Do Juniors expend too much effort on opening theory?

[John Upham]

A question really intended coaches and players themselves :

Do juniors, on average, expend too much effort on learning lengthy lines of sharp variations?

Should they spend less on this and more on middle and end game theory and practise?

I recall as a junior wasting countless hours memorising (but not understanding) the sharpest lines in Open Sicilians and such like and being hopeless at endgames.

For example, the Sicilian Dragon seems to be a favourite way to waste huge amounts of time.

I found that a sub-conscious need to know more than my opponent put me under huge pressure and that my approach to the game was totally wrong.

I stopped playing at 23 when I returned to University (of Sussex) to start again having left UCL in my second year.

[Daniel Young]

Speaking personally...

A question really intended coaches and players themselves :

Do juniors, on average, expend too much effort on learning lengthy lines of sharp variations? - Yes.

Should they spend less on this and more on middle and end game theory and practise? - Definitely!

I recall as a junior wasting countless hours memorising (but not understanding) the sharpest lines in Open Sicilians and such like and being hopeless at endgames. - Sounds familiar. I'm not sure if it is a frequent thing, but I find endgames to be terribly dull whereas the openings have many more possibilities, as well as the opportunity to express some sort of style; by contrast the only 2 types of endgame play are right and wrong. Also, they require precise calculation over-the-board which I struggle to do.

For example, the Sicilian Dragon seems to be a favourite way to waste huge amounts of time. - Najdorf actually! But close enough.

I found that a sub-conscious need to know more than my opponent put me under huge pressure and that my approach to the game was totally wrong. - Actually I don't experience this: against opponents of my level (~110), junior at least, it is possible to out-book them with very little effort. Anyway, the game has usually left the realms of theory by move 5.

I stopped playing at 23 when I returned to University (of Sussex) to start again having left UCL in my second year.

[Alex Holowczak]

Do juniors, on average, expend too much effort on learning lengthy lines of sharp variations?

Yes

Should they spend less on this and more on middle and end game theory and practise?

Yes

I come across so many players who get to move 10 just fine, but thereafter have no idea what they're doing. (Myself included!) I think the ideal way to learn chess is from the end backwards, and treating the earlier bits of the game as a method to simplifying down to the endgame that you've already mastered. I think if an adult has a slight advantage over junior players out of the opening, it's rare for a junior to win the game (barring a major blunder).

Other times, they can be a piece up, think they've won (given 90% of juniors they play soon collapse in a heap), and end up blundering through carelessness.

[Alexander Hardwick]

To use a debating analogy: the first speaker for the opposition...

Don't underrate the value of learning and understanding opening theory. I'll try to avoid the clichéd arguments here. For a start, a large part of the theory on some sharp openings - e.g. some anti-KID and anti-Benoni lines - consists of long, sharp, sometimes forcing lines. A thorough memorisation of these can sometimes lead to a win for the hardworking junior, without playing a single move of his own. The effort saved here, in winning through memorised lines rather than through calculation at the board, can turn out extremely useful, especially in a long, tiring tournament - and, of course, a point is a point.

But clearly a large portion of opening theory is made up of the solid, hefty main lines, out of which no side can expect to gain a winning advantage, and the best they can aim for is to come out of the opening with a small advantage into a middle- or endgame that they are comfortable playing. Clearly it is in these openings that positional understanding comes into play. I think this is what Mr Holowczak was referring to with his point:

I think if an adult has a slight advantage over junior players out of the opening, it's rare for a junior to win the game (barring a major blunder).

Surely the logical way to tackle this is learning and developing an understanding of the opening main lines? In this way, it will be the junior who has the slight advantage over the adult, rather than the other way round. It seems to me that this is a better solution - rather than working hard at the board to neutralise an opponent's advantage before being able to move into a comfortable middle- or endgame.

Speaking from personal experience, I think that a solid learning of opening theory at an early stage reaps dividends as the player moves up to higher levels. The point that understanding is not necessarily a result of rote-memorisation has been well made; I would ask, how does the learning of endgames - with only a few pieces left on the board - aid a player's positional understanding?

I think the ideal way to learn chess is from the end backwards, and treating the earlier bits of the game as a method to simplifying down to the endgame that you've already mastered.

It is an unfortunate truth that no chess game consists of simply a long series of exchanges - in fact, most people who employ that strategy are normally portrayed as "playing for a draw" rather than "playing for an endgame which they know they can win". The player who goes into a game hoping to exchange off as many pieces as possible is likely to fall victim either to his opponent's greater opening knowledge, which gives him a disadvantage from the beginning, or to an attack which will stop him from ever reaching an endgame.

The best of both worlds would, obviously, be to learn both opening and endgame theory. But who has that much time?

