Sorry, Beginners: Openings DO matter.
Living in reality.
I've been thinking a lot about this video by GM Ben Finegold:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPIMRMl0guA&t=5s
Ben is great - normally, very entertaining and a fantastic teacher (especially - wait for it - his series of short videos on Openings for beginners). However, on this subject he is dead wrong.
(Side note: Who am I to even say this? I'm not a GM, but I am an elite in my lifetime sport, fencing. 2022 V40-49 National Champion, 2005 USA Div 1 Vice-Champion, 2x All-American, 4x All-Ivy. Now, I'm still early in my chess "career", but I think I know something about what it takes to reach "10,000 hours" and elite expertise in a discipline. But anyway, back to my rant).
In the video, he goes on one his epic livestream rants:
Stop thinking about openings. Openings have nothing to do with chess. Do other things get better at tactics look for your opponent's threats analyze your games. Openings don't matter it's irrelevant. You play a4 on move one and if you're good at tactics it doesn't matter. That's the biggest mistake all low-rated players make is they think only openings matter.
They don't matter at all
Really, Ben? They don't matter AT ALL?
Here's the comment I left on that video:
Openings don't matter... If you believe that "suffering builds character" and are okay with losing dozens (hundreds) of games in under 12 moves to GothamChess / EricRosen / etc. subscribers who have memorized the Ponziani / Stafford / Whatever Gambit. Hard Fact: if you are not an 8 year old who is happy to lose all your games for 5 years before "just getting good" (as he says in another video), you will have to memorize the refutations of the common "unsound" gambits that opponents throw at you. Of course, you can try to suffer more by working it out on the board.... and you lose on time instead as they blitz out their preparation.
GM Finegold is great but here he is WAAAAAY out of touch with the reality of playing online rapid / blitz (as most of his audience does) as an under-2000.
And if he is recommending playing 1. a4 (really?) then he is contradicting himself on playing good moves and tactics.
But this "don't memorize openings" is true for "slow" OTB chess, right? After all, nobody plays tricky, gimmicky gambits in those either, and even if they do, you have enough time to work it out, survive and then play a "normal game of chess," right?
Sorry, but no. Even in slow chess, playing "safe" openings, you have to memorize your opening lines. I've learned (the "hard way") that even a "safe" pawn capture or developing move can result in a slightly worse position that is *impossible* to recover from (yes, even in the U1600 sections - folks, these are not the "blunder fests" that you think, sorry). Your opponent gets a +1.5 advantage, builds up a suffocating position over the next 20 moves - and you lose. All because of a single errant (but safe!) pawn recapture in the opening.
Another video I came across illustrates my point: Playing 6. ... Bd7 in the Milner-Barry Gambit is a LOSING move. 46% vs 34% win ratio in the masters database.
How are you supposed to know that 6. ... cxd4 is the "correct" move? Well, you could suffer through dozens (hundreds) of games before - yes - in post-game analysis you figure out on your own (?!) that 6. ... Bd7 is inferior to cxd4. Or you could (gasp) memorize the main lines and save yourself hours (days/months?) of effort that could be spent on other things (improving endgames, studying tactics puzzles, etc.)
BTW - if you are using an engine in post-game analysis to see the main line and that cxd4 is the top played move... you are "learning the opening" - which is what GM Finegold is railing against... If you are really "analyzing your games" - one of his recommendations - then learning the opening main lines is unavoidable, unless you are deliberately sabotaging yourself I guess??
Again, if you really believe that "suffering is the path to enlightenment" - by all means, ignore openings. I'll be working on my repertoire again.
