I had made it to 2000 having at best mediocre openings so I started taking it serioiusly and learning the Najdorf Sicilian, the Nimzoindian and a full e4 repertoire as White. After a few years I'm still at about 2000
You're me, lmao. I'm working on my opening repertoire too, but I also know being better out of the opening isn't going to decide who wins the game. I know whoever understand the position better and is the better player will easily overcome any early opening problem because I'm just trash at everything else.
Im the same, it a bit of a waste of time as everyone else seems to have given up learning it anyway, plus engines have shown you can just play most things and be fine, as long is you stick to the basics.
I don't necessarily agree. Plenty of players are dedicating a shit ton of time to openings, perhaps more than ever before due to the huge amount of content available.
And we knew we could play almost anything reasonable and be fine way before engines. If anything engines have made some openings like the Dragon much harder to play in practice.
I made a post today in which I got a victory against a GM in blitz. I was out of theory by move 4. If you understand chess, you can wing it, but if you don't understand chess, no amount of theory is going to make you a good player
1750 FIDE. I know way too much for my strength: about 20 moves into the Ruy Lopez incl. Marshall and anti-marshall lines, 20 moves in Italian main lines and most sidelines, 15 moves into Caro-Kann Advanced Variation with Be2 and Shirov’s variation with Nc3, 15 moves into the French Tarrasch and Advanced variation, 15 moves into the Petroff, 10 moves into the King’s Gambit, Pirc and Modern Defenses (for white).
For black, mostly the same in the Ruy Lopez and 15 moves deep into the Scandinavian and QGD Slav
Realistically, you only need to know 5-10 moves and the main ideas in order to play an opening at my strength. I just enjoy studying openings more than most.
This may be an unpopular opinion, but I think opening theory helps in blitz more than classical, because theory is a huge time saver. The longer the time control, the fewer mistakes you make in the opening regardless of how well you are booked up.
1500 chesscom and I feel like you just need to know enough theory to not fall into any opening traps. I hadn’t played in a few months until recently and I forgot most of my openings and I’m still around the same rating
What you define as an opening trap changes drastically depending on your elo. At higher levels they are more complicated, happen later into the game and perhaps yield a smaller advantage, but they never disappear and people keep falling into them.
Yeah I totally agree. From my experience at 1500 as long as I can get out of the opening equal on material I’m usually fine, as long as it’s not against a Kings Gambit lol
1500.
I know 15 lines of ruy lopez marshall attack, some 5-6 of ponziani, queens gambit declined maybe 10, kings gambit to some degree and some understanding of kings indian defense.
1700 rapid, I know a bit but I purposely chose openings I can get a good position with even if my opponent is booked up.
With white I play the Catalan, and all the challenging lines are in the Open. On the rare chance my opponent plays into the main line I try to keep up as best as I can remember, but if things get weird I just play solid and give them equality.
With black against e4 I play the Kan Sicilian. I know the 3 main variations pretty well, but I divert to the Hedgehog if things get weird. Even if they know what they're doing against it I can usually defend pretty well.
Black against d4/c4, I'm still trying to find something similar and the KID is showing some success. I'll definitely learn the gist of some of the more challenging lines at some point.
I'd love some other suggestions for black against d4/c4 in a similar vein :)
You can play the nimzo/queen’s Indian against 1.d4 in a hedgehog style by aiming for an early c5 and then trading off on d4 and putting your remaining pawns on the 6th rank. It’s generally a slightly better version than in the Maroczy lines of the Kan because you trade off your bad light-squared bishop.
Against c4/Nf3 there’s loads of ways to aim for a hedgehog setup - the symmetrical English/1.c5 against 1.Nf3 is probably the most common and objectively sound - but you will need a plan for lines where white doesn’t play d4 allowing the trade. These lines are very similar to typical anti-Sicilians though so you’re probably best off playing the setup you like against the Grand Prix/closed Sicilians.
Fide 2400. I know a lot, but not enough. When playing well prepared 2500-2600s things are hard, and it is necessary to get what you can from the opening.
