Answers.Body: <p>From a strong expert:</p>
  
  <p>Just because I find open games to be more fun, I would suggest playing more open games.  Also a variety of openings will expand your knowledge.  (Looking at your tournament history, you may already have enough knowledge.)  Just like you don't quit smoking in one day, don't switch to overly aggressive opening.  Try the Scotch, Vienna, or Giuoco Piano.  These openings requires the learning of more opening traps, but they should improve your quality of play.</p>
  
  <p>Assuming that you have the time to invest in studying an opening, learn the common positions and plans.  If after trying this style you feel uncomfortable, go back to playing the closed/positional games.  If the game is not fun, it is not worth playing.</p>
  
  <p>When I reached expert level, I switched to a more positional game because I thought this is what was supposed to happen.  I lost many games because I hid my talent.  </p>
  
  <p>Some GM said that he switched to d4 because he got lazy as he got old.  Anna Zatonskih said that with d4, White can make more mistakes before losing the game.  You could be hanging on to the safety of known avenues.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-05-11T07:42:02.890Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2016-05-11T07:42:02.890Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Mike Jones
Answers.Body: <p>I think you should be playing open games, tactical chess, not positional chess and closed/semi-closed positions. Positional chess is inherently more difficult than open, tactical games. It's sounds to me you suffer from the classic idea that "closed" positions somehow protect you from tactics. If you are "afraid" of a tactical fight, become better at tactics! That is a learnable skill. Positional play is way more difficult and requires a deeper understanding to become a "positional" player, which maybe you think you are, or more accurately, you think that is what you <em>want</em> to become. But, most games die by tactics. I've never lost a game to a player who outplayed me positionally - in the end, tactics decides it almost all the time. Of course, be aware of positional motifs in a tabiya, but that is experience talking there.</p>
  
  <p>You should go out swinging as a C-player and trial by fire instead of ducking for cover at every opportunity. "Closed" positions for 38+ years as a C-Player should tell you something. It ain't workin'.</p>
  
  <p>You're chasing the wrong kite. You need to be at least 2100+ to even think about defining your "style" in that respect.</p>
  
  <p>I would go for the most violent openings you can find - Scotch, Giuoco Piano, Kings Gambit - at Class C you don't worry about theory in the least. Just know enough to get into the middlegames and take the gloves off and punch each other in the face. Last man standing.</p>
  
