A Guide to Misguided Opening Study
At the board, lapses in logic may be punished harshly, making our errors painfully easy to see. Away from the board, logical lapses in our study of chess can have even harsher consequences but the underlying errors are much harder to identify and correct. This is especially true in our study of openings, where even the most intelligent and logical players can buy into approaches that are misguided.
Certain comments are red flags that your approach to opening study may not be as objective and as logical as it should be. See how many of these you’ve said or thought.
1) “I must avoid theory.”
This is certainly an understandable sentiment. Leave the theory to the chess professionals. It’s just not practical for a non-professional to compete in the theory arena, right?
I think this comment is misguided for several reasons. Opening theory consists of what strong players have played before, and nobody can absorb much of it. Consider an opponent who knows opening theory better than you do. If he’s a strong player his strongest weapon is his overall playing ability, not what he knows about book moves. If he’s a weak player, good, all you have to do is out-debate a parrot.
Don’t treat theory as a dirty word. Understanding some of what strong players have played before allows you to stand on the shoulders of giants when you have to face tough competition. Play discredited openings and gambits if you wish, but recognize that if you do you are only playing for recreation, not for improvement.
2) “I need to play an easy opening I’m comfortable with.”
Many players become attracted to openings like the Colle, the London, the King’s Indian Attack, or the Dutch Stonewall. At first glance, they may even look like a perfect solution to your opening study problems. You can almost close your eyes to what your opponent is doing, set up your pieces just so, and you magically get a playable game. Sounds almost too good to be true, doesn’t it?
I term such openings “seductive” because, despite their apparent beauty, all is not as rosy as it appears. One big problem with openings where you don’t have to think, is that’s just what you’ll do - not think. It is possible to play these openings well, and improve while doing it, but it takes far more will power than most players have. Also, remember that if you’re just setting up your pieces without much thought, you’re not posing problems for your opponent, and he might be even happier with the resulting position than you are.
You can’t play good chess on auto-pilot and you should beware of openings that have that feature as a primary selling point.
3) “I need to dictate play with a forcing opening.”
A nice fantasy, but it isn’t logical or realistic. If you could do this to your opponent, why couldn’t he do it to you? White and Black get to take turns so the opening you arrive at is a collaborative effort. A consequence of this observation is that, to be a strong chess player, you have to be a “universal” chess player. No matter how you try to steer a chess game your way, you’re going to face a wide variety of positions, some you like more than others. You have to work on all aspects of your game so you can play all those positions well.
Some books tout “universal” all-you-need-to-know openings such as 1…d6 or 1…g6, implying Black is forcing White to dance to Black’s tune. These are legitimate openings but White has enormous freedom in choosing how to respond. Black isn’t forcing much on White besides the name of the opening.
4) “I got clobbered because I didn’t know the theory of the opening.”
This is extremely rare, and only occurs when both players choose to go into a variation known to be so sharp that a memory lapse can be instantly fatal. More likely you lost because you ran into a stronger player or you didn’t play as strongly as you could have. You can’t play chess by trying to “remember what you’re supposed to do” in every position.
You can, however, navigate an opening very well once you understand some of the common ideas and strategies of an opening. Playing over annotated games in that opening helps. So does reading books about a particular opening.
5) “I have to play to avoid that particular annoying opening.”
Yes, there are openings and variations we’d rather not face, but there’s no opening so fearsome that it justifies bypassing good openings or good moves. Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.
One way to deal with the annoyance is to study the opening enough that you understand it and actually look forward to facing it, to make use of your study if nothing else. Another way is to flip the board around - try playing the annoying opening yourself.
6) “I’m playing this opening temporarily.”
“Temporary” can be forever. If you’re playing an opening you know doesn’t belong in a quality repertoire, you’d better find a way to start playing the quality openings soon.
7) “I’ll play this opening after I learn it.”
This is a chicken-and-egg problem. You can study as long as you want, but you won’t really learn an opening until you start playing it. I agree with GM Alex Yermolinsky’s advice in The Road to Chess Improvement. To add an opening to your repertoire, start playing it. It’s scary but I think it’s the most productive way to learn an opening.
Learning means trying new things. If you’re too cautious you won’t get the long term improvement you’re capable of.
8) “I need to overhaul my opening repertoire.”
After some bad tournament results, it’s tempting and common to identify your opening repertoire as the culprit. Even strong players fall in this trap. It is a way to rationalize a fun activity (playing around with different openings) instead of taking a cold hard look at your own play. The latter may not be fun, and may be downright sobering in fact, but it’s far more likely to lead to serious improvement. If you’re already playing respectable openings, make sure your wish to overhaul your repertoire is based on a mismatch between the openings and your playing style, and not because your recent weak play has you looking for a scapegoat.
The danger of the red flags is that they all sound reasonable, they have a grain of truth, and they may lead a chess player down a dead-end path. A successful approach to studying openings should be based on objective observations and self assessment.
Observe that the openings you play give you a framework on which to hang what you learn about chess. Remember that you’re playing chess, not openings. You don’t need a broad opening repertoire but you should find openings that fit your personality and style. One way to find such openings is to play over games and see which openings and positions just feel right to you. Obviously you don’t want openings that feel boring or terrifying, but be prepared to push the envelope of what you feel comfortable with. It’s almost impossible to be completely happy with every variation of every opening in your repertoire.
To zoom in on a quality opening that you could start learning now rather than later, ask yourself what you would play if you had to commit to an opening for the rest of your career, or if your opponents knew which opening you were going to play. If you find an opening you’re happy with, you can often find a Grandmaster “mentor” who plays it and then see what else he plays to round out your repertoire.
Above all, if you want to improve, think long term. Even if you’re at the bottom of the food chain now and are content to play safe, start thinking about to the weapons you will need to start beating stronger opposition.
*****
This article appeared in the January 2004 issue of Northwest Chess.
http://www.sarasheridan.com
