How To Learn Chess Openings | DojoTalks

In this episode of dojotalks, Jesse, Kostya and David Discuss how to effectively learn chess openings!
0:00 Intro
1:16 How Jesse Studies The Opening
2:40 How David Studies The Opening
5:20 How Kostya Studies The Opening
8:30 Kostya's Grievances
18:00 The Million Dollar Question
29:00 Jesse on The Dojo's Agreement of Opening Study For Students
32:10 On Sparring Positions
35:00 On using The Computer
43:20 When Players Should Start Using The Engine
55:00 Principles
Interested in improving? Check out the all-new Dojo Training Program - chessdojo.shop/training
Want to support the channel? Donate here - streamlabs.com/chessdojolive
Follow ChessDojo here:
Website: chessdojo.shop
Twitch: / chessdojolive
Discord: / discord
Twitter: / chess_dojo
Patreon: / chessdojo
Instagram: / chess_dojo
Podcast: chessdojotalks.podbean.com/

[@Radioheadtrip]

I think another reason some players (including me lol) are obsessed with openings is because it gives a sense of identity. Young people try many different things while searching for their place in the world just how new chess players switch up openings constantly until they find one they feel at home in.

[@Dean.AlAmriki]

I love this point. Identity. I am a black fianchetto Chess player lol

[@1982gonzocontroli]

You guys discussing (almost fighting!) made this very content-heavy and easily one of the best dojo videos ever.

[@chesscomdpruess]

Arguing is great!! :-D I'm always trying to teach my chess students to argue with each other.

[@pressf4896]

Anyone who says "openings are not that important" take for granted they know the first moves of 10+ openings, or generally how to approach them. If you don't know this, openings are very important. Another thing I agree with Kostya about understanding the overall idea of the opening you are playing - like, what is the overall plan and what are you trying to achieve, this is very important for new players.

[@strategygames1026]

What you're saying is anyone who says this is a strong player. You think strong players under-estimate how bad weak players are, or how little they know. On the contrary, a 50 year old 2400 rated GM knows in excruciating detail just how big an advantage 2000 and 2100 players can blow against him. It would have happened countless times. Until you are at a very high level, the signal of a 0.4+ evaluation of a stockfish is drowned out by the fact that both players will be making 0.50 or greater inaccuracies inaccuracies every other move if the position is remotely complicated. If you are below 1500, openings don't matter at all.

[@Fenamer]

@@strategygames1026 Who said people stop when they end at a 0.5 advantage? I'm 100% sure any good player would use an engine for subtle tactics and sacrifices, and also why it's advantageous for white when he's down a pawn. The engine is just to make sure the natural plans work and to get an understanding of the position. Anyone who understands the position will be able to dissect it into positional factors and tactical factors and come up with a good move. For example, a good player will dissect a position tactically and find out that the natural move Rad1 fails to f5, followed by bishop takes c3 ruining the pawn structure and black has compensation. Of course, a 1500 is not good, but if he understands the position, he will be able to make good moves. The claim you're making is that 'If you are below 1500, you will never be able to understand the position and you will inevitably make bad moves."

[@strategygames1026]

@@Fenamer 1500 is frankly really weak at chess. This is an objective fact. I'm not saying they never understand anything but 1500s are just poor at tactics. Tactics and calculation are so important that at anyone even halfway decent at them will be rated much higher. When you're poor at tactics, mistakes happen so frequently that the evaluation based on perfect play isn't very relevant. Your last claim is more interesting; that even if someone is bad at chess they can make good moves in a specific position they understand well. This has some element of truth. Players can play 300 or 400 points above their rating in a typical position they understand well. This is the attraction of London System etc. Unfortunately 1500 is low enough that A) The advantage you accumulate from knowing some positions won't be enough to help you once the position becomes even slightly atypical. B) You will face too many junk responses which you don't know how to handle.

[@KevinHawkshaw]

@@strategygames1026 nah... 1500 is like everest base camp. Of course they aren't close to the summit, but most people don't even get to base camp. What's the average FIDE rating? I'd be surprised if it were 1200. 1500 is objectively good.

