|
|
|
|
|
|
by anacleto
2974 days ago
|
|
|
Class B player chess here. Yes and no. What would make you think that memorizing openings is so addictive? Unless you're playing chess for a living, master 2 or 3 openings (queen or kings side) is more than enough and usually so much more effective than knowing superficially a wide range of openings. Not that true also that defined openings will put the game in a more tactical rather than strategic position. It depends on the opening, and mostly the strategic vs. tactical approach depends on the middle game and on the type of players. Look at Casablanca (strongly strategic) and Tal/Morphy (strongly tactical). While most people concentrate on memorizing as much as openings the possibly can, I do recommend to learn more end-game variants.
Even average chess players (Class C, B, A) don't usually have a good understanding of end-games and that's what makes the different between a good players and a very good player (ie. IM). |
|
|
That cannot be emphasized enough.
I've even had players offer me a draw in a classical king vs king+rook situation.
When I learned chess in the GDR we practiced endgames ad nauseum but openings were left until very late.