In this episode of dojotalks, Jesse, Kostya and David Discuss how to effectively learn chess openings!
0:00 Intro
1:16 How Jesse Studies The Opening
2:40 How David Studies The Opening
5:20 How Kostya Studies The Opening
8:30 Kostya’s Grievances
18:00 The Million Dollar Question
29:00 Jesse on The Dojo’s Agreement of Opening Study For Students
32:10 On Sparring Positions
35:00 On using The Computer
43:20 When Players Should Start Using The Engine
55:00 Principles
Interested in improving? Check out the all-new Dojo Training Program –
Want to support the channel? Donate here –
Follow ChessDojo here:
Website:
Twitch:
Discord:
Twitter:
Patreon:
Instagram:
Podcast:
GM Matthew Sadler has an interesting approach. He uses engine matches to spar opening positions. His idea is to get past opening fashions, see tactically sound lines, and then explore GM games with the engine lines as a framework to understand the plans. Naturally, he’s a GM, and can judge plans, but I quite like his approach.
In terms of openings: If I ever study openings, I don't neccessarily do it to get a winning position from it or for some traps, but I generally try to find playable sidelines, to get my opponent out of his prep and make sure, that we actually play a game of chess on our own. That's what I enjoy the most and I think it already became an asset for my game, that I really like to play unknown and preferably chaotic positions. Lots of people don't like that. Especially London players :)))
Very interesting video. Now here's a crazy idea, nobody does it and I am baffled as to why: make a video how to open "properly" (play only the principled way) for 1400 and below.inb4: "But vlad, just go for the center, develop, don't play piece twice and develop knights before bishops"NO. Clearly that's now the reality entirely. That's exactly why junior players keep begging for better opening tutorials for DECADES. No one seems to be capable of teaching how to open properly (especially if the opponent deviates).
In general, I hear the GM pushing for things that are modest, gradual, and very likely to be valid for most people. In response, I hear the IMs arguing that there are other things that could be really great "as long as." The IMs present hypotheticals and anecdotes, and they get personally invested in other people validating their beliefs. While arguing from authority is risky, it's a fact that only one of the three has become a GM. Anyhow, great channel!
14:54 When Kostya said "I have numbers here" I remembered Kramnik