How Opening Study Could Be HINDERING Your Progress

[@joao.nuno.valente_]

14:15 That face killed me!

[@jholyhead]

I get the feeling that if one of Jesse's girlfriends had played c4 in that position, it would have been explosive for their relationship

[@CastroMKE]

I definitely agree after putting theory into practice. I put all my opening “study” time to solving puzzles and took a few weeks off. When I returned I jumped from 850s-970s (rapid) and my puzzle rating has increased from 1300s-1800s. Now my only opening study is when I fall into a trap or am clearly worse after the opening. Then and only then do I check with computer to see what I should’ve played. Otherwise I mostly just computer for missed tactics like a game long puzzle. Anyways, endgames and calculations over opening study any day. With good calculation, you can find yourself pretty decent out of the opening 95% of the time.

[@mustaphad1319]

Exactly and even when you're book says you have a slight advantage you end up not knowing what to do half the time

[@greatdanelegend7001]

More like 95% of the time tbh

[@anachromium]

This was by far the best lesson on opening principles I have seen until today. Thank you! I have to admit, I studied openings far too much in my beginnings, but I felt like drowning in a sea of possibilities without that preparation. Nowadays I know better, had I only seen this video a couple of yeara ago. :)

[@bmac8322]

Long comment, sorry, TL;DR(too long; don't read) - this quick and dirty game analysis format is educational GOLD. I really really like this quick game analysis format with just a little about each move rather than a deep dive. "This move is not good, blocks in the bishop, you're hindering your development. This move is fine, fine, fine, weird. What is this move doing?", or maybe more commentary if the situation calls for it. I think this is great because we viewers/learners/improvers can quickly see trends/themes in what makes a move bad or good, and a lot of beginner/intermediate moves don't require an ultra-deep analysis to figure out it's a mistake, it's something we can see quickly with a bit of explanation or questioning. Deep dives are fine(and that's also something we need to do in Chess) but sometimes just going through a couple games quickly showing dozens of examples can be really great. Reminds me of some of Dan Heisman's videos, showing like 10-15 examples in 30 minutes to give a feel for the ideas being presented. The brief story about the girlfriends, about how, after just a short while with constructive feedback, they improved greatly at the basics - it's a great example of how feedback from a well-spoken GM Coach can really shine a light on how to improve. Seriously what a great story! Another point that I like about this video - these are games from learners/improvers with lots of mistakes and missed opportunities mixed in with some okay moves. This is great because, compared to top-level games with basically no mistakes or minimal mistakes(per game), there's a lot of educational value in seeing these mistakes and why each of them matters and how another move would be better. Sometimes it's obvious but to have it laid out so nicely, critically, and honestly, I think this is a GREAT type of video. Personally, I'd love seeing videos like this in the future. I really love what the Dojo does for chess improvers, just wanted to let you know how great this is, in my opinion. After saying all that, I'd like to say thank you and keep up the great work, you guys are hitting it out of the park!

[@Frogfish999]

I’m about ~1700 and I actually found this video very useful for understanding opening principles better. I agree that memorizing specific lines is rarely useful for us low elo plebs but I do think that learning some of basic ideas of the broader opening can make chess a lot more fun as otherwise you just end up playing the 4 knights every game.

[@seagull1756]

This show just hit the next level

[@ParisDorn159]

Next video: how opening study can accelerate your progress

[@Simplement724]

In my experience its easier to play games and analyze them to learn openings rather than learn openings to then play them in games. Most strong players know alot of theory from playing games and following principles. You can get to expert without spending time learning openings specifically. After 2000+ (otb not online), some memorization might be required, although by that point most players have learned how to properly study and train to improve so they won't get caught only studying openings.

[@RedGaming23]

Can’t believe Iv never seen someone explain so clearly why g6 followed by e6 is so wrong but it makes sense when you explain it this way 6:45

[@summonersummoner9536]

Lowenthäl wrote in the preface to the chess Congress of 1862 Book “The Opening,which may be considered the most important branch of the game - that in which a position is striven for- “ .

[@bluefin.64]

In a way he was right, because the opening sets you up for the rest of the game, but because it's so much about memorization it doesn't help you understand chess in a general way as well as other areas do.

[@Zenitself]

I’ve started building my own repertoire based on the illustious NM RobRam’s openings and that has made all the differences

[@maoropizzagalli4153]

I totaly agree, platform such as chessable are good, but I don't like the way they teach is much more memorisation (maybe good for top notch player). I am having a hard time getting a opening repertoir I feel comfortable with because I don't build on my own games and play the lines of some else

[@MattduCouloir]

Playing devil’s advocate here : one could argue that the bad examples shown here look more like people who are not following opening principles and also did not read much opening theory. I barely spend time on openings, but I personally found that initially getting a general idea of the usual moves and ideas (2h max) gave me confidence and now I rely on my own game analysis to improve all phases of the game. Nothing wrong about what GM Kraai is saying of course, but I found some people in the dojo training program were a bit too dogmatic about it, not willing to hear about a move I hate facing against my english opening in the post mortem, etc.

