Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Beginner's Garden of Chess Openings (2002)

dwheeler.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 135 posts

Re: A Beginner's Garden of Chess Openings (2002)

#31

Post by iamcreasy »

YetAnotherNick wrote: post #22
iamcreasy wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Below 1700 or so, openings are mostly a waste of time Here is a counter argument - below 1700, someone who knows the strength of an opening would outperform those who do not.

The opening strength will only work when you know how to exploit something small in opponent's opening like a miss of tempo or wrong reply, which I think is above the skill of sub 1700. All the players above 1000 know basic principles like mobility of pieces and developing centre.

> The opening strength will only work when you know how to exploit something small in opponent's opening like a miss of tempo or wrong reply

That's exactly what I am saying. If one person knows the strength of an opening and the other person don't then the person who knows the opening has a clear advantage. I agree with @skulk's argument though - the time is better spent on learning tactics and analyzing games over learning many opening given the player is sticking to some particular openings.

Re: A Beginner's Garden of Chess Openings (2002)

#32

Post by SoSoRoCoCo »

metroholografix wrote: post #5

Below 1700 or so, openings are mostly a waste of time and tactics rule the day. Learning the basic opening principles and two basic opening moves that you keep playing (one for white, one for black) and focusing on tactics [1][2] is in my experience the fastest way to advance. After 1700 or so, specific openings can be studied. I suggest playing d4 instead of e4 as white (avoids dealing with the Sicilian) and as blac…

The problem with tactics training is that there is always a "best answer" because they have been picked to have a best answer.

What got me playing over 1700 (lichess rating grin) were two things:

1) deepening my mental checklist: 1) am i being attacked, 2) are there unprotected pieces, 3) am I about to be forked/pinned, 4) can I fork/pin my opponent ... and increase how far down you can BFS this without getting a headache. And avoiding endgames because those are just logical grinds.

2) playing with an analysis engine like stockfish.

For me, memorizing defenses was not feasible because it is so broad, but I learned two openings (scotch and queens pawn) and at least know the defenses there because i know the openings. a little bit.

I'll keep at it, memorizing defenses, but I'm old and probably won't cram more into my brain.

EDIT: I used to go to a sunday-night chess meetup before COVID. 1700 on Lichess is nowhere near 1700 FIDE rating (of course, it was at a bar, so I'm usually a few pints in). I stopped going because I got tired of getting my ass kicked, there weren't enough mediocre players there.

Re: A Beginner's Garden of Chess Openings (2002)

#33

Post by banachtarski »

antognini wrote: post #15
lcuff wrote: post #10

My advice to beginners is to not stick with one opening, but to play them all. Include wild openings like the Kings Gambit and Danish Gambit, as well as strategic openings like the Queen's Gambit. You will be out of 'the book' very quickly, and that's actually good. You'll be learning to play, rather than recall. Another piece of advice: Study endgames before openings. Learn about K + P vs K, the elementary mates, (K…

> Study endgames before openings. Growing up we had a copy of The Art of Chess by James Mason. The book starts out with the endgame, goes into the midgame, and ends with openings. The philosophy was that if you don't understand how to play when there are four pieces on the board, how will you be able to play when there are 32?

I grew up playing chess competitively and used to make this argument all the time.

Since then however, I've relaxed my stance. In reality, endgame theory is in some sense, far more complicated than many opening systems, because their are so many degrees of freedom. Yes there are 32 pieces at the start of the game, but prior to development and initial piece placement, there are usually far fewer candidate moves. I think it's a good idea for a beginner to learn at least a few opening systems after getting the "gist" of the endgame like king opposition and opposite color bishops etc.

Re: A Beginner's Garden of Chess Openings (2002)

#34

Post by ghaff »

sour-taste wrote: post #16

I find it amazing that a game that's so old doesn't have a dominating opening. I see no reason for that to be the case. Maybe it's just a matter of us not having the computational power to find such an opening and analyze it's continuations to completion. I know that there's a huge number of reachable chess states, but it still seems like there could be an opening that always wins.

The consensus is that white is only guaranteed a draw if it plays perfectly. [1] But that's neither proven or a universal opinion.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-move_advantage_in_chess

Re: A Beginner's Garden of Chess Openings (2002)

#35

Post by jedberg »

pmoriarty wrote: post #13

After a lifetime of chess, I've more recently become a fan of Fischer random chess (aka Chess960)[1], where the back rows of pieces are shuffled before the game begins. It puts puts people on a more equal footing in terms of their actual chess playing skills instead of their opening memorization abilities. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer_random_chess

I was coming here to say the same thing. I'm in no way a good chess player by any means, but the equalization of Fischer chess appeals to me. I'm not going to lose because I didn't memorize as many openings, I'm going to lose because I suck.

