is memorizing 20 moves deep with ideas against an opening while being 1200elo is a bad idea?

@JustAChessPlayer177 said ^

you already know the question

5

@JustAChessPlayer177 said in #1:

[is memorizing 20 moves deep with ideas against an opening while being 1200elo is a bad idea?]

"... I am not a big fan of weaker players memorizing lots of opening lines they will never play. However, it is quite a different issue to spend a small amount of time learning how to play your openings a little better each time they occur. A long journey begins with a single step. ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2005)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627023809/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman50.pdf
In 2004, NM Heisman wrote an article that discussed going to the trouble of learning what move is recommended after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 O-O Be7 6 Re1 b5 7 Bb3 d6 8 c3 O-O.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140626225952/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman37.pdf
His study-advice depended on the rating of the player. Back then, I imagine that he was thinking in terms of USCF ratings, so it is a little bit unclear what his advice would be for someone with a 1200 lichess rating. Nevertheless, I think that you might find that the article ("Learning Opening Lines & Ideas") presents an interesting consideration of the pros and cons associated with that sort of study.
"... How useful is it to know that, in the Ruy Lopez sequence, 9.h3 is preferred? That greatly depends on your rating level, assuming you usually play opponents around your rating:
...
900: Even if you do remember the sequence, almost none of your opponents will play it. And on that rare occasion when they do, it will not make any difference since the player who plays the best tactically will win in either case – usually someone at this rating level drops a piece or more in the middlegame.
1200: You may run across this sequence occasionally but, again, the player who plays better tactically will prevail. Your winning percentage would hardly be affected by playing 9.d4 or 9.h3. ..."
I once wasted a lot of time, reading about the position after 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 Nf3 Nf6 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 a4 Bf5 6 e3 e6 7 Bxc4 Bb4 8 O-O O-O 9 Qe2, only to realize (eventually) that the position never arose in any of my games.

@AlexiHarvey said in #8:

As an intermediate player, it's a wasteful idea - in general for openings it's best to go wide rather than narrow. ...

@JustAChessPlayer177 said in #9:

Well, my counter is, it increases Opening knowledge and punish more easily if they make inaccuracies

It cannot be expected that one will be able to "punish" any departure from a line that one has memorized. 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 O-O Be7 6 Re1 b5 7 Bb3 d6 8 c3 O-O is only 8 moves, and, already, there are lots of viable alternatives for various Black moves along the way.
"... Now jump ahead sixty years to 2020. ... the Berlin Defense to the Spanish (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6), which was considered a dubious sideline in Fischer’s day, is now considered to be very close to equal. Also the Marshall Gambit in the Spanish is now considered to be close to a draw, and good counters have been found to the various ways by which White used to avoid the Marshall. ..." - GM Larry Kaufman
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/9092.pdf

@ChessPriyome said in #7:

Chess is learned backwards, from endgames to openings. ...

"... Review each of your games, identifying opening (and other) mistakes with the goal of not repeatedly making the same mistake. ... It is especially critical not to continually fall into opening traps – or even lines that result in difficult positions ... Read many annotated game collections ... By looking at entire games, the aspiring player learns about openings, middlegames, and endgames all at one fell swoop. Playing through annotated games spurs improvement as the reader learns how good players consistently handle common positions and problems. ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2007)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627062646/https://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman81.pdf

@PureProgressionFTW said in #10:

... if you really want to go deep on an opening, just do it, why not? Studying openings is fun.
Still better to learn 10 variations 10 moves deep than 1 line 20 moves deep tho.

"... Overall, I would advise most players to stick to a fairly limited range of openings, and not to worry about learning too much by heart. ... the average player only needs to know a limited amount about the openings he plays. Providing he understands the main aims of the opening, a few typical plans and a handful of basic variations, that is enough. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2008)

Not to quibble but Kaufman's quote

"Also the Marshall Gambit in the Spanish is now considered to be close to a draw, and good counters have been found to the various ways by which White used to avoid the Marshall. ..." - GM Larry Kaufman

is really about higher level players than most of us. Marshall is played a lot in my club and I dont think I've ever had a draw in a Marshall game. One of the Marshall fans and I spent an hour accepting it against each other in blitz games. I dont recall any draws there either. I think it's still formidable for most of us normal humans.

As for anti-Marshalls, I just had a short win as white with one vs an FM in a 3 day/move game.

@JustAChessPlayer177 said in #1:

[is memorizing 20 moves deep with ideas against an opening while being 1200elo is a bad idea?]

@AlexiHarvey said in #8:

As an intermediate player, it's a wasteful idea - in general for openings it's best to go wide rather than narrow. ...

@JustAChessPlayer177 said in #9:

Well, my counter is, it increases Opening knowledge and punish more easily if they make inaccuracies

@kindaspongey said in #!2:

... It cannot be expected that one will be able to "punish" any departure from a line that one has memorized. 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 O-O Be7 6 Re1 b5 7 Bb3 d6 8 c3 O-O is only 8 moves, and, already, there are lots of viable alternatives for various Black moves along the way.
"... Now jump ahead sixty years to 2020. ... the Berlin Defense to the Spanish (1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6), which was considered a dubious sideline in Fischer’s day, is now considered to be very close to equal. Also the Marshall Gambit in the Spanish is now considered to be close to a draw, and good counters have been found to the various ways by which White used to avoid the Marshall. ..." - GM Larry Kaufman ...