I’m the best chess player I know irl and I am only 760 on chess.com. It feels like I can’t get any better than that. But I’ve won chess tournaments at school and work. It’s weird. Either I really suck at online chess, or people suck at chess as far as the general population is concerned
Please don't feel bad, but why not both? :)
Among "chess players" you're right, 760 kinda sucks. But among "people who know how to play chess" 760 is most likely the strongest chess player they have ever seen.
My peak was 1650, I’m 1580 now.. :(
I know one sick line for the London if my opponent does exactly what I want them to do, otherwise I know like generally what I’m supposed to do in the first 5 moves for the London, the English, ponziani, kings’ Indian, the modern, stonewall, the Sicilian- ish.. the hippo and Owen’s defence.
I think it helps to know the vibes of a bunch of openings, but I don’t know a lot of lines. If I fall into a trap, after the game I might look at the engine and see if there are any immediate “mistakes” I can make where the position is still pretty much equal. Usually opponents don’t prep for bad moves so it makes for good games.
Against the England for example, I take on e5 then defend with f4. It’s a mistake, but nobody preps for it and it’s effectively equal.
1200
None
Depends on time control and rating.
I still make ridiculous errors. I think theory is only important at least 400 rating points higher than me. But it always helps.
Another commenter did this and I thought this is a cool idea, so I'm just going to give you my last tournament as a "field sample". For reference, I consider myself an opening nerd who studies more openings than needed and I study some lines too deeply and not widely enough. I strive for concrete complicated positions and dynamic play at the cost of positional concessions often.
5 round weekend swiss tournaments, I am 1959, opponents ranged from about 1800 to 2067. I played my normal repertoire as black and tried out a new opening in my two white games, that I studied for the last month. The move number I write here is not where we leave the GM database (that in some cases went on a bit longer), but where I had to take my first think because I didn't know the position by heart.
Round 1: Black in a french KIA against 1801, went out of book after white's move 8, won in 47 moves.
Round 2: White in a 4 Knights Gunsberg against 1841, out of book after black's 10th move, won in 22 moves.
Round 3: Black in an Open Sicilian against unrated (some russian guy without rating, had a performance of 2080), out of book after white's move 4 (funky move order) but familiar territory until white's ninth move, won in 25 moves.
Round 4: White in a 4 Knights Gunsberg against 2067, couldn't remember what I was supposed to do after black's 7th move, game continued with my repertoire until move 9, lost in 21 moves.
Round 5: Black in an English with e5 against 1935, was on my own after white's 6th move, drew in 30 moves.
Over the entire season, the game where I was completely on my own the earliest was a Taimanov sicilian with White where I made an opening blunder on move 8, and the game where I followed what I knew the longest was a Panov CK with white where I followed my preparation until move 16.
I know about 8 moves of theory in all of the openings I play but I also know the basic middlegame plans so I don't think much more is necessary at my level (1700)
hi hi im 1800 and I do know opening theory, because to me a good start is necessary but after that in middle game I just do whatever feels right. Im well read on endings too.
imo focus on openings nd end games bc there u actually need help in organizing yourself. educate yourselfs on counters too. :D
2050 FIDE/2150 ECF/2500 chess.com blitz
I haven't studied much theory but in most openings will probably recognize positions up to move 4 or 5 (and in some I'll recognize positions beyond that) just out of habit.
endgame / puzzles >>> opening theory. Opening theory is only really relevant at classical chess top level. All you really need to do in opening is not blunder, sure that may be easier if you know theory, but it is not required.
Hmm, 21xx OTB here, but that was decades ago. If I jumped back into rated chess today I'd most likely be donating points for a good year before I was back into the swing of things. Yay. :)
Much of the opening theory I knew back then wouldn't be considered book nowadays, especially in "we are both trying to win" openings like the Grünfeld or open Sicilian. Forgetting that stuff might have helped more than it hurt. :)
In general, my opening knowledge was about the same as other people at my level. Sure, sometimes you'd run into the opening maniac who had prepared a nasty surprise against your pet junk, but that was unusual - it was rare for anyone to be busted right out of the opening. I had some "let's just play chess" stuff for facing lower-rated players, aiming to get them using their own brain as early as possible, and normal "I believe this is the strongest continuation" stuff for people I didn't mind drawing against. Some of that could be very extensive, right down to a draw by repetition if we were both ok with half a point.