Re: A Beginner's Garden of Chess Openings (2002)

#36

Post by sverona »

opportune wrote: post #17
TameAntelope wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To add to this, the advice I've been given as a new/low rating chess player is to study endgames, if you must study something specific.

Specifically for endgames you pretty much only need to know two patterns that are rather algorithmic: How to close a game where you’re up a rook or a queen (without stalemating). How to close a game where you’re up one pawn, if it’s not a forced stalemate. Two bishops is maybe something you want to learn. Theoretically knight + bishop as well. I play a lot of bullet chess and pretty much never see these though. The r…

There's an old story about a GM who wound up with bishop + knight versus king and realized he'd forgotten how to do it.

Re: A Beginner's Garden of Chess Openings (2002)

#37

Post by bluGill »

idealism wrote: post #18
metroholografix wrote: post #5

Below 1700 or so, openings are mostly a waste of time and tactics rule the day. Learning the basic opening principles and two basic opening moves that you keep playing (one for white, one for black) and focusing on tactics [1][2] is in my experience the fastest way to advance. After 1700 or so, specific openings can be studied. I suggest playing d4 instead of e4 as white (avoids dealing with the Sicilian) and as blac…

I understand what you're saying and agree, although I may suggest that 1700 number come down a bit to maybe 1200. I'm around the 1000-1200 range (just picked it up again recently) and I'd say most of my peers on Chess.com around that range have definitely studied openings and present sneaky traps consistently in the first ~5-15 moves. Playing as black for me is the real driving force for me to study openings because…

But you only need to get a bit better to see through the common traps even the first time. The very first time I saw a scholars mate attempted against me I thought the moves were weird and made the obvious tactical response, only end up down a pawn. I was annoyed at being down a pawn afterwards and looked it up the opening, and only then did I discover the so called trap that I unknowingly didn't fall into because there are several good defenses that someone who knows even a little tactics will discover.

Now at the 2500 level you get into sequences where you need to see a trap 15 non-forced moves in advance to not fall into it with seemingly natural moves. These can only be found in advance.

Re: A Beginner's Garden of Chess Openings (2002)

#38

Post by bluGill »

cactus2093 wrote: post #26
kwertyops wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tactics trainers: https://lichess.org/training/ https://chesstempo.com/chess-tactics/ https://www.chess.com/puzzles

I'm curious if anyone has advice on how to interpret the ratings in the tactics trainers. Should they map roughly to your in-game rating? I'm pretty new to chess and still pretty bad (just under 1000 online, I make a lot of blunders and/or fall for opponents' tactics) but my rating is 1750 on the tactics trainer. I would imagine at some point the tactics are not the bottleneck and I should be working on something els…

You can make grandmaster studying only tactics and playing games. However most branch out long before then because there are other useful things to learn as you get good.

Re: A Beginner's Garden of Chess Openings (2002)

#39

Post by bluGill »

iamcreasy wrote: post #14
metroholografix wrote: post #5

Below 1700 or so, openings are mostly a waste of time and tactics rule the day. Learning the basic opening principles and two basic opening moves that you keep playing (one for white, one for black) and focusing on tactics [1][2] is in my experience the fastest way to advance. After 1700 or so, specific openings can be studied. I suggest playing d4 instead of e4 as white (avoids dealing with the Sicilian) and as blac…

> Below 1700 or so, openings are mostly a waste of time Here is a counter argument - below 1700, someone who knows the strength of an opening would outperform those who do not.

I disagree. If there are two 1700 players, the opening player is only better if the game goes according to the prepared moves. A good tactical player who realizes you are going via prep will make a stupid move and pull you out of book. From this point on the tactical player has the advantage because he has experience defending random stuff, while the opening player has to figure out why the move so stupid it isn't even in his book is bad and exploit that. Of course if the stupid move is in the opening book then the opening player is better, but that is unlikely.

Re: A Beginner's Garden of Chess Openings (2002)

#40

Post by lcuff »

hengri wrote: post #29
opportune wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Specifically for endgames you pretty much only need to know two patterns that are rather algorithmic: How to close a game where you’re up a rook or a queen (without stalemating). How to close a game where you’re up one pawn, if it’s not a forced stalemate. Two bishops is maybe something you want to learn. Theoretically knight + bishop as well. I play a lot of bullet chess and pretty much never see these though. The r…

I have ~3000 blitz games in Lichess and I have never once had to play 2 bishops or bishop knight end games.

I had to play B + N over the board early in my career, so it's definitely YMMV. It takes very little study: For B + N knowing that you mate in the corner that matches the color of the bishop, and that the knight needs to 'lead' in the effort to corral the king is all you really need to know. A half day of practice would cement it, I suspect.
Post reply on HN