I believe that a healthy combination of both is probably the way to go. Mainlines help instill good habits while sidelines offer surprise element which leads to some interesting games.
Great article! Have you considered doing this test among similarly rated players at every rating level: do the players who know more theory longer tend to win more? You can define "know more theory" by looking at all their games of certain opening (the Ruy Lopez, eg) and seeing on average how many moves of theory they do. Then, see their results in all Ruy Lopez games among similarly rated players
Thanks James! Not sure if you saw this other post I did on the Ruy Lopez: https://zwischenzug.substack.com/p/what-really-happens-in-the-ruy-lopez This analysis was more qualitative and anecdotal - I just looked at 8 random games - but it broadly supports what I've noticed in my own games and everyone else's, that memorizing long opening variations doesn't seem to be that helpful. It would also be interesting to look at it in a more quantitative way over a larger sample, like you suggested. The big question would of course be, "What counts as theory?"
That's so interesting. I wonder if it's because: in practice it's rare for any one variation to come up. Or if it's because the deeper variations require more chess knowledge (so GM-level, for instance). Because, on the other hand, I would think if you are playing like a computer for the first 23 moves that would be good for your game, but maybe only if you know the real nuances of the position you end up in. I will read your other post!
I think part of it is emotional. I've won games because of "traps" and been delighted and lost games in an unfamiliar opening that felt like I was never comfortable.
I have played the Dutch but give it up every once in a while, because some of my Dutch losses are PAINFUL. Overall, I do fine in the Dutch, but the losses hurt more.
I've been using the 1.b3. And alekhine's defense. I've risen from around 1000 to around 1400 on chess.com and lately I've been thinking about trying to focus more on studying opening principles. How important is it for me to learn different openings, whether they be main or sidelines?
1. Experimenting with different openings is great, both for fun and for improvement.
2. If you get to the point where you want a tournament repertoire, I recommend focusing on a single repertoire and getting it really solid. Hopefully your experimentation has given you a good idea of which openings you like. It takes a fair amount of experience to get really comfortable with an opening, so it's going to be hard to get to that point if you're always switching openings.
I believe that a healthy combination of both is probably the way to go. Mainlines help instill good habits while sidelines offer surprise element which leads to some interesting games.
Great article! Have you considered doing this test among similarly rated players at every rating level: do the players who know more theory longer tend to win more? You can define "know more theory" by looking at all their games of certain opening (the Ruy Lopez, eg) and seeing on average how many moves of theory they do. Then, see their results in all Ruy Lopez games among similarly rated players
Thanks James! Not sure if you saw this other post I did on the Ruy Lopez: https://zwischenzug.substack.com/p/what-really-happens-in-the-ruy-lopez This analysis was more qualitative and anecdotal - I just looked at 8 random games - but it broadly supports what I've noticed in my own games and everyone else's, that memorizing long opening variations doesn't seem to be that helpful. It would also be interesting to look at it in a more quantitative way over a larger sample, like you suggested. The big question would of course be, "What counts as theory?"
That's so interesting. I wonder if it's because: in practice it's rare for any one variation to come up. Or if it's because the deeper variations require more chess knowledge (so GM-level, for instance). Because, on the other hand, I would think if you are playing like a computer for the first 23 moves that would be good for your game, but maybe only if you know the real nuances of the position you end up in. I will read your other post!
Hey James, I was thinking about your question and expanded on it further in this week's post: https://zwischenzug.substack.com/p/the-problem-with-memorization Let me know what you think!
I think part of it is emotional. I've won games because of "traps" and been delighted and lost games in an unfamiliar opening that felt like I was never comfortable.
I have played the Dutch but give it up every once in a while, because some of my Dutch losses are PAINFUL. Overall, I do fine in the Dutch, but the losses hurt more.
I've been using the 1.b3. And alekhine's defense. I've risen from around 1000 to around 1400 on chess.com and lately I've been thinking about trying to focus more on studying opening principles. How important is it for me to learn different openings, whether they be main or sidelines?
I have kind of a two-part answer to this...
1. Experimenting with different openings is great, both for fun and for improvement.
2. If you get to the point where you want a tournament repertoire, I recommend focusing on a single repertoire and getting it really solid. Hopefully your experimentation has given you a good idea of which openings you like. It takes a fair amount of experience to get really comfortable with an opening, so it's going to be hard to get to that point if you're always switching openings.