Alex Hardwick.

[Alex Holowczak]

Surely the logical way to tackle this is learning and developing an understanding of the opening main lines? In this way, it will be the junior who has the slight advantage over the adult, rather than the other way round. It seems to me that this is a better solution - rather than working hard at the board to neutralise an opponent's advantage before being able to move into a comfortable middle- or endgame.

Because the average junior is far more prone to cock up the middle game and endgame, thus ruining the earlier advantage he'd built up. It's no point being so good at chess you can be KQ v K at the end, but you don't know how to mate with them... (But think of a more complex example. E.g. it's no good getting into an endgame a clear pawn up if you have no idea of the strategies involved in such an endgame.)

Speaking from personal experience, I think that a solid learning of opening theory at an early stage reaps dividends as the player moves up to higher levels. The point that understanding is not necessarily a result of rote-memorisation has been well made; I would ask, how does the learning of endgames - with only a few pieces left on the board - aid a player's positional understanding?

It teaches you how the pieces co-ordinate well with one another. Having inputted so many games at U10/11 level at the British, there were so many really poor endgames. There were so many cast-iron wins that were missed through poor endgame technique. For example, there was one game where a player was winning by so much and started pushing his pawns up. He ended up being unable to escape a perpetual check by a rook, which he couldn't ever take because it'd be stalemate. Yet he knew the first 15 moves of the Ruy Lopez to get to that position. I don't see the point of knowing the first 15 moves of the Ruy Lopez if you can't win KRPPPP v KR at the end of it.

At that particular level, so many subsequent mistakes were made, and the game swung to and fro that often, that the advantage you got from all that opening theory knowledge was almost redundant.

It is an unfortunate truth that no chess game consists of simply a long series of exchanges - in fact, most people who employ that strategy are normally portrayed as "playing for a draw" rather than "playing for an endgame which they know they can win". The player who goes into a game hoping to exchange off as many pieces as possible is likely to fall victim either to his opponent's greater opening knowledge, which gives him a disadvantage from the beginning, or to an attack which will stop him from ever reaching an endgame.

I think at the top level, people specifically play an opening that leads to a middlegame position they're familiar with. Indeed, some will think ahead to the endgame during the middlegame, with regard to things such as pawn structure.

[Alexander Hardwick]

Because the average junior is far more prone to cock up the middle game and endgame, thus ruining the earlier advantage he'd built up.

Really? I myself am a junior, and I highly doubt I am significantly more prone to blundering than the average ~130-graded adult player. By "junior" do you mean U10/11 levels? If so, then surely they are less likely to blunder in the openings if they have theory to guide them? In the example you gave, at least the juniors in question managed to end up with won endgames - with a little more practice (and the use of practice rather than endgame study here is deliberate!) these will be easily convertible into wins. By contrast, no amount of study will help the juniors if they come out of the opening material down.

One other point that I alluded to in the above paragraph: endgames can be improved to a very high standard simply through OTB practice. However, no amount of practice can result in a "discovery" of the correct opening theory/lines; the best the junior can do is remember and avoid certain basic opening traps. There is no other way to master opening theory than to learn it.

I think at the top level, people specifically play an opening that leads to a middlegame position they're familiar with. Indeed, some will think ahead to the endgame during the middlegame, with regard to things such as pawn structure.

It's true that master-level players play openings that result in middlegame and endgame positions that they are comfortable with - this, of course, entails a detailed knowledge of the openings themselves. However, it is rare that they play the opening simply with the intention of reaching an endgame. No top players would leave such holes in their play, that their only area of strength is the endgame - hence, sterile games filled only with piece exchanges are never seen at the top levels. Similarly, at lower levels, the strategy of exchanging off pieces to lead to the endgame is easily detectable and easily preventable!

Alex Hardwick.

[John Upham]

I think one needs to state what means by theory.

I'm sure many persons define opening theory as the best moves to be played in a given position. A more extreme view would be the best move as measure by a strong engine. Some might say the most popular moves as given by searching a database.

I think it should be "an understanding of the potential ideas, themes and strategies of a position".

My point is that many (lesser players) regard opening theory as parrot like recall of lines of analysis without having any real feel or understanding for the position.

[Alex Holowczak]

Really? I myself am a junior, and I highly doubt I am significantly more prone to blundering than the average ~130-graded adult player. By "junior" do you mean U10/11 levels? If so, then surely they are less likely to blunder in the openings if they have theory to guide them? In the example you gave, at least the juniors in question managed to end up with won endgames - with a little more practice (and the use of practice rather than endgame study here is deliberate!) these will be easily convertible into wins. By contrast, no amount of study will help the juniors if they come out of the opening material down.

