Thank you for writing this; it articulates a lot of what I've wanted to say when this subject comes up. I also enjoy learning and even drilling openings. I made some mistakes you mention, like learning long computer variations that never get played, but I've also had lots of rich, enjoyable games where my pieces were in sensible places and my opponent's weren't. I think what matters is that you enjoy it though - if someone else doesn't enjoy openings they should take a different approach. I think some people are frustrated because it sort of feels like memorizing openings is a ridiculous arms race that forces people to study chess in a way they don't want to, but I really think that is only an issue at the very top level.
I have to say though, that it bothers me that I am very weak at Chess960. I have a lot of trouble figuring out development plans to get my pieces onto good squares when I don't know ready-made plans (even where I don't know move orders, I generally know plans and piece setups). Your Be2 example is every 960 game I play. I'd push back though on the idea that we can't learn from a game like that. You won't have that position again, but you'll have a cramped position again with an awkward piece, right?
Yeah, the arms race thing is really overrated. And of course it's possible to learn something from a game where you've played a bad opening move, it's just easier to learn something more valuable if you haven't.
I'm only surprised yu don't use Anki for learning openings! Has some advantages in that you have total control over organisation of the information, and over the repetition interval.Nothing more annoying in a move trainer than having to go through repetition cycles because of a mouse slip!
While I sympathize with the feeling of having a bad game out of the opening. It's happened to me many occasions. I come away with a different take away. That is I think that learning how to place the pieces when you don't know book is very important.
That first example is telling. You had a mental coin flip instead of a reason to play your move. And only two options considered. (maybe you considered more in the game) but it seems to me that the important skill here is to recognize when you don't know the next move, and to figure out your best options and why.
I also memorize openings, because you're right it's not enjoyable to be in a worse position from not knowing theory. But I disagree that the "More Valuable Learning" happens later in the game. When you have concrete opening knowledge of common themes that is very valuable. It's just nicer not to have to learn that over the board.
I agree that learning how to place pieces when you’re out of book is a good skill, and a good way to learn that skill is to look at where stronger players place their pieces in similar structures.
Be2 just seems to hang the pawn on d4, if I'm not mistaken.
I agree that opening prep+memorization works if you can predict your opponent's (not necessarily optimal or book) moves.
But the example you have chosen is just a case of dropping a pawn for no reason - or seems to me that way. That makes a much stronger case for more tactics training than it does opening prep.
Edit: After Be2 ..cxd4 Nb3, White indeed seems to be regaining the pawn. So I guess I was wrong.
Thank you for writing this; it articulates a lot of what I've wanted to say when this subject comes up. I also enjoy learning and even drilling openings. I made some mistakes you mention, like learning long computer variations that never get played, but I've also had lots of rich, enjoyable games where my pieces were in sensible places and my opponent's weren't. I think what matters is that you enjoy it though - if someone else doesn't enjoy openings they should take a different approach. I think some people are frustrated because it sort of feels like memorizing openings is a ridiculous arms race that forces people to study chess in a way they don't want to, but I really think that is only an issue at the very top level.
I have to say though, that it bothers me that I am very weak at Chess960. I have a lot of trouble figuring out development plans to get my pieces onto good squares when I don't know ready-made plans (even where I don't know move orders, I generally know plans and piece setups). Your Be2 example is every 960 game I play. I'd push back though on the idea that we can't learn from a game like that. You won't have that position again, but you'll have a cramped position again with an awkward piece, right?
Yeah, the arms race thing is really overrated. And of course it's possible to learn something from a game where you've played a bad opening move, it's just easier to learn something more valuable if you haven't.
Thanks for the post. Memorizing openings can save a lot of time on the clock—at least that's been my experience too.
I'm only surprised yu don't use Anki for learning openings! Has some advantages in that you have total control over organisation of the information, and over the repetition interval.Nothing more annoying in a move trainer than having to go through repetition cycles because of a mouse slip!
While I sympathize with the feeling of having a bad game out of the opening. It's happened to me many occasions. I come away with a different take away. That is I think that learning how to place the pieces when you don't know book is very important.
That first example is telling. You had a mental coin flip instead of a reason to play your move. And only two options considered. (maybe you considered more in the game) but it seems to me that the important skill here is to recognize when you don't know the next move, and to figure out your best options and why.
I also memorize openings, because you're right it's not enjoyable to be in a worse position from not knowing theory. But I disagree that the "More Valuable Learning" happens later in the game. When you have concrete opening knowledge of common themes that is very valuable. It's just nicer not to have to learn that over the board.
I agree that learning how to place pieces when you’re out of book is a good skill, and a good way to learn that skill is to look at where stronger players place their pieces in similar structures.
Or in other words, memorize opening moves.
Be2 just seems to hang the pawn on d4, if I'm not mistaken.
I agree that opening prep+memorization works if you can predict your opponent's (not necessarily optimal or book) moves.
But the example you have chosen is just a case of dropping a pawn for no reason - or seems to me that way. That makes a much stronger case for more tactics training than it does opening prep.
Edit: After Be2 ..cxd4 Nb3, White indeed seems to be regaining the pawn. So I guess I was wrong.
And opponent moves are predictable, to an extent. The Lichess database has the numbers.
Yeah, I was not worried about cxd4.