Answers.Body: <p>I think your problem comes from the difference between memorizing the opening theory, and understanding it. I suggest you focus more on understanding, why this move is played (both yours and theirs). This way, you can think during the game, why this move could be not optimal and play accordingly. Even if you do not know, how to take advantage of it, you can it least follow the theme of your opening.</p>
  
  <p>To understand the theme of an opening, you can (most of the times) read books about it. The introduction will contain the goals of the opening most of the times. You can also just take a chess board and look for yourself, what the lines of the openings are about.</p>
  
  <p>To understand the reasons behind the moves, just play out different moves, which look natural to you. I recommand not to use an engine at first, and only check afterwards, if you missed something. Do not memorize every line, but rather look for common motives, which appear, e.g. they do not defend a field, so now you can put your knight there which puts pressure on a crucial field. Or they trade DSB, so now they have a weakness on dark squares (if pawns are on light squares), so you can try to capitalize on that. </p>
  
  <p>My personal experience however is, that at your level (and some levels above) gaining minimal advantages through the opening is not so important. A lot of games will be decided by tactics, so remember to constantly look out for them!</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-07-16T16:35:12.190Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-07-16T16:35:12.190Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: QEDemonstrandum
Answers.Body: <p>Ahh, this is the difference between studying openings, and really learning to play chess. Openings are really fundamentally different pawn structures, so what you are asking to learn are opening pawn structures. Here are the books I recommend to players seeking my advice.</p>
  
  <p>a.  “Complete Chess Strategy” volumes 1,2 and 3 by Ludek Pachman. (This teaches about many basic plans, and what you are striving for with your pieces and pawns, especially. To this day, I still credit THIS SERIES with making me a master.)
  b.  “Pawn Structure Chess” by Andy Soltis. (This extends the above to specific opening structures.)
  c.  “Chess Structures: A Grandmaster Guide” by Mauricio Flores Rios (This is an extension of “Pawn Structure Chess”, and is deeper, and covers more structures. It is outstanding especially if you have already covered “Complete Chess Strategy”.)</p>
  
  <p>P.S. I peaked at 2298 USCF, and I never studied any openings, just how to play structures.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-09-08T19:55:08.390Z
Answers.Text: Also, if you take this approach, when an opponent deviates from book, which is often for weaker players, you will still know how to play a particular opening, assuming there is not an immediate winning tactic.
Answers.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-09-05T15:10:21.627Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-09-05T15:10:21.627Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: PhishMaster
Answers.Body: <p>It's a simple answer. You've done all you can to avoid understanding how to play in the opening and now you're stuck. With white you play a system opening and with black you memorize lines.  </p>
  
  <p>The solution is to get back to basics and understand your opening principles of center, development and king safety. Stop trying to avoid theory and actually learn why you're making these moves. </p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2019-10-31T00:58:41.820Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2019-10-31T00:58:41.820Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Savage47
Body: <p>I am a 1400-rated player currently working on my theory and understanding of openings.</p>
  
  <p>I am good at learning lines, much more so than others at my rating. But I'm less sure on where/how to learn the theory behind my preferred openings (I prefer the London System as White, and the Taimanov Sicilian as Black). Therefore, I don't know how to capitalize when my opponent doesn't know the lines themselves.</p>
  
  <p>For example, I know the main line of the Taimanov Sicilian to the 18th move, as well as how to transpose into several variations along the way depending on White's move. However, what I struggle with is knowing what to do when my opponent plays a move that is not part of any studied line.</p>
  
  <p>To display this, in the Taimanov Sicilian, the standard line is 14. Ne4 O-O 15. Bc5 Bb7; if white played a move other than 15. Bc5 (that wasn't an obvious blunder or mistake), I would struggle to know how to continue.</p>
  
