Why Studying Openings Won't Take You to the Next Level

[@ChessWithMouselip]

Just to hear a GM say that they get the feeling "I don't know what to do here" like I do is enlightening. "Enlightening" in a deep sense of the word -- not only is it illuminating, it also reduces a self-inflicted emotional burden.

[@WeCube1898]

We were told by our coach before to have a balanced study: * Endgame Scenarios & Checkmate Patterns - 30% * Opening Principles & Strategy Concepts - 30% * Middle-game Tactics, Positional Play and Grid Activity - 40% Very hard to follow but a good concept.

[@chicassoproductions8527]

I've heard 20% on openings, 40% on mid game and 40% on endgame. I think yours and my suggestions are both good and as you said just as hard to follow.

[@connormonday]

It’s interesting, because I “knew” that Nb3 was the modern main line (I’ve heard some GMs argue the 5.Nb3 line is the reason 4…Nf6 is a theoretically better move) but it never occurred to me that the move was anti positional. I definitely didn’t know it used to be considered inaccurate! It just goes to show knowing what the latest word on some line is isn’t the same as actually understanding the moves.

[@pauliinuma]

Studying openings is important, especially opening principles and understanding. But you’re right, most people put too much emphasis memorizing openings and not understanding them and they do nothing but just studying openings or tactics and fail to work on other things - chess psychology, positional understanding, and most importantly going over your own personal games. Love your wisdom GM Kraai.

[@LesPaulElitist]

I agree with everything Jesse says here about over-valuing openings, especially at the class level. I'd like to add that it's not necessarily bad to study opening theory per se, but the problem is that it can be time-consuming. One has only so many hours in the day to study chess and opening theory memorization only makes one erudite, not skillful. Time spent on learning opening theory means time NOT spent on studying something that has a greater return on investment, which would be something like tactics. For example, you can tactically defend your way out of a bad opening. You can't memorize your way out of a complex middle game.

[@djvex6180]

This is a great point that after years of being casually into chess to finally accept. I always spent so much time studying opens because I found it fun and felt like I had some secret weapon but I think a lot of that time was wasted.

[@catman3443]

If you found it fun then it wasn't really wasted at all! After all, chess is a game

[@alancoe1002]

I get that. I think I became obsessed with openings after losing a lot of games right in the opening! It's natural. I started studying the endgame when I started losing there, having survived to that phase.

[@allaboutthegyro]

I've been spending a 20-40-40 split, with lots of emphasis on endgame, puzzles, and middlegame concepts.

[@robertmac7833]

My way of thinking is, if I don’t get through the opening..if I get creamed in the beginning, how the hell am I even going to get to the middle game or the end game to begin with??

[@mauriceboyle6923]

Excellent lecture/tutorial...thank you......very insightful , very helpful .. Respect.

[@BetterChessTraining]

Do you think perhaps when you say "study openings" you are referring to players memorizing and learning opening moves as opposed to a more comprehensive approach where a player analyzes their games and master games (modern and classic) within an opening repertoire? I'm not disagreeing except that how I "study openings" is a little different than how many might study openings - e.g. memorizing moves of theory as opposed to trying to understand the ideas and strategies.

[@BetterChessTraining]

@@dominusdone5023 Can you elaborate?

[@BetterChessTraining]

@BRYANT Thanks.

[@madhavsanap6690]

Who should be studying the openings , above what FIDE rating one should take openings seriously. And any book suggestion ?

[@ChessDojo]

5% of anyone's study time, really at any level, is a good rule of thumb

[@ChessDojo]

Kostya disagrees w/ Kraai on this one :-)

[@CSRookie]

I appreciate your insights thank you

[@thomasrowley6643]

Thank you for this stimulating video. I like your way of presentation and it is very accessible to players who are trying to improve their game. In general, I agree that many players overstudy opening theory because it gives them a sense of power of their opponent (I myself have done this). I think it is better to focus on finding tactics that are to your advantage. I thought the idea of "fixing your bad pieces" very interesting. I will try to apply this idea when reviewing my games.

[@letsmakeit110]

I hate when ppl talk about their intelligence in chess "Im not smart enough to see X" no dude you haven't played enough chess nobody's like I'm not smart enough to do card tricks but if I roll up to a casino I'm getting caught basically immediately.

[@RainingArtillery]

there are countless positions which a computer will not only hold but even prove an advantage in, while from a human perspective they are dead lost. As much as we (chess players) would like to, we can never truly emulate an engine. Your brains are the only ones you've got folks!