[@strategygames1026]

@@KevinHawkshaw That's more semantic, but my point is simply that openings aren't worth much at 1500 FIDE. Exclude India from this analysis. Indian FIDE ratings especially at low levels mean very different things. Also, the lowest possible rating is 1000, so it's mathematically almost impossible for the average to be below 1200. Even if you mean median it will be much higher..

[@alexrandall8557]

Just started the video, Jesse is looking much younger than normal, and David has aged significantly

[@alpulley4894]

Yea, Jesse has bed head. Probably hasn't had that in decades.

[@thethinker3888]

This is what playing chess does to a young man /jk

[@fsr1960]

They had a face transplant a few minutes into the video.

[@shawnnevalainen1337]

In general, I hear the GM pushing for things that are modest, gradual, and very likely to be valid for most people. In response, I hear the IMs arguing that there are other things that could be really great "as long as." The IMs present hypotheticals and anecdotes, and they get personally invested in other people validating their beliefs. While arguing from authority is risky, it's a fact that only one of the three has become a GM. Anyhow, great channel!

[@CastroMKE]

Maybe I look at it differently, but I agree with David; my want of studying the opening actually has more to do with not being worse than trying to be better. or in the analogy, I rather put a dollar into a bank account everyday than buy a dollar scratch off every day in hopes of winning the "big prize". Great conversation as always, gentlemen.

[@CastroMKE]

I'm also a pessimistic player as David said, I could win 10 games in a row, but if I get smacked on the 11th, that loss will be on my mind all day.

[@DaydreamVacations]

All Openings lead to a Pawn Structure, and thematic Middle Game Plans. We need to invest more time into understanding the middle game plans we are continuously reaching. For example: many openings lead to an IQP position. You’re better off studying how to play IQP positions than the multiple opening variations that lead you there. The ability to evaluate a position, it’s weak squares, weak pawns, static and dynamic strengths/weaknesses for both sides and then MAKE A PLAN, or CALCULATE TACTICS, is far more important than opening theory.

[@yzfool6639]

I don't think anything you said is even half the way strong players play chess. This may be good advice for beginners though.

[@robertrenk7074]

I agree with you. It’s much better to understand typical pawn structures and the plans for both sides. This will help you understand which pieces are more valuable, which are less valuable,which ones to trade(or not), and general plans. For me this is a better approach to chess openings than memorizing the latest line 23 moves deep. Even if you can do that what good is it if you play all the first 23 correctly only to have no idea what to do in that position? Above all the ability to evaluate a position is the big difference between weak and strong chess players. Pawn Structure Chess by Andrew Soltis is a fine book. Winning Pawn Structures is another excellent book written by Alexander Baburin Chess Structures: A Grandmaster Guide is supposed to be very good book but I haven’t read that one.

[@Kubooxooki]

This was a great conversation. I'm starting to teach openings to my students and this was very illuminating. Thanks, Dojo! For future reference, here's a list of "principles" as discussed towards the end of the podcast (by no means an abstract of the conversation): TWO GENERAL/OVERARCHING PRINCIPLES: -"Don't hang your shit (i.e., lose pieces), and take their stuff if they hang it" (David) -"Don't give out tempi" (Jesse) KOSTYA: -Time and development: Develop both sides of the board quickly and fight for the initiative. JESSE: -Pay attention to material, time, and the quality of your position. Basically, "Bring out your dudes." DAVID: -Bring out your dudes. -Fight for the center. -Create a POSITIONAL advantage for yourself IF possible. JESSE'S COUP DE GRACE: "Nobody knows what to do against anything, boss!" Happy chessing, everybody!

[@lockstock600]

Great talk guys, I'm a 2200 and definitely need to use the engine less in analysis, because checking what idea the engine had and then thinking "oh yeah I'll remember that for next time I'm in a similar position" is basically never helpful, I'm not and never will be a Super GM who plays like a machine, I need to be finding human analysis on my (and my opponent's) human moves.

[@belue2429]

I agree with Jesse! I’ve quit using computer and my mind feels chess now. The computer just added layers and my chess went down so 100% no engine for me

[@Nico-si1bo]

Can't wait for this to drop on Spotify !