  <p>I guess what I'm essentially asking is how and/or where I can learn the theory behind the openings. Every video I've found simply walks through the main lines and standard variations, and Wikipedia articles generally only give one-sentence summaries of the theory behind certain openings (for example, their section on the Taimanov Sicilian reads simply "Black develops the knight to a natural square and keeps his options open regarding the placement of his other pieces. One of the ideas of this system is to develop the king's bishop to b4 or c5."</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-07-10T21:58:12.520Z
Comments.Text: I feel like it may benefit you to pick up a book on middlegames to get a sense of the ideas you may employ there. In the opening, every move you make is trying to aid future (middle-game) ideas - or hinder your opponents ideas. I think the sicillian fits this quite nicely, as black and white both have ideas/ambitions that are somewhat understandable. Contrary the modern theory in, for example, the QGD is heavily influenced by a promising young player called AlphaZero - and is completly incomprehensible to me.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Benjamin Raabe
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-07-10T22:01:41.790Z
Comments.Text: Mistakes in the opening (not blunders!) often lead to some typical themes: Hindered developement or outright Dead pieces, bad pawn structure, color weaknesses, outposts for your opponent, loss of space, loss of file- or square control, good bishop vs. bad bishop. You may want to look into those topics, I think it may aid you here! :)
Comments.UserDisplayName: Benjamin Raabe
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-07-11T03:21:15.607Z
Comments.Text: Well, that's partly why learning openings this deeply at your level won't be useful.  Your opponents will deviate before you get to the positions you expect and you won't have the skills needed to punish them for it.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Qudit
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-07-11T06:08:43.323Z
Comments.Text: Agree with @Qudit . I'm at 1700 Elo and play the Taimanov myself... and I haven't yet encountered even only the 9th mainline move (Na4) in all my OTB games. Going twice as deep is absolutely wasted time at a 1400 level.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Annatar
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-07-11T06:17:08.437Z
Comments.Text: What's more important than concrete lines is a general feeling for the plans, like when to put your dark-squared bishop where (e7, d6, c5, b4?) or when to adopt which pawn structure (which of the h5, e5, d5, b4 pushes?). The more familiar you get with the different plans, the better you can handle unexpected moves on your own.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Annatar
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-07-11T07:57:14.373Z
Comments.Text: This question is not a duplicate. At least not a duplicate of the question linked
Comments.UserDisplayName: David
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-07-11T08:14:58.090Z
Comments.Text: I am sorry to tell you this, but you've basically wasted your time. I am a 2000+ (FIDE, obviously) rated player and I don't even know what line you are talking about (nor 18 moves of any other line). Most people won't play the mainline theory unless they know it very well themselves (why would they, rather than play any other probably equivalen move?) You are right about not using Wikipedia as a source for opening knowledge. My advice would be to follow what's already been said in many comments, and learn openings more form a strategical point of view, rather than a theoretical one
Comments.UserDisplayName: David
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-07-11T09:58:29.770Z
Comments.Text: I (or rather, my database) guess he means the line 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6
  5. Nc3 Qc7 6. Be3 a6 7. Qd2 Nf6 8. O-O-O Bb4
  9. f3 Ne5 10. Nb3 b5 11. Qe1 Be7 12. f4 Ng6
  13. e5 Ng4 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6
  5. Nc3 Qc7 6. Be3 a6 7. Qd2 Nf6 8. O-O-O Bb4
  9. f3 Ne5 10. Nb3 b5 11. Qe1 Be7 12. f4 Ng6
  13. e5 Ng4 14. Ne4 O-O 15. Bc5 -- yeah, good luck hitting that exact sequence in a 1400s game.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Annatar
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-07-11T12:22:03.103Z
Comments.Text: We're having a [discussion on Meta](https://chess.meta.stackexchange.com/q/621/7297) about why this question is closed as a duplicate.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Glorfindel
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-07-11T13:16:14.720Z
Comments.Text: The fact that you do not know how to respond to a deviation, means you don't actually know the theory. Opening theory is more than just rote memory of lines, strong players even consider such knowledge to extend well into the resulting middlegame and even endgames.
Comments.UserDisplayName: prusswan
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-07-15T13:46:24.680Z
Comments.Text: Don't take this the wrong way, but your time is much more useful on other things, such as **studying the endgame**, **practicing tactics**, **improving your strategy and positional play** etc.. When you get your rating to 2000-2200 then you can go back to improving your openings. **At 1400 you can win most games without knowing a single opening move**.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Isac
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-07-16T17:36:12.990Z
Comments.Text: Qudit - just because people play moves that aren't part of opening theory doesn't necessarily make those moves "mistakes" that can be "punished".
Comments.UserDisplayName: Andrew Brooks
Tags: <opening><learning><strategy><theory><tactics>
Title: Novice - Capitalizing on players not knowing their openings?
ThreadText: # Novice - Capitalizing on players not knowing their openings?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2019-07-10)
  
  I am a 1400-rated player currently working on my theory and understanding of openings.
  
  I am good at learning lines, much more so than others at my rating. But I'm less sure on where/how to learn the theory behind my preferred openings (I prefer the London System as White, and the Taimanov Sicilian as Black). Therefore, I don't know how to capitalize when my opponent doesn't know the lines themselves.
  