[@angel_machariel]

Mr. Kraai said: "you got a small center and you should know how to play this kind of structure " . I want to know about that. I have some material about center types but nothing mentions "the small center and how to play it" . Could anyone guide me in the right direction as to study this?

[@alancoe1002]

My System, and also Praxis of My System both by Aron Nimzovich. Lots of stuff about small centers (and much more!).

[@lukastux3024]

8:00 But Nb3 is best according to stockfish, with a small edge

[@reef6826]

Tfw you paid $100 to memorise 1000 variations on chessable, then opponent plays 1. f3. I think opening study can be okay as long as it’s taken slow, mindlessly training variations won’t achieve anything, but if you say once a day or even week look at a particular line, really try to understand the theory behind the line, maybe look at some instructive games from those resulting positions after the opening then it can be useful, but even then your time was still probably better used on puzzles… Training openings kinda feels like the get rich quick scheme for chess.

[@Socrates...]

I love your channel, thanks

[@Heroball299]

I really love studying openings. I don't know how much it helped. I just find them interesting. Good instructors like Simon Williams explains the ideas behind the moves well so it's not just memorising lines. I don't remember a lot of the lines but I just try to understand the ideas.

[@AngelCruz-nr8wb]

Hi! Thanks for the advices

[@alexf0101]

great stuff

[@darrylgordon6360]

Can you give more examples of bad pieces? If they are because of the opening can you transpose or use a different different move order so the piece is not bad.

[@sachinpaul2111]

With all due respect, I disagree It’s not about specific lines per se but I find myself at home with 1. d4 more than I ever will with 1. e4. It’s like I know where the pieces go from years of playing the same opening and analyzing my games afterwards. Openings are important. Yeah, middlegame tactics and endgames are important as well but what use is the Philidor position to a man who can’t spot Qa4+ and d5 to win a rogue knight on c6 because the opponent misplayed an opening

[@SerLaama]

"a man who can’t spot Qa4+ and d5 to win a rogue knight on c6 because the opponent misplayed an opening" So... a tactically weak player that spent all their time on openings?

[@grafendorfer5272]

A bit late to the party, but let me say i love your videos! Your French guide has given me a lot of nice games, i finally get to make french players sad >:) That being said, as far as i'm aware, Nb3 is pretty much the main line at this point, played numerous times by Giri, Dominguez, etc..... While i agree with the overall sentiment, you don't just get to call a mainline "bad" based on general principles, especially in a tactical opening like the Scotch.

[@jackherbic6048]

Not sure I agree with this idea but interesting video. Ultimately tactics are more important than strategy in chess. Strategic thinking is like coming up with metaphors for a math problem, it can help you generalize, but ultimately the exact answer is what matters not the general principle. For example there is a strategic rule that knights are better centralized, but tactics can dictate knight h3 is the best move.

[@zenchess]

The reality is much more nuanced than that. For example you can play against a weak engine, and if you make any tactical blunders it will ruthlessly capitalize, but it will often make strategic errors that you can exploit. A common mistake by a weak engine is getting into a bad minor piece endgame like a good knight vs bad bishop endgame in which the engine never made any tactical errors, but long term strategy will beat it out. Any kind of weakness, whether strategical or tactical, will be exploited by your opponents.

[@jackherbic6048]

@@zenchess Tactics are nuance strategy is generalization. Strategies ultimately are long tactical strings, and no matter how nice your strategy works on paper, the tactics will be the deciding factor on whether it plays out how you wanted it to. Ultimately the difference is, strategy asks is this move good in general, tactics asks is this move good in this game. Strategy can be good to fall back on when you can't read out far enough, but ultimately strategic thinking will lose to positional knowledge. Because generalities are not as accurate as precise study of a position.

[@maniniescobar244]

Tactics arise from a superior position " quote

[@tameshrew469]

@@maniniescobar244 exactly when there are no tactics on the board you play for a strategic advantage until tatcts arise

[@inguh7041]

I am far from GM strength at the moment, but Kraai's statements about Nb3 in the Scotch I have to disagree with. I thought it was a legitimate move, even Carlsen played it. And if you study theory, you WILL come across it. *Edit* But I think it is better if I focused on the instructive points in the video instead. It is nice to see instruction from GMs, this is something we wouldn't have 10, 20 years ago. A golden age to improve chess!

[@ChessDojo]

see reply above

So...when is the time to study the opening...

