Hi guys,


I learned chess recently and I must admit there are a ton of books on openings. Why learn all these different openings? Wouldn't it be better to develop technique rather than memorizing every little possible moves?

I haven't tried to learn all of them. I've just tried to learn an opening for white and a couple of openings for black. Just try to keep it simple so that I don't lose the game in the opening.

There are alot of traps out there and by picking a solid opening helps to avoid them. As you advance, you'll see the need to refine your opening a bit and how you want to react to certain things that your opponent may throw at you.


But as pretty much everyone will tell you, spend most of your time learning tactics. End game study helps too. Good luck.

However true it is for beginners that they should not focus too much on opening play, it is still an important part of the game.

It's folly to try and master each and every opening. Most players stick with their opening of choice for a long time at any rate.

Me, I'm a bit of an oddity in that respect, I have a lot of often-played territory that I have several (sometimes completely) different ways to go. For the last year and a half, I haven't played the King's Gambit in any serious game. Some positional type rated 2150 tries 1. e4 e5 against me, having seen me play only the Ruy Lopez for the last year, instead I took out the King's Gambit (I could barely keep myself from grinning, can't remember why). He went for the Fischer variation, kept his pieces too inactive, missed a tactical shot and I ended up rolling over him in 28 moves.
I've had nothing but tough games (mostly losses) against him in e6-Sicilians..

That point being made, listen to Eledar, he's right on the money.

Chess Opening Manuals from my perspective are not necessary.
Leonard Barden used to keep his on index cards.
From a study of Capablanca and Alekhine it appears Openings were meaningless.
The teenage Reshevsky destroyed W. Griffith in a game. Griffith was the original editor of MCO.
In the forward of MCO on the editions of the 1950's & 60's the statement was that the editions contained not all the openings but the most common played in G.M. tournaments at the time. Which probably means as soon as the book comes out it may be obsolete. See the November 2008 Chess Life issue.
I did use PCO by Fine as he indicated the reason for the moves.
ECO books edited and written by GMs occasionally had lines in certain openings which were suspect.
In the book Soviet Chess the author indicated in one game why the Soviet player took so long to make a move. Indicating that the Soviet players studied the opening deep into the 20th+ move.
In the 50's the USSR had "64" and "Chess in the CCCP" which had opening sections. Fischer used one of the opening lines from one of the USSR magazines and defeated Reshevsky in a few moves.

Yes, it would be better.

Opening theory is about squeezing the maximum possible advantage out of the opening, which is important for master-class and higher players if they want to win.

It is, basically, irrelevant to beginners and average players, who make enough mistakes in their games to throw away the advantage repeatedly, and who don't know how to convert the small advantages proper opening play grants them.

One of the most-repeated (and, sadly, most-ignored) pieces advice given to young players wanting to improve is to ignore openings. Study tactics and endgames. Study complete master games and you'll learn a lot about the opening without ever trying to memorize a variation. You will improve faster.

Ronaldinho is absolutely correct. My openings were learned from the best games collections of Alekhine, Botvinnik and Reshevsky.

What's the purpose of development and castling?

0-0-0 or 0-0 and development is not always necessary.
How many GM's took advantage against players who did just and only that.
See these games
Edward Lasker vs Fritz Englund
Schveningen 1913 · Four Knights Game: Spanish. Rubinstein Variation (C48) · 1-0

Yuri Averbakh vs Cecil John Seddon Purdy
Australian Championship 1960 · English Opening: Golombek Defense (A16) · 1-0

I recall a Steinitz game where he marched the King early in the game.

Steinitz used to say that the king is a fighting piece and should be used accordingly.

As a general rule, in the opening you're supposed to get your pieces out to good squares, including the king. Along the way you may have to do something about your opponent's play of course...