[@juhonieminen4219]

1:02:26 "Did you learn this from Simon Williams videos?" LOL. I've been wathing Ginger GM for 4 years, and I would never pick any of his openings, besides the English maybe. He plays that only because every englishman must. But he did popularize the Jobava London.

[@Boss.Stephen]

14:54 When Kostya said "I have numbers here" I remembered Kramnik

[@tobiass3540]

In terms of openings: If I ever study openings, I don't neccessarily do it to get a winning position from it or for some traps, but I generally try to find playable sidelines, to get my opponent out of his prep and make sure, that we actually play a game of chess on our own. That's what I enjoy the most and I think it already became an asset for my game, that I really like to play unknown and preferably chaotic positions. Lots of people don't like that. Especially London players :)))

[@HugoFookh]

Hi, can you elaborate on the subject of finding good model games for a specific opening ?

[@El_Girasol_Fachero]

Good video😃👍

[@ChessLifestyle]

Jesse’s ‘stick to your openings’ mantra seems to have a results driven ethos at its heart, whereas a mantra like David’s ‘play em all’ could very well make someone a ‘stronger player’ while simultaneously harming results. @jesse - how would you respond to this distinction and how do you see chess strength relating to chess results?

[@NotQuiteFirst]

David had a valid point about the "million dollar" question that Jesse was talking about. Of course the research deals with averages, and there will be a range of attitudes (risk averse etc). The point of the research is to enlighten us about cognitive biases that we hold and how we will behave in "irrational" ways (such as valuing the prize in terms other than the strict mathematical assessment of the dollar value multiplied by the probability of winning). And as to how they collect the data, it's typically not just asking and answering questions, as _revealed preferences_ (aka what people actually do) are more important than what people _say_ they will do. This kind of research would be done by testing how people value the bet by having them actually do it, not by asking how they think they would do it.

[@bluefin.64]

I use engines briefly after doing my own analysis. Typically, I'm shocked by some idea I didn't think of, and I'm motivated to do more analysis. I learn more from this than I would otherwise. To me, using an engine this way is a bit of a substitute for having a coach.

[@Heroball299]

Yeah same. I've learnt a lot with this approach combined with the database.

[@bixcs2]

Have you guys thought about making a list of questions that you have to answer as you annotate your games? I have huge difficulty knowing what to look through when analyzing and it makes me less likely to actually do the analysis. something like what I saw i think it was Ramesh where he had a list of questions on a spreadsheet to help guide the analysis.

[@ninjaamara8053]

Opening learning is very interesting.

[@dcoates14]

It seems to me that an IM will study an opening book or course but will pick and choose what they want to follow and quite often will come up with their own ideas on how they want to play the opening.

[@thanhle1994]

Kostya's point around 27:00 is on point

[@jcwar6753]

I always thought openings were important until I've saw child after child go straight to GM on almost pure tactics and endgames.

[@derschutz4737]

using the engine properly is a skill. u can use Leela and if 2 moves are 0.00 but one is 40% white wins, 20% draw, and 40% black wins and the other is 20% white, 60% draw, 20%black. That extra info is extremely useful if u want something double edged or stale. Matthew Sadler is known for his use of engines. He runs training games with a variety of engines that vary in strength, he studies them pretty deeply(as deeply as a 2700 player can study) to extract the important human understandable themes, of which there is a bunch (just like you would with human games). It's ok if there are themes/parts of those games that you don't understand. Knowing how to use the engine is so important, especially if u dont have a coach to feed u analysis. You basically have a chess god at ur disposal u should be asking it questions and learning from its games. But you have to be honest with urself and ur ability's to see if u are able to reasonably follow the lead of the engine or not. Magnus attributed a lot of his success in early 2019 to Leela and the variety/feeling it gave his openings on a podcast. I think for lower rated players if they enjoy doing it and opening study is fun to them, then go ahead. But it obviously isn't going to be as important (in terms of max elo gains) as it is at a 2300+ level. If ur ~2400 and either u or ur coach isn't properly using different engines, u have a big lemon and ur barely squeezing it. That being said, the engine is 1 component of many other important ones in opening study, u cant let ur own brain get reliant on using the engine for answers and then caring very little to understand them deeply. Thats a recipe to what Jan Gustaffson said he experienced as a theoretician, a severe regression in ur chess analysis skills. I think it is a delicate balance, but not really that delicate and its worse to be scared of the engine poisoning ur chess than to just be smart in how u use it and not just avoid a tool.