It's very difficult to blunder in the opening. At least, in contrast to an endgame. There are so many potential candidate moves that it's not so much of a problem. Take the Sicilian. As long as you know the jist of your favourite variation, you should be OK. If you have enough knowledge to get to about move 8 without too much damage, even players of my standard can overcome the minor difficulties that may arise.

One other point that I alluded to in the above paragraph: endgames can be improved to a very high standard simply through OTB practice. However, no amount of practice can result in a "discovery" of the correct opening theory/lines; the best the junior can do is remember and avoid certain basic opening traps. There is no other way to master opening theory than to learn it.

I draw a parallel with darts. The opening is to the scoring, and the endgames are to the doubles. The three-dart average in darts is often not that important. If you score within 3 points of your opponent, the disadvantage is not insurmountable. You can still win by hitting the doubles. Checkout % is a far more relevant statistic.

It's true that master-level players play openings that result in middlegame and endgame positions that they are comfortable with - this, of course, entails a detailed knowledge of the openings themselves.

Absolutely. I'm not going to argue that you don't need to know the openings. The question is "Do Juniors expend too much effort on opening theory?" In the junior team I run, I have juniors who know the Danish Gambit, the Benko, and a whole manner of crazy openings (up to about move 10). I don't know any of these things, but I'm a better player. At the moment, they have a wide range of openings to choose from, but no idea what to do with them once they've played it. It'll come with time... So why not spend the effort learning that now instead?

[Alexander Hardwick]

It's very difficult to blunder in the opening. At least, in contrast to an endgame. There are so many potential candidate moves that it's not so much of a problem. Take the Sicilian. As long as you know the jist of your favourite variation, you should be OK. If you have enough knowledge to get to about move 8 without too much damage, even players of my standard can overcome the minor difficulties that may arise.

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2333

I find it hard to believe that juniors aged 9-10 (you haven't clarified whether or not they are the field you were referring to above; I'll assume they are) only rarely blunder in the opening. Perhaps it would help to broaden the field; rather than just looking at the very top U11s (i.e. British U11 Championship contenders) we should look at all the U11s in the country who play regular competitive chess - i.e. who have an active grade. Is it really possible that all these U11s never or rarely commit opening blunders? In which case, these opening deficiencies should be cleared up first, to avoid the psychological damper on these juniors of having a lost position inside 10 moves.

I draw a parallel with darts.

I'm afraid this is completely wasted on me. I don't play or understand darts at all. Apologies.

In the junior team I run, I have juniors who know the Danish Gambit, the Benko, and a whole manner of crazy openings (up to about move 10). I don't know any of these things, but I'm a better player. At the moment, they have a wide range of openings to choose from, but no idea what to do with them once they've played it. It'll come with time... So why not spend the effort learning that now instead?

Endgame technique can come with practice - clearly it's preferable that the theory should be learned, but, if necessary, a junior can develop strong endgame technique simply through practice OTB. For middlegame technique (or "what to do with them once they've played it"), ditto: the positional understanding required can and often does come from practice. But nobody can make up the well-worn paths to a comfortable middlegame position; this is the one part of the game that can only be learned. I'm trying to clarify the point that I made in my last post: opening theory is the part of the game that it is least beneficial to "make up" through practice. It follows that it should be most beneficial that studying time be spent on this part of the game.

Alex Hardwick.

[Alex Holowczak]

It's very difficult to blunder in the opening. At least, in contrast to an endgame. There are so many potential candidate moves that it's not so much of a problem. Take the Sicilian. As long as you know the jist of your favourite variation, you should be OK. If you have enough knowledge to get to about move 8 without too much damage, even players of my standard can overcome the minor difficulties that may arise.

http://www.ecforum.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2333

I find it hard to believe that juniors aged 9-10 (you haven't clarified whether or not they are the field you were referring to above; I'll assume they are) only rarely blunder in the opening. Perhaps it would help to broaden the field; rather than just looking at the very top U11s (i.e. British U11 Championship contenders) we should look at all the U11s in the country who play regular competitive chess - i.e. who have an active grade. Is it really possible that all these U11s never or rarely commit opening blunders? In which case, these opening deficiencies should be cleared up first, to avoid the psychological damper on these juniors of having a lost position inside 10 moves.

The majority of junior players (aged 9-11, yes) are capable of developing their pieces, controlling the centre etc. They can get through the opening with a roughly equal position. An opening blunder, e.g. leaving a piece under attack, is no more of a blunder than could occur at any stage of the game. What I mean is, they know vaguely what the principles are, i.e. develop, control centre and castle. Yet they can't finish off basic mates.