  <p>FYI: USCF 1871</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-05-10T20:00:33.430Z
Answers.Text: I'll respectfully disagree.  Class C says so little in comparison to my 6 mathematics papers and my disposition as a kid!  Two with referees.  Conjectures 1 and 2 are out there.  Conjecture 3 on the way!  No way I'm wrong on any of them!
Answers.UserDisplayName: Paul Burchett
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-05-10T20:03:32.527Z
Answers.Text: To add, at Cat C, there are no exceptions to what you should be studying. It should be 1: Tactics; 2: Endgames; 3: your own losses; 4: Annotated Grandmaster Games.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Priyome
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-05-10T20:27:34.167Z
Answers.Text: For most Mark, you're right.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Paul Burchett
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-05-10T20:48:30.357Z
Answers.Text: Some of the great classic masters of chess tried to define chess in mathematical "terms". Today, it is known as dogma. And I'm sure you're right in saying you can be brilliant in math and no-so-brilliant at chess.... skill in one does not translate to the other. Chess is not Math, and Math, not chess. Chess is much harder. Math is simply a lesson in practice mechanics.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Priyome
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-05-10T23:53:58.703Z
Answers.Text: So one of your contentions is that chess is harder than mathematics.  Mathematics is much more than practice mechanics.  This definition misses the creative aspects of mathematics.  I'll comment on the rest a bit later, not on my phone.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Paul Burchett
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-05-11T03:35:42.883Z
Answers.Text: Using mathematics could lead to some great insight.  Why are you so biased against that? While the game is certainly complex from a human point of view, that doesn't mean we can't use mathematical language to explain many things.  It is better than oh so many dead chess cliches, many of which are gibberish!
Answers.UserDisplayName: Paul Burchett
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-05-11T05:16:43.633Z
Answers.Text: If we are to advance at all in the study of combinatorial games then the method needs to be formalistic in nature!  Make clear claims!  I have!
Answers.UserDisplayName: Paul Burchett
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-05-11T16:37:53.847Z
Answers.Text: Yawn. I guess my point is that if you practiced chess like you practiced Math (i.e., the right things), you'd not be here asking these questions. You would not be languishing in the 1500's, and you would find it unnecessary to take shots at old dead chess clichés that you might do well following on occasion. I'm sure if you posted a game or two they could be verbalized using steinitzian phrasing, Philodorianisms, and Morphy-ologies, to death I'm sure. But, I will defer to your academic accomplishments in Mathematics and assume you know better and leave it as "gibberish".
Answers.UserDisplayName: Priyome
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-05-11T18:13:25.217Z
Answers.Text: I'm here for love of the game, pure and simple.  At this point I have to ask, why are you here?  Not in the forum, as you have my respect for your play, but why such hostility?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Paul Burchett
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-05-11T19:51:01.657Z
Answers.Text: No hostility here. you asked a question, you got answers, then proceeded to argue the points. So, why are YOU here? Sounds like you are not interested in the answers but in arguments - good answers you have gotten, no doubt, in more than one thread. I'll end with that. Good like on reaching back into the 1600's. I wish you well, and Good Chess.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Priyome
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-05-11T19:57:11.987Z
Answers.Text: Much hostility in the above.  I have upvoted elsewhere more than once.  I stated why I was here.  You haven't.  My last post addressing you, as I'm off to enjoy life.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Paul Burchett
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-05-10T19:41:07.350Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2016-05-10T19:41:07.350Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Priyome
Answers.Body: <p>Your question is interesting but not to the point, if you allow me to say. You are speaking about openings and your problem is not about opening. When you say you have been playing closed openings for years, what do you really mean? Are you playing those out of interest or out of fear or prudence? I would advice you, given your rating, to restudy from the beginning the game of chess. Study all of its history with commented games and try to make progress tactically. Practise and practise again until you get a grip on tactics: this is the major step to mastering the basics of chess. You should be prudent: books for beginners and weaker players always insist on ideas, and they are right, but you should not forget that a minimal mastery of concrete tactical chess is unmistakenly necessary. There is no progress without this. Playing closed openings closes road for your progress. There are good books for you to study: just think of Yusupov's course in several volumes, for instance. You read the book with a board aside (computer also) and you think what you want to play and what could be annoying to you. Then when reaching your conclusion, you look up with computer assistance and finally you try to figure out why computer moves are better than yours. This is a very rude way to learn but you will make progress. You can keep on playing your openings, they are not bad, but play them with an open mind and try to master tactics. You rating will then go up. I know this is not comfortable, but there is no such thing as comfort when trying to progress. Maybe you will even lose elo points in the beginning, and so what, if you risk nothing you get nothing. Just try, it's a game, open and closed. Open games are more dangerous in the short term BUT you have to master them to understand what underlies closed positions when those get opened. Closing positions is not an aim in itself, it's just a means. Sorry for being so direct but i really want to help you ahead.
  Greetings!</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-05-10T08:16:12.520Z
Answers.Text: I understand the basics.  Pins, skewers, forks, combinations, etc.
  
  As I've stated, I've played competitively for years, before leaving tournament play after college.  I still dabbled, just never spent the TIME to memorize lines, I just enjoyed playing.
  