[@a_doggo]

Jesse Kraii's example was missing one element: "the endowment effect". You're supposed to *ALREADY HAVE* the odds of getting/losing the million. It's this endowment effect that drives you to overvalue the position. He's correct, although I can't comment on how it may apply to opening theory, his explanation makes total sense to me. I think it's an epiphany, in fact. Perhaps that's why it's hard to digest. Definitely recommend reading Kahnemann's book.

[@strategygames1026]

Jesse actually inverts the finding on the risk side. People would rather take a 1% chance of losing a million than just fork over $10,000 of their own cash. Which is a very understandable and hard-wired human reaction to the prospect of loss. I don't even think that a weird unnatural hypothetical experiment does much to establish that this hard-wired reaction is irrational. Typically most of these experiments function on a very naive level of analysis which assumes the given interaction will happen only once. It's a complicated subject, but the practical application of Kahnemann's conclusions is widely debated and Jesse wasn't even consistent in the point he was making. I completely agree with David's obvious observation that there are many different type of people and you would see an enormous spectrum of responses to these situations.

[@alexwiththeglasses]

Tyvm for such an interesting video!🙏 Question about opening principles for beginners (around 54:00-59:40 or so). My current understanding is… GM Jesse states 700 level players can make GM-level opening moves and only states one opening principle - get your pieces out. IM David adds don’t hang anything, take what your opponent hangs, and at a lower priority create a positional advantage (seems pretty abstract for beginner me☺️). IM Kostya didn’t state any opening principles. Question: several other popular websites and channels have many more opening principles than these (like castle early, etc.). What’s the story? FYI - I’m an old beginner on a very low budget working on my own chess notebook before I start learning. I tested out around 1000 by playing against a few chess engines before I started writing my notebook. Appreciate any replies.

[@connormonday]

I think Jesse would recommend figuring these things out through game analysis. I also don’t think playing against engines is a good way to determine strength.

[@chesscomdpruess]

Hi Alex, basically stuff like "castle quickly" "only move a piece once" "knights before bishops" "don't put your knights on the rim" etc. are all simplifications with many exceptions, and none of us seem to find them to be useful for students. They don't teach the right way to think. If you want more on this subject there is a $1 video on the dojo website that covers it. PS- one missing principle I gave is "control the center."

[@alexwiththeglasses]

@@chesscomdpruess Tyvm for the specifics, and also for the additional comment about exceptions. I just wondered because it’s why I quit chess two separate times when I was young - the opening. Thought I’d ask because of the video’s extreme claim about beginners making Grandmaster moves.

[@adal6002]

1:02:07 😂 Is the Dojo against playing the Dutch?

[@NgoTheVinh90]

How do you guys recommend learning an opening with Chessable? Is it necessary to drill the lines (which is painfully slow)? Or should we just use the "read mode" and go through it like a book? What do you think is the best way to learn from chess videos?

[@boceksiadam]

It's really good. It's good because it automates something tedious. How much you need to drill depends entirely on openings. Easiest to memorize is also the most important lines to memorize, which are the sharp lines. Example, two knights ng5 Italian. For the rest you just gotta know the concepts. Ex, nimzo Indian dark square strategy.

[@NgoTheVinh90]

@@boceksiadam Thanks for the tips. To be honest, I think sharp lines are easy only if the moves are natural. Otherwise, they're a lot harder to learn than the more positional lines where you just need to know where the pieces go. That Ng5 line of the Two Knights Italian is one of those I don't like studying at all, but I have no problem defending against sharp lines in the Bc5 line (for example the Evans)

[@bhopfan2700]

Any advice for people who keep switching/can't stick to one opening? I really envy people who have found "their" favorite defense to e4 or d4. I find a lot of openings beautiful/intuitive, but don't want to waste time learning more than a couple.