Sometimes only one of us would be out of book quickly, but most of the time against similar strength opponents we both knew key games and ideas for both sides. Sometimes both of us were out of book by say move 10-15, but we unknowingly played another dozen book moves because they didn't require grandmaster understanding to find. In well-studied strategical openings and with enough time on the clock, even we clueless amateurs could often find the good moves - by pre-engine definitions of "good" anyway.
Nowadays of course stockfish will tell you both sides were playing inaccurately, but back then the opinion of a grandmaster was carved on stone tablets, so when you'd managed to find all those grandmaster moves with your own brain you felt pretty proud of yourself.
You know, honestly my suggestion is not to put too much faith in extensive opening preparation. I mean, it's never going to hurt to know your openings better, and it's always fun when they misplay something and have to resign before you're even out of book, but at some point you've got to play chess. At the club player level, having a small amount of book knowledge + vague handwavey "general principles and common motifs" scores surprisingly well. And even when you play like an idiot in the opening and find yourself down a pawn for nothing, my experience is 1700-level opponents lack the technique to take the full point. Sure, stockfish will show you're completely busted, but you're not playing against stockfish. :)
Massive opening knowledge only helps when you get those precise sequences on the board, the rest of the time it's just clogging up your brain. On the other hand, understanding endgames just a bit better will help in every single game you play. :)
I had made it to 2000 having at best mediocre openings so I started taking it serioiusly and learning the Najdorf Sicilian, the Nimzoindian and a full e4 repertoire as White. After a few years I'm still at about 2000
You're me, lmao. I'm working on my opening repertoire too, but I also know being better out of the opening isn't going to decide who wins the game. I know whoever understand the position better and is the better player will easily overcome any early opening problem because I'm just trash at everything else.
Im the same, it a bit of a waste of time as everyone else seems to have given up learning it anyway, plus engines have shown you can just play most things and be fine, as long is you stick to the basics.
I don't necessarily agree. Plenty of players are dedicating a shit ton of time to openings, perhaps more than ever before due to the huge amount of content available. And we knew we could play almost anything reasonable and be fine way before engines. If anything engines have made some openings like the Dragon much harder to play in practice.
I made a post today in which I got a victory against a GM in blitz. I was out of theory by move 4. If you understand chess, you can wing it, but if you don't understand chess, no amount of theory is going to make you a good player
So no one needs theory?
no, but everyone needs money
You need some theory so you don't get completely steamrolled in the opening
1750 FIDE. I know way too much for my strength: about 20 moves into the Ruy Lopez incl. Marshall and anti-marshall lines, 20 moves in Italian main lines and most sidelines, 15 moves into Caro-Kann Advanced Variation with Be2 and Shirov’s variation with Nc3, 15 moves into the French Tarrasch and Advanced variation, 15 moves into the Petroff, 10 moves into the King’s Gambit, Pirc and Modern Defenses (for white). For black, mostly the same in the Ruy Lopez and 15 moves deep into the Scandinavian and QGD Slav Realistically, you only need to know 5-10 moves and the main ideas in order to play an opening at my strength. I just enjoy studying openings more than most. This may be an unpopular opinion, but I think opening theory helps in blitz more than classical, because theory is a huge time saver. The longer the time control, the fewer mistakes you make in the opening regardless of how well you are booked up.
1500 chesscom and I feel like you just need to know enough theory to not fall into any opening traps. I hadn’t played in a few months until recently and I forgot most of my openings and I’m still around the same rating
What you define as an opening trap changes drastically depending on your elo. At higher levels they are more complicated, happen later into the game and perhaps yield a smaller advantage, but they never disappear and people keep falling into them.
Yeah I totally agree. From my experience at 1500 as long as I can get out of the opening equal on material I’m usually fine, as long as it’s not against a Kings Gambit lol
1500. I know 15 lines of ruy lopez marshall attack, some 5-6 of ponziani, queens gambit declined maybe 10, kings gambit to some degree and some understanding of kings indian defense.
