Personally I hate using book openings. I like to play more of into the moment rather than from memory of this piece goes here and piece goes there. When I play against someone who likes book openings, I immediately try to stop this in my the third or fourth. Sometimes when opponents use book openings against me, I offer an unorthodox opening or counter, then they have a "wtf" expression on their face. Its priceless!

IMHO, book openings make the chess player not think. If hes using someone elses theory then hes not really playing chess, but merely a memory game or a "put the square in the square hole" kinda thing. He basically matches moves on the board to those he already knows (like a computer!) and this takes the human element out of the game.

I may be wrong in my views, but forgive me as I am not a opening book player, and have never studied openings in great detail, nor have I attempted to play as opening book player. But I am curious as to your views of someone who insists on using book openings i.e. a opening book player, vs. someone who would tactically evaluate the opening moves and move pieces on how he evaluates the current position.

Thanks.

That all depends on where you enter/exit book. I play a ton of book myself a lot of the time and it does me great. But I've memorized themes and ideas in the openings, not moves, moves get you killed, whereas my approach allows me to play well even if my opponent doesn't cooperate.

Opening theory is a very human part of chess, but it's somewhat downtrodden in a bunch of areas. There is no reason that someone cannot follow book and at the same time know why he's making the moves he is.

As for unorthodox openings, they're unorthodox for a reason.

I like book openings for two reasons. First if you're following book, you probably aren't going to have a horrible position when you get out of the book. Second, it saves time on the clock.

But ... you're always going to get to a position that isn't covered in your book, so you must know the general principles. So I like the book, but there are a ton of reasonable moves in any opening that aren't covered by the books.

I'm with Perseus. Book openings are necessary if you're going to play good chess.

But at lower levels, a lot of people rely too heavily on memorized lines, and don't know how to improvise when their opponent plays something different. That's why opening principles are more important than specific book lines. It's also why someone who plays book lines needs to understand the overall themes and patterns in their opening, not just memorize the specific moves.

--Fromper

Unless you are quite talented, better to know the principles as exemplified by "book moves."

Later on you might wish to venture into the unorthodox surprises for your opponent.

but isn't there plenty of exotic options even within the book, like 1. b3 etc.

I would say that at the lower levels memorising just the moves, more than 5 or 6, is bad. The thing is, after that you don't really know how to continue (that happens to me often). So at lower levels, remembering the theories and principles would be better than memorising the moves itself.

As White, i probably just use up to 3 or 4 book moves at most. With Black, I'm not so sure but I think only the first 2 moves are book moves.

Non-book, unorthodox and offbeat openings are classified as such for a reason…they are inferior. That means you are giving your opponent an advantage right out of the opening because you’re playing inferior chess. Larsen’s Opening (1.b3) is OK as Larsen proved many times but it’s just not currently popular. It often transposes into other openings or reversed versions.

The argument that your opponent probably won’t know how to refute it or gain an advantage anyway is the wrong attitude. It shows no respect for your opponent if you think he's always going to play inferior moves. What about that unsound sacrificial attack or cheap trick? You’re going to play it hoping he won’t see it. That’s wrong…always assume that if you can see something so can your opponent.

It may be true your opponent can’t refute unsound openings but playing them will retard your progress and at some point you will play opponents who do know how to take advantage of such defects. At that point you will have to abandon that opening and take up another one and waste more time as the cycle starts all over again. A lot of players advocate taking this path for a variety of reasons but they are always the ones who never make a lot of progress or if they do it’s painfully slow. They are the guys who always “almost” beat an 1800 but blundered and lost.

It’s much better to play a couple solid orthodox openings, understand the principles and resulting patterns and basic plans behind them. You’ll be playing solid chess, not giving away any advantage and as you get better you can always refine your knowledge. Another thing is you won’t be spending valuable study time always trying to learn a new opening.

I actually tend to use Chess Base opening databases, more than books these days - they amount to the same thing as books, but they are easier because all the example games are ready to play out right then and there. They don’t really cost much more than the average Chess book either - maybe like £4-5 move expensive.

But yes I believe ‘Book’ knowledge is really important if you want to play at a higher level - intuition and tactics can only get you so far - you need to know what you are trying to achieve in an opening (which isn’t necessarily as obvious as you might think!). I wouldn’t worry about specific move orders, because the other side may not co-operate, but you need to know what you are trying to accomplish and how to go about it.

A lot of people hope for a ‘quick fix’ in instructional DVD’s but if you ask me they just don’t cover enough ground - in my opinion 75% of the ‘Foxy Opening’ series are pretty feeble (a friend of mine has the lot so I’ve seen most of them) and they cost a fortune.

Most first moves have a name and are in a book somewhere, but the oddball ones are still considered "unorthodox".

Agreed.

I agree that you have to play sound, mainstream openings to really get good, but I disagree with your assumption that unorthodox and unsound openings are completely useless. Depending on the individual, playing some unsound openings for a while can help with the road to improvement. I'm living proof of that one.

I used to be a very quiet, defensive player. I played sound opening principles, and usually got a solid position heading into the middle game, but my play was so unaggressive that I never got anywhere. My rating stayed in the low 1400's for over a year before I stopped playing for a few years. When I returned to the game, I intentionally started playing wild, unsound gambits in an attempt to learn to attack or die trying, and it worked. My rating actually dropped about 100 points at first, due to the learning curve of trying a new method, but I'm now rated in the high 1500's a year later, which is pretty good progress for one year as an adult player.

And yes, I've since abandoned most of those gambits, since they just don't work against players over 1800 or so. The Smith-Morra Gambit is the only gambit I still play regularly, as I've switched to playing sounder stuff like the Ruy Lopez (as both black and white), Tarrasch Defense, and other mainstream openings. And I'll probably switch to the Open Sicilian eventually, but that's too much opening study at once, on top of the Ruy Lopez and everything else. So I'm sticking with the SMG for now, which is probably the most sound of the gambits I was playing, anyway.

So my point is that unorthodox openings have their place. And I think every player should switch once in a while to openings that are a completely different style than they're used to, just to learn something new. But I do agree that in order to get really good, you need to stick to the mainstream stuff.

Really? I have two of those Foxy Openings DVD's (on the Smith-Morra Gambit Accepted and Declined by IM Andrew Martin), and I'm pretty happy with them. They're not as thorough as an opening book in listing every variation, and it's a little harder to look up specific lines as they come up, but I don't see that as the point. It's just faster and easier to sit and watch the entire DVD than to read a whole opening book, so I'm more likely to actually go through the whole thing, even multiple times. I don't think it's a replacement for a thorough book on the opening to use as a reference (in this case, "The Modern Morra Gambit" by Langrock), but it is a useful form of study.

--Fromper