[@JustMe-999a]

Uh, stop switching?

[@Belemrys]

I am with Jesse, I have so many other things to work on, as long as I take my time and look at what the opponent is trying todo with his opening moves and stick to principles I should be able to get to the middle game without a huge disadvantage. Although I will say, Gambits are like crack...need to stop doing it!

[@zwebzz9685]

I just follow principles and don’t stress about white openings but I put a lot more effort into black at least up to the point I have achieved some major central break. It feels terrible to have your central breaks prevented in the opening and try to play a middlegame with no space.

[@andrewbernal9700]

Could Jesse give any insight on why the Steinitz is playable for black? It seems like it is just slightly better for white

[@wreynolds1995]

I'm not a GM, but it seems to me that "playable for black" and "slightly better for white" do not contradict each other.

[@chesscomdpruess]

@@wreynolds1995 I'm not a GM either, but that answer makes sense to me.

[@randallbrungardt6384]

Could some one make it to 2300 without a computer? If Mir Sultan Kan were playing today; how would he fare?

[@ChessDojo]

Yes definitely!

[@joeshmo546]

Perfect for someone picking up the petroff. Thanks!

[@shawnburnham1]

i never seen anything like this .

[@bixcs2]

I’m not anywhere near the level of you guys but I have done a large amount of reading on how we master skills. I think Jesse undervalues the priming opening study does for the strategic elements of the middle game. Clicking through Chessable without much thought just memorizing moves is 100% bad. But deep study of openings and how they influence middlegames is definitely of value. However the lower rates you are the less value you get due to lack of middlegame understanding I also think that the top guys are so insanely good at strategy endgames and tactics that the only way that they can find winning chances is by using a computer to find interesting moves in the opening. But they paid their dues with mastery of other aspects of chess before they got there.

[@bluefin.64]

If you play an opening accurately you get a specific type of middlegame, so priming in that way would be limited. Until players are advanced, opening play deviates into all kinds of middlegames, and for that it's better to study middlegames as a separate general subject. Jesse's experience appears to have taught him that applies to a degree even up to his level. Meanwhile, studying endgames is good for its own sake, but has the bonus effect of improving your feel for handling pieces and pawns in all aspects of the game.

[@bixcs2]

@@bluefin.64 that’s a great point

[@chessjess510]

Usually I agree with Sensei Kraai but we recently created a study group at my local chess club and only one dude clearly overvalues the opening(1 out of 5)

[@juhonieminen4219]

The way Jesse told that million dollars story was wrong, or the delivery was misleading. The same psychology stuff was in another video just day ago.

[@shawnburnham1]

15:00

[@sachinpaul2111]

What is the Dojo opinion on a move like 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 a6? It’s the O Kelly variation of the Sicilian. My coach HATES it if I play an unprincipled opening like this. But literally no one at my level knows that c3 is the correct way to negate it and just try to get a Najdorf with 3. d4 which results in instant equality for black So at the 1600 level, I have a good understanding of what is clearly a subpar opening at anything above 2000. Do I continue playing it because it wins me games or do I ditch it because if my rating increases , I will reach a rating and not have enough experience with Najdorf and O Kelly would be crushed ?

[@olegkuznetsov1946]

From my point of view, it's absolutely ok to play 2...a6 to prevent 3.d4 (and 3.Bb5), because after 3...cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 White does not have the typical move 6.Ndb5, known from Sveshnikov, and the knight has to move to a square which is less attractive. Ok, you have to take into account that White can prepare d4 by playing 3.Nc3, but this you have to do in other Sicilian variations after 2...e6 and 2...Nc6, too.

[@connormonday]

You’re kind of playing for a trap though.. I gained over 200 points (performance wise) in blitz playing the Veresov as White. It’s not the least principled thing in the world, but I realized the main reason my score was so high was because people would allow transpositions into e4 openings they don’t know (especially the French and Pirc). So I think it’s a lot like the O’Kelly, in that neither is that bad objectively, but you’re still kind of playing for a strategic trap, and once people are good enough to not play into the trap you’ll want to play something else. It’s hard to let go of though, because your rating will go up quickly doing that. I’m thinking long term it’s not the right strategy, though.