  Tell me, do YOU play out of fear?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Paul Burchett
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-05-10T08:20:17.713Z
Answers.Text: When I say I understand the basics let me just say quickly that I played scholastically for 12 years, and won state trophies every year, save for one which I couldn't play in.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Paul Burchett
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-05-10T08:23:31.260Z
Answers.Text: Btw, I defined exactly what I meant by playing closed openings!
Answers.UserDisplayName: Paul Burchett
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-05-10T08:24:45.063Z
Answers.Text: Do you not agree that both 1.d4 for white (versus 1.e4) and the French are both closed?  Whereas the Scandinavian, Petrov, and Danish are more open?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Paul Burchett
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-05-10T08:44:58.950Z
Answers.Text: I cannot help you more. You don't seem to accept what i say: if you have only a 1620 USCF rating, there is something wrong in your chess education. It is not a question of types of openings played, sorry to say. Free to you, of course, to not accept my advice. And whether your openings are more closed or not, i really don't know. Look at the recent French games at top level by Harikrishna. And yes, i am scared when playing, so should anyone be, except geniuses like Tal, and even him...The name is simply "prophylaxis". Sorry, if i have been rude, but i wanted to be honest and help you really.
Answers.UserDisplayName: JohnHawking
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-05-10T08:46:52.497Z
Answers.Text: Perhaps it was the education, but I don't think that's entirely the case.  To be fair to a man that coached teams to 3 National Scholastic titles in the US, maybe I was a kid being a kid!
Answers.UserDisplayName: Paul Burchett
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-05-10T08:58:12.383Z
Answers.Text: Ok, sorry then. I do however not understand how you could "coach" teams with such a "limited" elo (no offence meant). Anyway, if you want an answer that goes the way you feel: yes, there are openings which are more open in nature. And once again, i didn't want to hurt you but i am a pretty strong player you know and i really want to help you transcend your playing level (even if you are underrated). Whether it is worth for you to transition to more open games, you already know my answer.
Answers.UserDisplayName: JohnHawking
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-05-10T09:01:49.567Z
Answers.Text: I never claimed I was the coach.  However, you're quite wrong even if I were the coach, as my old coach and chess legend Edward "Pete" Shaw only had a USCF of a little over 1600!  Don't believe me, go to the USCF website.  The dedicated man coached teams to National Championships!
Answers.UserDisplayName: Paul Burchett
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-05-10T09:06:50.870Z
Answers.Text: Ok, then. Remain with your certitudes.
Answers.UserDisplayName: JohnHawking
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-05-10T09:20:46.067Z
Answers.Text: What certitudes, exactly?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Paul Burchett
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-05-10T09:42:33.337Z
Answers.Text: It's a pity you take it so aggressively. This was not the intent on my part: i just wanted to help you honestly. Do you not want to climb the ladder till 1800 elo, for instance? It's really possible, i think. It's open to everybody.
Answers.UserDisplayName: JohnHawking
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-05-10T09:50:09.520Z
Answers.Text: To me 1800 would be achievable, but probably not worth my time given life and my early attitude towards the game. That isn't to say I couldn't add much to the game by coaching, and as a chess historian, for example.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Paul Burchett
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-05-10T11:55:58.970Z
Answers.Text: Yes, it is clearly summarized.
Answers.UserDisplayName: JohnHawking
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-05-10T12:23:40.010Z
Answers.Text: Bad_Bishop, I'd agree in most circumstances that tactics should studied first, however there are exceptions to any rule.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Paul Burchett
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-05-10T13:47:54.920Z
Answers.Text: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1298&dat=19840521&id=qfhNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=WIsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3121,3343535&hl=en
Answers.UserDisplayName: Paul Burchett
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-05-10T13:48:26.970Z
Answers.Text: http://www.uschess.org/component/option,com_wrapper/Itemid,181
  
  Shaw, Edward  State:  VA
  
  Just sayin'
Answers.UserDisplayName: Paul Burchett
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-05-10T08:10:42.767Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2016-05-10T20:25:21.133Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2016-05-10T20:25:21.133Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: JohnHawking
Body: <p>I've played the French and Queen's Gambit, which tend to lead to more closed, positional play.  I've played these openings consistently for roughly 25+ years now, with no set opening before then really.  I did try to learn both the Center counter, or Scandinavian, and the Danish early but eventually gave up and played random moves (I was quite young).  After that it was Petrov for a year, then on to closed games.  I'm currently 38 and have been at closed positions now for 25+ years.  By consistent I mean every single game I've played since then.  If it is relevant my USCF is around 1500, with a peak of 1620. </p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-05-10T07:50:35.370Z
Comments.Text: It's a tradeoff between the experience you gain playing open games which will improve your play in closed positions which blow up and the lack of experience of open games which will impede your play in open games.
Comments.UserDisplayName: magd
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-05-10T07:59:25.017Z
Comments.Text: I don't know that's its really that cut and dry, particularly since my choice was really between no opening at all (as I said, I was quite young and rebelled against the idea of a set opening) and an opening.  
  