@swimmerBill said in #13:

Not to quibble but Kaufman's quote
"Also the Marshall Gambit in the Spanish is now considered to be close to a draw, and good counters have been found to the various ways by which White used to avoid the Marshall. ..." - GM Larry Kaufman
is really about higher level players than most of us. Marshall is played a lot in my club and I dont think I've ever had a draw in a Marshall game. One of the Marshall fans and I spent an hour accepting it against each other in blitz games. I dont recall any draws there either. I think it's still formidable for most of us normal humans.

I agree that the GM Kaufman quote should not cause one to doubt that the Marshall Gambit is still formidable for many of us normal humans. For me the conclusion (relevant to this discussion) is that one cannot expect to be able to "punish" someone who departs from 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 O-O Be7 6 Re1 b5 7 Bb3 d6 8 c3 O-O by going for the Marshall Gambit.

@swimmerBill said in #13:

As for anti-Marshalls, I just had a short win as white with one vs an FM in a 3 day/move game.

Do you want to claim that your win establishes that one can expect to be able to "punish" someone who departs from 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 O-O Be7 6 Re1 b5 7 Bb3 d6 8 c3 O-O by going for the Marshall Gambit?

@Himawari_Nohara said in #14:

... I cannot remember theory heavy openings. One mistake in memory and it's already difficult to survive. Switch to setup based openings (or less theory based) so it will be advantage.

I think you have an understandable reason to avoid theory heavy openings, but I think that a point to make is that, in such lines, it is not likely that every departure from the line will necessarily result in a difficult-to-survive situation.

Is memorizing openings 20 moves deep a good idea?

At 1200 ELO, probably not. At 1200, opening theory does not really matter as much as maximizing your pieces and finding the right tactical shots. Of course, you should have some knowledge in your openings of choice, but it is extremely unlikely that 20 moves of theory will be needed. However, if studying this theory helps you understand the ideas of your opening, by all means go for it.

At higher ratings, however (say, something like 1600), I think this depends on the nature of your openings. If you play fairly quiet openings like the QGD, Caro-Kann, or the Quiet Italian, you should preoccupy yourself less with specific theory because there are usually many decent options for both sides in those openings. Instead, you should focus more on the general ideas and what the opening aims to accomplish. However, sharper opening choices will absolutely require some deep theoretical knowledge: these are openings like the Botvinnik Semi-Slav, the French Winawer, the Najdorf, the Muller Attack, some lines in the King's Indian (I'm not too familiar with that theory so I may be mistaken), etc. Poor knowledge of theory in openings like this can easily land you in a completely lost position, so taking the time to learn those 20+ moves is absolutely necessary.

What is the secret to finding the exit of a maze among 10 dead ends? Working backward from the exit to the entrance; it's common knowledge!
In chess, the number of endgames is limited (checkmates or typical endgames), whereas opening moves become virtually infinite after about ten moves.
Learn to recognize key positions from the end to the beginning: typical endgames and mates => middlegame (pawn structures) => opening.

For some idea of topics to consider, one can look at the table of contents of Learn to Play Chess Like a Boss (2019) by GM Patrick Wolff.
https://www.amazon.com/Learn-Play-Chess-Like-Boss/dp/1465483810?asin=1465483810&revisionId=&format=4&depth=1

A 1200 player who studies basic tactics and endgames often improves faster than one who spends most of the time memorizing openings.

If you're currently around 1200, learning king-and-pawn endings, basic rook endings, and solving 20-30 tactical puzzles a day can often push you toward 1400-1500 much faster than opening study alone.

Your openings do not need to be more than a few ply deep; push those limits as needed. That will happen if you repeat your openings from game to game and discover the errors you and your opponent made along the way.

This is the classic opening feedback loop in action. Rinse and repeat.

Why study 20 moves deep when you or your opponent deviates regularly by the 5th or 8th move? Their mistakes fill in the knowledge gap for you in your opening repertoire. Be sure to thank them. It's one thing that game reviews are for, clearly.

@kindaspongey said ^

As for anti-Marshalls, I just had a short win as white with one vs an FM in a 3 day/move game.

Do you want to claim that your win establishes that one can expect to be able to "punish" someone who departs from 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Ba4 Nf6 5 O-O Be7 6 Re1 b5 7 Bb3 d6 8 c3 O-O by going for the Marshall Gambit?

kindaspongy--I dont see how one can deduce that conclusion from my comment. If you explain your logical process, maybe I can answer. A more plausible deduction is that neither Marshall nor anti-Marshall lead to dead draws.

I'll try to post the game in question next [where my stronger-than-me opponent may a natural but careless 10th move]. I'd expected 8. d4 d6 leading to another classic Ruy Lopez line. --- Bill

1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. O-O Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 O-O 8. d4
   Nxd4 9. Bxf7+ Rxf7 10. Nxe5 Nc6 11. Nxf7 Kxf7 12. e5 Ne8 13. Qd5+ Kf8 14. Re3 g6
   15. Rf3+ Kg7 16. Qf7+ Kh8 17. Bh6 1-0 [Couldn't figure out how to put this on a board inside the post]