[@sachinpaul2111]

@@connormonday true, it feels too London-ey to play it though it’s a semi legitimate system. This is why my coach prescribed the Caro Kann. It’s a great opening, much less risk as black and I don’t go wrong a lot out of the opening

[@sachinpaul2111]

@@olegkuznetsov1946 that’s true. Also a lot of people walk into a ton of other “normal “ looking moves as well. 3. c3 however gives white a healthy advantage

[@olegkuznetsov1946]

@@sachinpaul2111 Healthy advantage is over-exaggerated. After 3.c3 you as a Black have a choice between two solid options Mark Taimanov's setup 3...d6 4.d4 Nd7 and then g6-Bg7-e5 or Lajos Portish's 3...e6 4.d4 d5 and now White has a choice between 5.e5 or 5.exd5. After 5.e5 you can play 5...Bd7 threatening the trade of good white light-squared bishop on b5 a) 6.Be2 Nc6 or b) 6.Bd3 cxd4 7.cxd4 Bb5!? and after 5.exd5 exd5 6.Be2 Nc6 7.O-O Bd6 8.Re1 Nge7 it turns out that a6 was useful preventing White from playing Bb5. You can also play like in Alapin 3...d5 or 3...Nf6. There you lost one tempo in comparison to main variation, but White still have to prove healthy advantage, e.g. after 3...d5 4.exd5 Qxd5 5.d4 e6 6.Be2 Nf6 7.O-O cxd4 8.cxd4 Be7 9.Nc3 Qd6 10.Bg5 Nbd7 and then b5-Bb7. I would rather say White has a small edge. Please note the idea of O'Keilly is not gaining advantage for Black, but playing solid positions with surprising effect for White.

[@alainsavard8373]

Over half of psychology studies fail reproducibility test "Don’t trust everything you read in the psychology literature. In fact, two thirds of it should probably be distrusted." Nature, 2015

[@sachinpaul2111]

Jesse’s distaste for openings is very subjective to his own experiences. Here David is being very open minded to both sides of the story. As Kostya says , if we never read what is correct , how will we ever get better? I was NEVER a Caro Kann player. My Russian coach at the time suggested that I start playing Caro Kann and all she told me was a few pointers like : you love the light squared bishop: try to make it a French with the bishop outside the pawn chain. Play c5 at the right moment etc etc Openings doesn’t have to be absolutely memorized or it doesn’t even have to be engine like. Like Kotsya said , all I look for is the themes I need to know so that I look for those ideas given how dumb and uncreative I am.

[@KevinHawkshaw]

Little bit of scientific misunderstanding of the Million Dollar result. It's an AVERAGE response. Most people are risk averse more than is strictly rational. Not everyone all the time, but there is no arguing with the fact that it is a broad generalization of the population. There's probably an element of truth to what Jesse is saying about the possibility (or bad memories) of getting blown away in the opening causing disproportionate focus on it during training. I think there is more than one thing at work there, but it probably has a grain of truth to it. Part of it I think is also that heavy focus on opening prep is normalized within the culture of chess, and players feel that if they do not spend similar amounts of time to their peers on it, they are falling behind. A second thing is that I think people (especially at lower levels) tend to feel as though the opening is when they have the most control of their fate. They think of chess as a thing that can be solved, and if they can extend their knowledge of the game move by move, they feel more powerful. They want that engine/database stamp of approval that how they are playing is "good".

[@liszt85]

Yes the openings are important but Kostya comparing with Shirov, Sam, and the world championship is a bit far fetched, IMO. Also, their sort of prep may be very different. If you look at the Indian kids like Nihal, Gukesh, Arjun, Pragg, etc, I don't think they spent any time on Chessable at all when they were 2400 FIDE. You could ask Sagar to get more info, I could be wrong but based on many interviews I've watched, this was my impression. They were probably spending 70% of their solving studies and playing chess and analyzing their errors with a coach. If you take that as a model for how to get to GM in the current era, then Jesse's words probably hold some wisdom for Kostya, just my $0.02.