  My objective as a player has always been to just get out of the opening and win decisively in the middle.  Closed openings get into the middle game quickly, with less memorization (not saying there aren't complications).  However, if I were to actually start memorizing lines, and put more time into the opening, I feel I'd improve my play immensely.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Paul Burchett
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-05-10T08:32:55.690Z
Comments.Text: Well that's a different question and if you want to memorise lines then do that.
Comments.UserDisplayName: magd
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-05-10T08:41:19.860Z
Comments.Text: ^I didn't ask a question in the previous comment.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Paul Burchett
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-05-10T09:02:34.413Z
Comments.Text: Don't split hairs. You brought up a different issue, the question of memorising lines. I gave you my response. Do whatever you want.
Comments.UserDisplayName: magd
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-05-10T09:14:10.627Z
Comments.Text: I was just trying to avoid us talking past one another, as internet chat can be, well, misinterpreted from time to time.  They aren't unrelated, as my very reasons for choosing an opening was to not have to memorize.  If I memorized it might improve play.  However, much of the formulation of player strength is done early in age, I've found.  I suppose it might be a case of whether I could actually go back after all these years and learn.  I suspect even though I can look back in retrospect and see why I never advanced, my options are now limited rating wise.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Paul Burchett
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2016-05-10T09:18:20.507Z
Comments.Text: That isn't to say that I don't know the basics,
Comments.UserDisplayName: Paul Burchett
Tags: <opening>
Title: Is it worth it to transition into more open lines when one is used to closed, positional games?
ThreadText: # Is it worth it to transition into more open lines when one is used to closed, positional games?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2016-05-10)
  
  I've played the French and Queen's Gambit, which tend to lead to more closed, positional play. I've played these openings consistently for roughly 25+ years now, with no set opening before then really. I did try to learn both the Center counter, or Scandinavian, and the Danish early but eventually gave up and played random moves (I was quite young). After that it was Petrov for a year, then on to closed games. I'm currently 38 and have been at closed positions now for 25+ years. By consistent I mean every single game I've played since then. If it is relevant my USCF is around 1500, with a peak of 1620.
  
  **Tags:** opening
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: It's a tradeoff between the experience you gain playing open games which will improve your play in closed positions which blow up and the lack of experience of open games which will impede your play in open games.  
  > **username_0**: I don't know that's its really that cut and dry, particularly since my choice was really between no opening at all (as I said, I was quite young and rebelled against the idea of a set opening) and an opening.    My objective as a player has always been to just get out of the opening and win decisively in the middle.  Closed openings get into the middle game quickly, with less memorization (not saying there aren't complications).  However, if I were to actually start memorizing lines, and put more time into the opening, I feel I'd improve my play immensely.  
  > **username_1**: Well that's a different question and if you want to memorise lines then do that.  
  > **username_0**: ^I didn't ask a question in the previous comment.  
  > **username_1**: Don't split hairs. You brought up a different issue, the question of memorising lines. I gave you my response. Do whatever you want.  
  > **username_0**: I was just trying to avoid us talking past one another, as internet chat can be, well, misinterpreted from time to time.  They aren't unrelated, as my very reasons for choosing an opening was to not have to memorize.  If I memorized it might improve play.  However, much of the formulation of player strength is done early in age, I've found.  I suppose it might be a case of whether I could actually go back after all these years and learn.  I suspect even though I can look back in retrospect and see why I never advanced, my options are now limited rating wise.  
  > **username_0**: That isn't to say that I don't know the basics,  
  
  ---
  
  ## 3 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2016-05-11. Score: 5 | Accepted answer
  
  From a strong expert:
  
  Just because I find open games to be more fun, I would suggest playing more open games. Also a variety of openings will expand your knowledge. (Looking at your tournament history, you may already have enough knowledge.) Just like you don't quit smoking in one day, don't switch to overly aggressive opening. Try the Scotch, Vienna, or Giuoco Piano. These openings requires the learning of more opening traps, but they should improve your quality of play.
  
  Assuming that you have the time to invest in studying an opening, learn the common positions and plans. If after trying this style you feel uncomfortable, go back to playing the closed/positional games. If the game is not fun, it is not worth playing.
  
  When I reached expert level, I switched to a more positional game because I thought this is what was supposed to happen. I lost many games because I hid my talent.
  
