I see you working on that.

For now, I like to have an approach most of the time that's just a few moves long, focuses on chess ideas as if you're already in the middle game, and then let's get on to playing chess.

Again, I'll go back to the Dutch.  My students know that after 1. d4 f5 you play 2. Nc3.  Why?  Typically black players playing the Dutch are in a race to get into stonewall formation and lock the e4 square down.  So, after 2. ... e6, 3. e4 follows logically.  After 2. ... Nf6, Bg5 follows logically because if black plays 3. ... e6, you can safely play e4 because of the pin on the knight.

Do these look good in a chess database percentage wise?  Yes.  But they are also grounded in good chess ideas.

I'll commonly be found at Tinley Park chess club saying, "after 1. e4 c5 2. c3, notice that white cannot drop a knight on c3 with tempo, because he already has a pawn there, therefore d5 is fine, and after 3. exd5 Qxd5 4. Nf3, the move "Bg4" looks a lot better than it is, because white has many defenses, so go for quick and conservative kingside development with Nf6, e6, Be7 and 0-0 in short order and let's see what happens in the middle game and come back to it if you lose.

d) View openings like this... you're not going to win the game in the opening separate a severe mistake by your opponent, and they do happen, but it will be middle game strength that will allow you to get the quick win when your opponent makes a big mistake.  While you're not going to win the game in the opening, you just don't want to lose it/you want comfort.

e) As an adult 1870 who barely remembers the 7th grade 1400 who was obsessed with openings that I once was... I can tell you that now, I have only one interest in the opening, whether I happen to have a trap/zap that a guy walks into, a long line memorized, or whether it's simply, "if after 1. d4 d5 2. c4 he plays Nc6 (the Chigorin), I know that this is one of the rare times where I'll just play a quick cxd5 and see what happens.  If I mess up from there, I'll learn something"... I want to be comfortable.

What makes me comfortable is when I play it safe for a bit unless I have wide open tactics, allow my opponent to overextend and then get counter aggressive against him.  So, I just know that the 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 f5 would not fit my comfort zone if I was black.

Learn to play in to your comfort and not away from it and you can get a gain in strength while the rest of your game catches up.

........

Opening study to me is kind of funny.  With some, it seems to take on an aura of glamour amongst chess things you can study.

However, I'd liken it to getting a haircut or going to the dentist.  You need to be groomed/have good teeth, so you're just trying to get in, do what you have to do, and get out.

While I've already advised that the 1300 not pour over openings, I'll give this advice on the other side.  I've seen a player above 2000 chastise others for studying openings at all because they weren't good enough yet.  I stood by as this guy berated a 1300 teenager.

An hour later, I watched as a student of this man was paired with a certain player and he pulled the kid aside and said "okay, this guy is going to open this way, if he plays this, you play this and then when he plays this, which he will, play this."  I almost passed out.

Burn these words into your head.  It's only one thing, but it IS a thing.

So, that's a view of openings.  Feel free to agree or disagree, but keep in mind that regardless of what part of the game we're talking about, my global advice to a friend who wanted to learn chess or was a 1200 who wants to be 1600 or a 1600 who wants to be 2000 will always be "lose 1000 games and come back to me.  You'll be better."