[@ChessDojo]

The irony is that Jesse does way more Chessable than Kostya 😄

[@angel_machariel]

Very interesting video. Now here's a crazy idea, nobody does it and I am baffled as to why: make a video how to open "properly" (play only the principled way) for 1400 and below. inb4: "But vlad, just go for the center, develop, don't play piece twice and develop knights before bishops" NO. Clearly that's now the reality entirely. That's exactly why junior players keep begging for better opening tutorials for DECADES. No one seems to be capable of teaching how to open properly (especially if the opponent deviates).

[@waltlock8805]

Look the Chessbrah "building habits" series here on YT (you can get the full vod's and the abridged versions).

[@angel_machariel]

@@waltlock8805 It's really good series. Thanks for the tip.

[@Heroball299]

What if you just find the opening interesting? There's a lot of history and some moves are straight up losing, so why not learn how to punish them 🤷‍♂️

[@sh3lton]

The point is, do you understand what are you doing to punish them? Or you just memorised what you should do against certain moves so you can punish them?

[@lukaswolek7294]

@@sh3ltonSo, if I do understand, I can do that?

[@Heroball299]

Jesse has some wacky opinions lol.

[@jaydub2971]

I'm really struggling not to hear Jesse say, essentially, 'play random moves because opening theory is just a trap.'

[@bluefin.64]

Jesse says to play principled moves in the opening, not random ones. Opening theory isn't a trap, spending your time studying it is, for low rated players. You'll improve better by doing other things instead.

[@sachinpaul2111]

As always , I vehemently disagree with Jesse. I agree with Kostya . I kind of agree and disagree with David. I’m a 1600 player. I absolutely love openings. It is the key reason I even play chess. I’ve blown a million winning positions after being winning in 15 moves. But the reason I even keep playing chess is because I want to study openings. Hikaru once said “do whatever makes you happy to keep playing chess”. Hikaru talks a lot of waffle (given that he’s insanely talented , you have to take whatever he says carefully) but in this case he was right. I once beat a former Minnesota state chess champion because I had a great opening advantage and he burned his clock. Most of my games which I win are because of openings. Without opening knowledge , I wouldn’t last 5-10 moves against anyone above 2000. Also, no. The 1 in 10000 analogy doesn’t hold. I watched one game which inspired me a lot: Anand v Carlsen, game 3 world ch : 1-0 with Bf4 QGD and I’ve used that idea of playing c5 with the bishop on f4 and trying to get a pawn to c7 many many times successfully to the point that a 2100 player had 3 mins on the clock and agreed a draw offer on move 22 with me having an hour left.

[@defqqq]

all you said points to you actually vehemently agreeing with Jesse although you'll probably never realise it😂

[@bluefin.64]

Why would you disagree with Jesse? Your goal is to enjoy openings, and there is nothing wrong with that, chess is about enjoyment, but Jesse's goal is to help players improve. His recommendations aren't aimed at you. That aside, until you reach a high level, all three sensei stress other areas of the game over openings.

[@defqqq]

@@bluefin.64 because 1600 chesscom players always know better than old school GM Jesse🤣 What I found particularly funny is how all his arguments to disprove Jesse were almost a verbatim case of what Jesse was talking about 👌

[@bluefin.64]

@@defqqq That's a good point, but if Sachin Paul simply wants to enjoy openings, then all power to him. It's just odd that he disagrees with Jesse, because his main goal isn't improvement, and improvement is what Jesse is talking about. I agree with Jesse's take in part because I got to 1600 OTB without ever studying openings. I didn't study anything, in fact. Playing and going over GM games are what I enjoyed, and in that way I was like Sachin Paul, I only did what I liked.

[@defqqq]

@@bluefin.64 Absolutely, chess belongs to everyone and everyone must be able to enjoy it the way they want to. What I found funny though was how Paul vehemently and always disagrees with Jesse and while trying to prove him wrong, inadvertently made himself into textbook example of what Jesse was talking about.

[@TheAtheist22]

Engines should be banned when it comes to professional Chess players.