  Some GM said that he switched to d4 because he got lazy as he got old. Anna Zatonskih said that with d4, White can make more mistakes before losing the game. You could be hanging on to the safety of known avenues.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2016-05-10. Score: 0
  
  I think you should be playing open games, tactical chess, not positional chess and closed/semi-closed positions. Positional chess is inherently more difficult than open, tactical games. It's sounds to me you suffer from the classic idea that "closed" positions somehow protect you from tactics. If you are "afraid" of a tactical fight, become better at tactics! That is a learnable skill. Positional play is way more difficult and requires a deeper understanding to become a "positional" player, which maybe you think you are, or more accurately, you think that is what you *want* to become. But, most games die by tactics. I've never lost a game to a player who outplayed me positionally - in the end, tactics decides it almost all the time. Of course, be aware of positional motifs in a tabiya, but that is experience talking there.
  
  You should go out swinging as a C-player and trial by fire instead of ducking for cover at every opportunity. "Closed" positions for 38+ years as a C-Player should tell you something. It ain't workin'.
  
  You're chasing the wrong kite. You need to be at least 2100+ to even think about defining your "style" in that respect.
  
  I would go for the most violent openings you can find - Scotch, Giuoco Piano, Kings Gambit - at Class C you don't worry about theory in the least. Just know enough to get into the middlegames and take the gloves off and punch each other in the face. Last man standing.
  
  FYI: USCF 1871
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: I'll respectfully disagree.  Class C says so little in comparison to my 6 mathematics papers and my disposition as a kid!  Two with referees.  Conjectures 1 and 2 are out there.  Conjecture 3 on the way!  No way I'm wrong on any of them!  
  > **username_3**: To add, at Cat C, there are no exceptions to what you should be studying. It should be 1: Tactics; 2: Endgames; 3: your own losses; 4: Annotated Grandmaster Games.  
  > **username_0**: For most Mark, you're right.  
  > **username_3**: Some of the great classic masters of chess tried to define chess in mathematical "terms". Today, it is known as dogma. And I'm sure you're right in saying you can be brilliant in math and no-so-brilliant at chess.... skill in one does not translate to the other. Chess is not Math, and Math, not chess. Chess is much harder. Math is simply a lesson in practice mechanics.  
  > **username_0**: So one of your contentions is that chess is harder than mathematics.  Mathematics is much more than practice mechanics.  This definition misses the creative aspects of mathematics.  I'll comment on the rest a bit later, not on my phone.  
  > **username_0**: Using mathematics could lead to some great insight.  Why are you so biased against that? While the game is certainly complex from a human point of view, that doesn't mean we can't use mathematical language to explain many things.  It is better than oh so many dead chess cliches, many of which are gibberish!  
  > **username_0**: If we are to advance at all in the study of combinatorial games then the method needs to be formalistic in nature!  Make clear claims!  I have!  
  > **username_3**: Yawn. I guess my point is that if you practiced chess like you practiced Math (i.e., the right things), you'd not be here asking these questions. You would not be languishing in the 1500's, and you would find it unnecessary to take shots at old dead chess clichés that you might do well following on occasion. I'm sure if you posted a game or two they could be verbalized using steinitzian phrasing, Philodorianisms, and Morphy-ologies, to death I'm sure. But, I will defer to your academic accomplishments in Mathematics and assume you know better and leave it as "gibberish".  
  > **username_0**: I'm here for love of the game, pure and simple.  At this point I have to ask, why are you here?  Not in the forum, as you have my respect for your play, but why such hostility?  
  > **username_3**: No hostility here. you asked a question, you got answers, then proceeded to argue the points. So, why are YOU here? Sounds like you are not interested in the answers but in arguments - good answers you have gotten, no doubt, in more than one thread. I'll end with that. Good like on reaching back into the 1600's. I wish you well, and Good Chess.  
  > **username_0**: Much hostility in the above.  I have upvoted elsewhere more than once.  I stated why I was here.  You haven't.  My last post addressing you, as I'm off to enjoy life.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2016-05-10. Score: -1
  