[@bruhifysbackup]

i heavily agree with you, opening theory should make sense and many cases, the opening theory is mostly about: control the centre(CHALLENGE it with pawns, develop the piece, get castled safely, play AGGRESIVELY whenever opponent wastes time or there is an imbalance in material or there is piece tension, and mostly the typical pawn breaks in those structures, so these people just probably dont know how to play the opening

[@huntero]

wow, incredible content. I have definitely been doing this. thank you!

[@todesque]

Terrific video! Please do another like it on this exact topic.

[@liszt85]

The only reason f3 at 3:25 is called "controversial" instead of incorrect by Jesse is because the f3 pawn dominates the knight on f6. ;) And the only reason c3 earlier was incorrect was because there was no knight on c6. ;) @mitchfabian, if you see this comment, you know what I mean.

[@L33TTechReviewer]

I thought it was controversial because everyone knows the ben finegold saying of never move F pawn and if you do then f4/f5 not f3/f6 haha

[@stewste4316]

such a great video, i would like to know your opinion on what Fide elo is appropriate for really deep learn the theory?

[@irjake]

At 12:17 he says "you are up a pawn," because of the 3 tempi. For what it's worth, the engine gives with a more than +2 advantage in this position, so in the earliest parts of the opening the 3 tempi = 1 pawn formula might even under estimate the value of time.

[@64chess]

True, though in my experience the engine seldom values a pawn at 1 anyway. Late in the endgame it's winning or not, the rare times it has a horizon effect it might incorrectly value at +1.0 but it's actually 0.0 because of a fortress, and in the opening or middlegame, the edge is often much more than +1 (depending on the pawn/position). To drive home the point, very few positions where you are up 2 pawns are "only" +2. So being up one full pawn (in time or material) and being +2 seems pretty normal to me.

[@Socrates...]

Thank you Jesse for a really great video, I will view it a few times

[@krth337]

dementia donald

[@alexwiththeglasses]

I’m not one of those “vociferous voices”, but just an old beginner in my 60s who quit learning chess twice before, once at age 10 and again at age 16, because of this general issue - the opening. So your video is valuable to me personally, especially because you speak so clearly. It helps. And yes, I think your opinions in this video are highly suspect for two reasons: your definition of what “opening study” is seems silly judging from your examples (maybe that’s why some would call the title click bait?), and your lack of defining the “opening principles” makes the analysis and application incomplete and vague (although this seems true across the board among excellent players and teachers I see here on KZbin). Wonderful, thoughtful video on a highly practical topic!🙏

[@onatkorucu842]

c4 is the best move in @2:00 by the way. Then you follow up with Qb3.

[@mdsayedahmed7807]

Sir This video change my opening knowledge . I really like you teaching style .❤ you sir. My Dear can you suggest me some chess book to improve my chess knowledge.

[@screamingliner]

What about playing some Fischer random (960) to strengthen understanding of opening principles?

[@ccrean]

Love these vids

[@Nico-si1bo]

14:33 c4 is the equivalent of a bishop committing suicide lol (An explosive one that is, but no collateral damage)

[@treasonouspigeonpeckers957]

I do study openings more than I should be but I at least create a pgn for me to reference for certain openings. It sounds like they just look at a lot of videos that don’t make sense

[@mitchellfabian7694]

Not entirely sure this is why opening study hinders success. More like how absolutely not understanding the opening and just watching weird videos makes you worse

[@ChessDojo]

That's what many players think of opening study 🙂

[@bluefin.64]

I'm not persuaded either. OTOH, openings are so much about memorization, and you are much better off spending your study time on tactics and endgames. They give you a much deeper understanding of how to handle the pieces, which will help you in all areas of the game, including openings.

[@danilofoltran6056]

I'm the first one arriving in third place. That should count, I guess.

[@juleslondon3088]

Is it just me or does Jesse need a bigger cap? 😀

[@davegski]

That face at 14:15 :-)

[@aiGeis]

I couldn't help but laugh immediately at the first example game, wherein the white player looks like they don't know what they're doing and I'm just thinking "wait, this guy studies openings?"

[@Joe-nh8eq]

There’s a few things I want to say as an intermediate player who just started playing during COVID 1) yeah you shouldn’t start studying opening theory until you know opening principles. But 2) there’s a lot of conflation (maybe a bit of gatekeeping tbh not you guys) among advanced chess players, where they’ll state you just have to know principles when they’re actually just following theory… I’m sorry level 2200 “just following principles”, when you moved the same bishop 3 times to snake it around, that’s not following opening principles… don’t care what you say. And yes this is something that happened to me. And 3) openings lead into middle game structures. Middle game structures flow from openings. They can’t be divorced. You cannot study middle games without knowing the openings. And I think that’s something that gets really overlooked by very advanced players who have been playing since they were 5 years old…

[@mustaphad1319]

You can just learn middle game structures then you'll know what openings to play

[@Joe-nh8eq]

@@mustaphad1319 please find me one person I. The history of chess who learned and understood pawn structures before knowing the corresponding opening theory

[@ChessDojo]

Well given that there's 15 different openings that can lead to an IQP position, there's probably a lot of players who learned how to play IQP positions before learning all the various ways to get there, for instance

[@bluefin.64]

There are general things to learn about middlegames that apply across openings. When you become advanced, then you focus on more specific structures and plans related to your opening choices, but that can include the kinds of endgames that are likely to come out of an opening, not just middlegames. Jesse's advice is for players who are nowhere near benefitting from that kind of study.