[@vatsala6497]

Echecs - Hub City Chess 1600 rating maybe. It kind of depends really on how much of the middle game and endgame you understand (ideas that you must learn intuitively and not memorize)

[@kevinwellwrought2024]

Learning the opening is very important and you can learn many things from it. Making inaccurate moves in the opening is enough for losing the middle and endgame. At high level of chess it is all about opening preparation.

[@klacsanzky77]

This is true, at the GM level and Super GM level they study a lot of opening theory to surprise their opponents. But there are players who reach national master level without much opening theory, more tactics, studying of chess principles, middlegame and endgame ideas. Its in a way sad that opening theory is so heavy at the high level, since it takes away some of the creativity. That's why its fun to watch certain players like Ivanchuck, Jobava and Rapport, who play creative styles.

[@kevinwellwrought2024]

@@klacsanzky77 Even at 1800 ELO opening lnowledge is very important. The difference is at master level they must know like up to 15-20 opening moves whereas at 1800 ELO 8-10 moves. No chess expert (ELO 2000 plus) and chess master (ELO 2200 plus) dares to play chess without opening knowledge and all of these players already have good knowledge of opening theory. Without opening knowledge any player at 1800 ELO and above will either lose the game quickly or gets a weak/bad position in the middle and endgame. Knowledge of tactics and strategy are important in middle and endgame but in the opening you must lnow exactly what you are doing. A German proverb says ‘a chess game is decided in the opening.’

[@klacsanzky77]

@@kevinwellwrought2024 Some GM's like Jesse Krai have played Sicilian lines against other GM's without much knowledge and won. It's possible to play well without memorization of openings, but knowing opening principles. Think about it, Paul Morphy played well without much opening theory available. He was a tactical genius. If you have time to think in a long game, you can create a good opening structure and ideas for an attack, without playing it before.

[@kevinwellwrought2024]

@@klacsanzky77 Paul Morphy played against players who did not know opening theory either. As I said if you do not know opening theory you get bad positions in middlegame or lose evening in the opening stage of the game. Also, opening theory unlike what beginners often think is not about memorisation of moves and lines; you must understand the rationale behind every move and it is planning for middlegame.

[@ChessJourneyman]

The sports analogy isn't accurate. Even at an amateur level, a lighter bike makes a big difference, not to mention they replace worn out parts of the bike every month 😂 Same applies to running. Having spikes and less restrictive clothing makes a difference. But that's all acceptable. Much more severe is Nike pushing the legal boundaries with their running shoes that feel like trampolines compared to the tradiotional materials. Notably, they literally had to ban too advanced swimsuits because they gave the wearer an unfair advantage. So while gear won't make a couch potato perform any better, it will give a significant advantage to an athlete. In that sense, I'd agree it's hilarious seeing 45-year old dads spending thousands on expensive equipment when 99% of the sport is in the work you have to put into it.

[@tonysu8860]

I agree with some of the other comments that the concepts presented in this video are not so strong... - Many people will likely find your suggestion that opening study is an exercise in control. Maybe for some, my opinion and what I've passed on to others is that the main purpose for opening study is to avoid traps and to achieve a piece setup for the middle game that can be played well. If the opponent falls into a trap or blunders, that's a bonus only but shouldn't usually be expected. Most people study openings with the express intent to trap their opponents but that is how you end up playing poor games because most opponents shouldn't voluntarily give you games. - I also don't agree with your approach to the opening analysis in this video, although I'm not as accomplished as you are (today! Maybe things will change some day!). The impression you're giving in this video is a turn by turn evaluation of the game's position based on what has changed. Although this should be done at momentous points in a game, it's my opinion to do so on every move is always reacting to what has happened rather than to force the game to develop to your own wishes. Anyway, thx for your efforts... I do look forward to your commentary in most of your videos... Just not so much this one.

[@juanignaciobarrasa3705]

Nb3 a poor move???? I just stopped to watch the video at that point.... ridiculous...

[@ChessDojo]

I feel your pain, Juan. Because several strong players have played Nb3 - but I think out of frustration with white's chances; comp agrees that black is just better after it.

[@ChessDojo]

However - I will be wrong sometimes! I never use the comp when I analyze these games, because anyone can turn that on themselves. I want to reveal many of my own blind spots. Part of human play.

[@taljechin]

Nb3 has gone full circle apparently! ;) In Kasparov's days it got a "?" in books on the Scotch and now it's the mainline... Still, positionally it's not a desireable move - but it gains a tempo while removing the knight from d4 stopping Black from gaining time by hitting hit while developing.

[@parker_chess]

Yeah Nb3 is an actual sideline. And white scores very well in the database. That being said c3 over nc3 when faced with the check is where white messed up in the opening.