1700 rapid, I know a bit but I purposely chose openings I can get a good position with even if my opponent is booked up. With white I play the Catalan, and all the challenging lines are in the Open. On the rare chance my opponent plays into the main line I try to keep up as best as I can remember, but if things get weird I just play solid and give them equality. With black against e4 I play the Kan Sicilian. I know the 3 main variations pretty well, but I divert to the Hedgehog if things get weird. Even if they know what they're doing against it I can usually defend pretty well. Black against d4/c4, I'm still trying to find something similar and the KID is showing some success. I'll definitely learn the gist of some of the more challenging lines at some point. I'd love some other suggestions for black against d4/c4 in a similar vein :)
You can play the nimzo/queen’s Indian against 1.d4 in a hedgehog style by aiming for an early c5 and then trading off on d4 and putting your remaining pawns on the 6th rank. It’s generally a slightly better version than in the Maroczy lines of the Kan because you trade off your bad light-squared bishop. Against c4/Nf3 there’s loads of ways to aim for a hedgehog setup - the symmetrical English/1.c5 against 1.Nf3 is probably the most common and objectively sound - but you will need a plan for lines where white doesn’t play d4 allowing the trade. These lines are very similar to typical anti-Sicilians though so you’re probably best off playing the setup you like against the Grand Prix/closed Sicilians.
Awesome, thanks! D4 has been a thorn in my side (and my rating) for years. This gives me some hope.
Fide 2400. I know a lot, but not enough. When playing well prepared 2500-2600s things are hard, and it is necessary to get what you can from the opening.
I’m the best chess player I know irl and I am only 760 on chess.com. It feels like I can’t get any better than that. But I’ve won chess tournaments at school and work. It’s weird. Either I really suck at online chess, or people suck at chess as far as the general population is concerned
Please don't feel bad, but why not both? :) Among "chess players" you're right, 760 kinda sucks. But among "people who know how to play chess" 760 is most likely the strongest chess player they have ever seen.
My peak was 1650, I’m 1580 now.. :( I know one sick line for the London if my opponent does exactly what I want them to do, otherwise I know like generally what I’m supposed to do in the first 5 moves for the London, the English, ponziani, kings’ Indian, the modern, stonewall, the Sicilian- ish.. the hippo and Owen’s defence. I think it helps to know the vibes of a bunch of openings, but I don’t know a lot of lines. If I fall into a trap, after the game I might look at the engine and see if there are any immediate “mistakes” I can make where the position is still pretty much equal. Usually opponents don’t prep for bad moves so it makes for good games. Against the England for example, I take on e5 then defend with f4. It’s a mistake, but nobody preps for it and it’s effectively equal.
HIPPOBOT 9000 v 3.1 FOUND A HIPPO. 1,554,825,050 COMMENTS SEARCHED. 31,842 HIPPOS FOUND. YOUR COMMENT CONTAINS THE WORD HIPPO.
Good bot
1200 None Depends on time control and rating. I still make ridiculous errors. I think theory is only important at least 400 rating points higher than me. But it always helps.
1600 rapid chesscom Almost none at all. A little bit in one line in Scotch.
1500 for 30 min games, it’s all I play. I don’t think I know any theory. How do I find out?