[@Joe-nh8eq]

@@ChessDojo right but I bet you they all still learn one way to get there first right? Like I doubt there’s anyone who’s like “yeah isolated queens pawn”… “hmm queens gambit… I wonder what that is…”

[@lowtherlars]

HA, rookies. *goes back to wasting all his studying time on memorizing 700 lines of chessable theory*

[@PatrickRecordon]

Chessable is a great tool when used properly. Hellsten’s book about endgames (or polgar’s). Art of Attack revised with the computer and so many great books…

[@angryoldcanadian3905]

As a 1400 rated player, I play the London as white and Sicilian / KID as black. I own chessbase and did a search for games with these openings, I create a PGN of these games (3 separate pgn's) and play through them using the free 'guess the move' software. This helps me learn the openings, play through games, creates a file of my mistakes for review and get a good 'feel' for the plans in these openings. When the game is finished, I let the computer take over the losing side and practice my endgames until I checkmate. So far this has helped me avoid 'opening traps'

[@orusanen]

We teach to kids that you need to consider three things in opening (i.e achieve all before you start to attack): king safety, center and activity. All the shown examples violate these principles. Just keep thinking of these three principles when considering potential opening moves

[@douwehuysmans5959]

I find that if you do you will often end up with old main lines that are often still viable

[@orusanen]

@@douwehuysmans5959 yes, that's correct. The point is that anyone below 2000 should just focus on those three factors, and work on tactis & engames before that.

[@juleslondon3088]

I think this is good in general however most of the teaching I’ve seen explains what to move (centre pawns, knights, bishops, castle) but not specifically why each of these candidate moves are good in a given position and alternatives are bad. Jesse highlights these details nicely in this video.

[@Countdown420]

4th phew!

[@wreynolds1995]

The title of this video is the worst kind of clickbait: an outright lie! All of the games shown involve only players for whom whatever opening study they may have done has clearly not sunk in. If/when they choose to study the opening, then of course they should begin with basic principles; but since they aren't even following those in these games, it would actively *improve* their game to study the opening in this way. I hope David sees this comment and convinces you to correct your mistake.

[@mustaphad1319]

Would you mind me asking what your rating is?

[@ChessDojo]

Just wondering how it's clickbait when the title is the main claim Jesse was trying to make? Surely you can disagree with Jesse's position, but seems odd to call it clickbait. Jesse's point was that people who learn openings by watching videos/trying to replicate theory without following principles often end up hurting their own progress. Seems like the video was very much to the point no?

[@wreynolds1995]

@@ChessDojo The players in the shown games aren't replicating theory. Perhaps they're trying to, but they fail because whatever study they have done hasn't been absorbed. Let me put it another way. Jesse is well within his rights to claim that opening study is harmful. But to demonstrate that, he would need to give examples of games played where people play extremely *well* in the opening and then play badly afterwards; that could be an example where someone has demonstrably studied the opening and it hasn't improved their results (though, I would argue, it doesn't show that it has actually harmed their chess). That's not what Jesse has done here. He's shown a bunch of games where it's not even clear that the players have studied the opening at all. Instead, these games indicate that they might well play better if they *did* study the opening a bit (starting, as everyone should, with basic principles). In light of this, the suggestion that opening study has somehow harmed their chess is ridiculous: opening study is actually the solution to their problem! And by the way, watching this video is a form of opening study in itself, is it not? Jesse is pointing out which moves in the opening are weird and explaining why in terms of basic principles which everyone can understand. If the players of these games watch this video and learn from it, then what have they learned about, if not how to play the opening?

[@wreynolds1995]

@@mustaphad1319 About 2200 lichess rapid, 2100 lichess blitz, and 1850 blitz on the other big site.

[@ChessDojo]

You're certainly welcome to your opinion on what these players have or haven't been doing, just not sure why that makes it fair to dismiss the video as clickbait. Sounds like you have a different take than GM Jesse, and that's fine Also it seems like you've misinterpreted a lot of what Jesse is saying? He suggests to focus on principles rather than theory. The point is not all opening study is the same

[@filipposantoro8830]

Second! Phew!

[@cynicalfrog5743]

first!

[@juleslondon3088]

Opening study is KILLING YOUR GAINS! - ChessLeanX (they also have a Jesse) 🙂