lichess.org
Donate

Knowing theory

I'm sure you've heard this numerous times. It is often shouted by players of many strengths, that to improve you must study "Tactics, tactics, tactics!", and I can not deny that tactics are important, especially for players of average strength, but for these same enthusiastic advisors to deny the value of opening theory is to betray their own lack of commitment to truly succeeding and improving in this game.

These tactics enthusiasts insist that one must be a rated master, or even a grandmaster, for opening theory to be relevant and important for an aspiring chess enthusiast.

I will ask them this: Then how did any grandmaster ever become one? Was it by studying "tactics, tactics, and more tactics?" Or did they read books, study line after line after line, game after game?

If one neglects all opening theory and neglects to study lines, and the openings and games of stronger players, then he will hit a plateau, and further progress will remain stagnant. Tactics are important, but they are only half of the equation.
You don't really have to know too much theory, but just know the general ideas and traps of the openings you play. You should be able to become quite high-rated only based on this and, of course, a good knowledge of tactics, positional play, and endgame theory.
Endgame theory: Yet another aspect of theory that one should not avoid if he wishes to improve.

Thank you, qkxwsm.
I also hear this idea of "just knowing the general ideas" very frequently. What are these general ideas? Are you talking about things like controlling the center, king safety, not moving a piece twice in the opening, or other little general ideas regarding the opening?

These are good to know, but without studying several lines and/or games, one will remain as mediocre as you and me. We are proof of this.
Some Grandmaster whispered long ago this phrase: "Chess is 99% tactics", and some people use it as a maxim or so, sometimes even dogmatically. Recently, I've encountered a sort of response to this in the same laconic way: "Chess is only 99% tactics if you look for tactics 99% of the time".
Chess is more then tactics. I use to study mainly tactics and I hit a wall of about class B strength(1600-1800) for a long time. It was only when I studied many different chess strategies, endgame theory, opening theory with a lot of tactics did I improve to a class A player 1900. Even before I reached 1600 strength I did a fair amount of endgame studies, strategy, and opening studies.
I think the reason high level players tend to shy away from advising learners to delve too deeply into opening theory is because they probably won't understand a lot of the little nuances like prophylaxis, or which of 2 seemingly equal squares to develop the queen to in certain Indian themed games, etc. While this is likely the case, avoiding opening study altogether is a mistake. You can't get good tactics out of openings in which you've horribly misplayed and given up so much position that you're stuck on the defensive the whole game. Sure, there are defensive tactics that can turn things around, but really if you never find the initiative, you're never really generating much in the way of tactics, rather than tactical deterrents. And if your tactics put you a pawn up in an endgame, but it was a pawn that will never promote because you had no endgame knowledge to realize you'd forced yourself into a draw on move 30, you stumble along draining your brain throwing out all those tactics to try to promote a dead pawn and just end up wasting your energy. There are great reasons to study theory at every level. It is the extent to which you should study that varies based on how much you can grasp. I can honestly say I've won probably more games from gaining an opening advantage knowing more theory than an opponent than I've won through generating some amazing game winning tactic. Those tactics are usually the result of the opponent's blunder as well, not some genius over the board.
I'm not sure if I can say this for everyone, but I improved a bit when I started to play only the same openings (and the most classic ones). Always Ruy Lopez, always Sicilian Najdorf, and so on.

And one thing: no fianchettos :). I found it difficult to manage them in openings, so I put that aside for a while.

Another thing: following the theory in the openings and principles as developement etc, as long as possible. It helped a lot too. I just have trouble when a player play in this unorthodox faction: not castleing, pushing pawns in the side of the board. Apparently, I still don't understand much how to play against this kind of "strategy", even if I know "philosophically" that this is not very good.

@ #8: Good post and thanks for taking the time. Chess is such a truly complex and intricate game that there really is no singular path to progression...be that tactics or any other individual focal point.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.