In the junior team I run, I have juniors who know the Danish Gambit, the Benko, and a whole manner of crazy openings (up to about move 10). I don't know any of these things, but I'm a better player. At the moment, they have a wide range of openings to choose from, but no idea what to do with them once they've played it. It'll come with time... So why not spend the effort learning that now instead?

Endgame technique can come with practice - clearly it's preferable that the theory should be learned, but, if necessary, a junior can develop strong endgame technique simply through practice OTB. For middlegame technique (or "what to do with them once they've played it"), ditto: the positional understanding required can and often does come from practice. But nobody can make up the well-worn paths to a comfortable middlegame position; this is the one part of the game that can only be learned. I'm trying to clarify the point that I made in my last post: opening theory is the part of the game that it is least beneficial to "make up" through practice. It follows that it should be most beneficial that studying time be spent on this part of the game.

I'm not sure you can develop a strong endgame technique through over the board play. I think you need to learn what you're supposed to be doing in the endgames before you could actually try it out in a game. If you don't know the basic concept of something like KBN v K, you won't know how to implement it. Similarly KPPPP v KPPP. If you don't know to block the non-majority side and get a passed pawn on the other side, before darting through and winning the pawns on the other side, then you won't be able to implement it in a game.

You can learn opening theory by reading a book and memorising, I agree. I don't think juniors should be encouraged to spend time memorising things from a book. That doesn't encourage independent thought, which is far more important. You learn nothing valuable by purely memorising from a book. You need to learn how to think for yourself, and that comes by solving endgame puzzles, or tactical puzzles generally.

[Michael Jones]

My point is that many (lesser players) regard opening theory as parrot like recall of lines of analysis without having any real feel or understanding for the position.

You've hit the nail on the head: the difference is between memorising particular lines and actually understanding the ideas in the position. A few months ago I played one of England's most promising juniors (subsequently one of our representatives at the EYCC in Batumi); I was expecting a tough game, but instead he caved in and was completely lost in 15 moves: 1. e4 c5 2. c3 d5 3. exd5 Qxd5 4. Nf3 Bg4 5.Be2 e6 6. d4 Nc6 7. Be3 Nf6 8. dxc5 Qxd1+ 9. Bxd1 Ne4 10. b4 a5 11. Ba4 axb4 12. Bxc6+ bxc6 13. cxb4 Ra4 14. Ne5 Bf5 15. Nxc6 and Black played on for a few more moves before resigning. I showed the game to a friend afterwards, who commented that it looked like he'd learned one line and got confused as soon as I played something which wasn't in the book he'd read. I'd played similar positions in blitz games so I had a reasonably good idea what I was doing, but I didn't actually know any concrete variation beyond about move 5 - in particular, I found 8. dxc5 (with the point 8... Bxc5 9. Qxd5 exd5 10. Bxc5 +-) at the board.

Another point to consider is how often something is likely to come in useful, relative to how much time you spend studying it. Yes, you might find that you know a particular opening trap that your opponent doesn't, and consequently get a 'free' point with little or no at-the-board thinking involved, but how often is that likely to happen? Less so, I would imagine, than a chance to apply the knowledge of, say, rook and pawn endgames that you could have acquired in the same amount of study time.

[Roger de Coverly]

1. e4 c5 2. c3 d5 3. exd5 Qxd5 4. Nf3 Bg4 5.Be2 e6 6. d4 Nc6 7. Be3 Nf6 8. dxc5 Qxd1+ 9. Bxd1 Ne4

Without really knowing too much about c3 Sicilian theory as to what's a main line and what isn't, I did a bit of research in the database. Obviously the normal move would be 7 .. cxd4 which transposes back to a position with hundreds of games. So is 7 Be3 a trap? In the sense that it can avoid normal positions, then yes. Is Black in trouble? Probably not as 8 .. 0-0-0 and 9 .. Nd5 appear to be valid alternatives to the game.

I'm almost saying that you need to know more theory not less to avoid such problems.

If you play razor sharp illogical variations you need to know what you're doing or avoid them completely. In boring stuff like c3 Sicilians a knowledge of the tricks and traps is very useful. In this case the trick that placing a Bishop on e3 might be threatening to take and hold the c5 pawn. It's an idea you see in the advance French and advance Caro as well.

[Matt Mackenzie]

The 2c3 Sicilian isn't as "boring" as people continuously describing it as such

[Michael Jones]

I'm quite a fan of boring openings - although of course opening preparation is a significant part of chess at the top level, at amateur level I prefer as much of the game as possible to be played at the board rather than in a book/on a computer beforehand, so if I can avoid theory without having to play something completely outrageous (no 1... a6 for me, thanks) I usually will.

[Mike Truran]

Matt, it's even more boring than the way people describe it.