  Your question is interesting but not to the point, if you allow me to say. You are speaking about openings and your problem is not about opening. When you say you have been playing closed openings for years, what do you really mean? Are you playing those out of interest or out of fear or prudence? I would advice you, given your rating, to restudy from the beginning the game of chess. Study all of its history with commented games and try to make progress tactically. Practise and practise again until you get a grip on tactics: this is the major step to mastering the basics of chess. You should be prudent: books for beginners and weaker players always insist on ideas, and they are right, but you should not forget that a minimal mastery of concrete tactical chess is unmistakenly necessary. There is no progress without this. Playing closed openings closes road for your progress. There are good books for you to study: just think of Yusupov's course in several volumes, for instance. You read the book with a board aside (computer also) and you think what you want to play and what could be annoying to you. Then when reaching your conclusion, you look up with computer assistance and finally you try to figure out why computer moves are better than yours. This is a very rude way to learn but you will make progress. You can keep on playing your openings, they are not bad, but play them with an open mind and try to master tactics. You rating will then go up. I know this is not comfortable, but there is no such thing as comfort when trying to progress. Maybe you will even lose elo points in the beginning, and so what, if you risk nothing you get nothing. Just try, it's a game, open and closed. Open games are more dangerous in the short term BUT you have to master them to understand what underlies closed positions when those get opened. Closing positions is not an aim in itself, it's just a means. Sorry for being so direct but i really want to help you ahead.
  Greetings!
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: I understand the basics.  Pins, skewers, forks, combinations, etc.  As I've stated, I've played competitively for years, before leaving tournament play after college.  I still dabbled, just never spent the TIME to memorize lines, I just enjoyed playing.  Tell me, do YOU play out of fear?  
  > **username_0**: When I say I understand the basics let me just say quickly that I played scholastically for 12 years, and won state trophies every year, save for one which I couldn't play in.  
  > **username_0**: Btw, I defined exactly what I meant by playing closed openings!  
  > **username_0**: Do you not agree that both 1.d4 for white (versus 1.e4) and the French are both closed?  Whereas the Scandinavian, Petrov, and Danish are more open?  
  > **username_4**: I cannot help you more. You don't seem to accept what i say: if you have only a 1620 USCF rating, there is something wrong in your chess education. It is not a question of types of openings played, sorry to say. Free to you, of course, to not accept my advice. And whether your openings are more closed or not, i really don't know. Look at the recent French games at top level by Harikrishna. And yes, i am scared when playing, so should anyone be, except geniuses like Tal, and even him...The name is simply "prophylaxis". Sorry, if i have been rude, but i wanted to be honest and help you really.  
  > **username_0**: Perhaps it was the education, but I don't think that's entirely the case.  To be fair to a man that coached teams to 3 National Scholastic titles in the US, maybe I was a kid being a kid!  
  > **username_4**: Ok, sorry then. I do however not understand how you could "coach" teams with such a "limited" elo (no offence meant). Anyway, if you want an answer that goes the way you feel: yes, there are openings which are more open in nature. And once again, i didn't want to hurt you but i am a pretty strong player you know and i really want to help you transcend your playing level (even if you are underrated). Whether it is worth for you to transition to more open games, you already know my answer.  
  > **username_0**: I never claimed I was the coach.  However, you're quite wrong even if I were the coach, as my old coach and chess legend Edward "Pete" Shaw only had a USCF of a little over 1600!  Don't believe me, go to the USCF website.  The dedicated man coached teams to National Championships!  
  > **username_4**: Ok, then. Remain with your certitudes.  
  > **username_0**: What certitudes, exactly?  
  > **username_4**: It's a pity you take it so aggressively. This was not the intent on my part: i just wanted to help you honestly. Do you not want to climb the ladder till 1800 elo, for instance? It's really possible, i think. It's open to everybody.  
  > **username_0**: To me 1800 would be achievable, but probably not worth my time given life and my early attitude towards the game. That isn't to say I couldn't add much to the game by coaching, and as a chess historian, for example.  
  > **username_4**: Yes, it is clearly summarized.  
  > **username_0**: Bad_Bishop, I'd agree in most circumstances that tactics should studied first, however there are exceptions to any rule.  
  > **username_0**: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1298&dat=19840521&id=qfhNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=WIsDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3121,3343535&hl=en  
  > **username_0**: http://www.uschess.org/component/option,com_wrapper/Itemid,181  Shaw, Edward  State:  VA  Just sayin'  
  
  ---
  
  