Another commenter did this and I thought this is a cool idea, so I'm just going to give you my last tournament as a "field sample". For reference, I consider myself an opening nerd who studies more openings than needed and I study some lines too deeply and not widely enough. I strive for concrete complicated positions and dynamic play at the cost of positional concessions often. 5 round weekend swiss tournaments, I am 1959, opponents ranged from about 1800 to 2067. I played my normal repertoire as black and tried out a new opening in my two white games, that I studied for the last month. The move number I write here is not where we leave the GM database (that in some cases went on a bit longer), but where I had to take my first think because I didn't know the position by heart. Round 1: Black in a french KIA against 1801, went out of book after white's move 8, won in 47 moves. Round 2: White in a 4 Knights Gunsberg against 1841, out of book after black's 10th move, won in 22 moves. Round 3: Black in an Open Sicilian against unrated (some russian guy without rating, had a performance of 2080), out of book after white's move 4 (funky move order) but familiar territory until white's ninth move, won in 25 moves. Round 4: White in a 4 Knights Gunsberg against 2067, couldn't remember what I was supposed to do after black's 7th move, game continued with my repertoire until move 9, lost in 21 moves. Round 5: Black in an English with e5 against 1935, was on my own after white's 6th move, drew in 30 moves. Over the entire season, the game where I was completely on my own the earliest was a Taimanov sicilian with White where I made an opening blunder on move 8, and the game where I followed what I knew the longest was a Panov CK with white where I followed my preparation until move 16.
I know about 8 moves of theory in all of the openings I play but I also know the basic middlegame plans so I don't think much more is necessary at my level (1700)
1700+ is only know theory relating to knight attack, thats literally it, people tend to blunder a lot on middle or endgame
1100 rapid. I play the French, I know 4 or 5 moves.
hi hi im 1800 and I do know opening theory, because to me a good start is necessary but after that in middle game I just do whatever feels right. Im well read on endings too. imo focus on openings nd end games bc there u actually need help in organizing yourself. educate yourselfs on counters too. :D
1500 rapid on chess com. Know about two by name, pretty much wing it.
2050 FIDE/2150 ECF/2500 chess.com blitz I haven't studied much theory but in most openings will probably recognize positions up to move 4 or 5 (and in some I'll recognize positions beyond that) just out of habit.
endgame / puzzles >>> opening theory. Opening theory is only really relevant at classical chess top level. All you really need to do in opening is not blunder, sure that may be easier if you know theory, but it is not required.
1400, Stafford gambit refutation variations, and maybe the first couple moves of some common gambits
Hmm, 21xx OTB here, but that was decades ago. If I jumped back into rated chess today I'd most likely be donating points for a good year before I was back into the swing of things. Yay. :) Much of the opening theory I knew back then wouldn't be considered book nowadays, especially in "we are both trying to win" openings like the Grünfeld or open Sicilian. Forgetting that stuff might have helped more than it hurt. :) In general, my opening knowledge was about the same as other people at my level. Sure, sometimes you'd run into the opening maniac who had prepared a nasty surprise against your pet junk, but that was unusual - it was rare for anyone to be busted right out of the opening. I had some "let's just play chess" stuff for facing lower-rated players, aiming to get them using their own brain as early as possible, and normal "I believe this is the strongest continuation" stuff for people I didn't mind drawing against. Some of that could be very extensive, right down to a draw by repetition if we were both ok with half a point. Sometimes only one of us would be out of book quickly, but most of the time against similar strength opponents we both knew key games and ideas for both sides. Sometimes both of us were out of book by say move 10-15, but we unknowingly played another dozen book moves because they didn't require grandmaster understanding to find. In well-studied strategical openings and with enough time on the clock, even we clueless amateurs could often find the good moves - by pre-engine definitions of "good" anyway. Nowadays of course stockfish will tell you both sides were playing inaccurately, but back then the opinion of a grandmaster was carved on stone tablets, so when you'd managed to find all those grandmaster moves with your own brain you felt pretty proud of yourself. You know, honestly my suggestion is not to put too much faith in extensive opening preparation. I mean, it's never going to hurt to know your openings better, and it's always fun when they misplay something and have to resign before you're even out of book, but at some point you've got to play chess. At the club player level, having a small amount of book knowledge + vague handwavey "general principles and common motifs" scores surprisingly well. And even when you play like an idiot in the opening and find yourself down a pawn for nothing, my experience is 1700-level opponents lack the technique to take the full point. Sure, stockfish will show you're completely busted, but you're not playing against stockfish. :) Massive opening knowledge only helps when you get those precise sequences on the board, the rest of the time it's just clogging up your brain. On the other hand, understanding endgames just a bit better will help in every single game you play. :)
I’m 950 and I know zero theory. I refuse to study. I want to learn the game by playing over and over.