  For example, I know the main line of the Taimanov Sicilian to the 18th move, as well as how to transpose into several variations along the way depending on White's move. However, what I struggle with is knowing what to do when my opponent plays a move that is not part of any studied line.
  
  To display this, in the Taimanov Sicilian, the standard line is 14. Ne4 O-O 15. Bc5 Bb7; if white played a move other than 15. Bc5 (that wasn't an obvious blunder or mistake), I would struggle to know how to continue.
  
  I guess what I'm essentially asking is how and/or where I can learn the theory behind the openings. Every video I've found simply walks through the main lines and standard variations, and Wikipedia articles generally only give one-sentence summaries of the theory behind certain openings (for example, their section on the Taimanov Sicilian reads simply "Black develops the knight to a natural square and keeps his options open regarding the placement of his other pieces. One of the ideas of this system is to develop the king's bishop to b4 or c5."
  
  **Tags:** opening, learning, strategy, theory, tactics
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: I feel like it may benefit you to pick up a book on middlegames to get a sense of the ideas you may employ there. In the opening, every move you make is trying to aid future (middle-game) ideas - or hinder your opponents ideas. I think the sicillian fits this quite nicely, as black and white both have ideas/ambitions that are somewhat understandable. Contrary the modern theory in, for example, the QGD is heavily influenced by a promising young player called AlphaZero - and is completly incomprehensible to me.  
  > **username_1**: Mistakes in the opening (not blunders!) often lead to some typical themes: Hindered developement or outright Dead pieces, bad pawn structure, color weaknesses, outposts for your opponent, loss of space, loss of file- or square control, good bishop vs. bad bishop. You may want to look into those topics, I think it may aid you here! :)  
  > **username_2**: Well, that's partly why learning openings this deeply at your level won't be useful.  Your opponents will deviate before you get to the positions you expect and you won't have the skills needed to punish them for it.  
  > **username_3**: Agree with @username_2 . I'm at 1700 Elo and play the Taimanov myself... and I haven't yet encountered even only the 9th mainline move (Na4) in all my OTB games. Going twice as deep is absolutely wasted time at a 1400 level.  
  > **username_3**: What's more important than concrete lines is a general feeling for the plans, like when to put your dark-squared bishop where (e7, d6, c5, b4?) or when to adopt which pawn structure (which of the h5, e5, d5, b4 pushes?). The more familiar you get with the different plans, the better you can handle unexpected moves on your own.  
  > **username_4**: This question is not a duplicate. At least not a duplicate of the question linked  
  > **username_4**: I am sorry to tell you this, but you've basically wasted your time. I am a 2000+ (FIDE, obviously) rated player and I don't even know what line you are talking about (nor 18 moves of any other line). Most people won't play the mainline theory unless they know it very well themselves (why would they, rather than play any other probably equivalen move?) You are right about not using Wikipedia as a source for opening knowledge. My advice would be to follow what's already been said in many comments, and learn openings more form a strategical point of view, rather than a theoretical one  
  > **username_3**: I (or rather, my database) guess he means the line 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nc3 Qc7 6. Be3 a6 7. Qd2 Nf6 8. O-O-O Bb4 9. f3 Ne5 10. Nb3 b5 11. Qe1 Be7 12. f4 Ng6 13. e5 Ng4 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nc6 5. Nc3 Qc7 6. Be3 a6 7. Qd2 Nf6 8. O-O-O Bb4 9. f3 Ne5 10. Nb3 b5 11. Qe1 Be7 12. f4 Ng6 13. e5 Ng4 14. Ne4 O-O 15. Bc5 -- yeah, good luck hitting that exact sequence in a 1400s game.  
  > **username_5**: We're having a [discussion on Meta](https://chess.meta.stackexchange.com/q/621/7297) about why this question is closed as a duplicate.  
  > **username_6**: The fact that you do not know how to respond to a deviation, means you don't actually know the theory. Opening theory is more than just rote memory of lines, strong players even consider such knowledge to extend well into the resulting middlegame and even endgames.  
  > **username_7**: Don't take this the wrong way, but your time is much more useful on other things, such as **studying the endgame**, **practicing tactics**, **improving your strategy and positional play** etc.. When you get your rating to 2000-2200 then you can go back to improving your openings. **At 1400 you can win most games without knowing a single opening move**.  
  > **username_8**: username_2 - just because people play moves that aren't part of opening theory doesn't necessarily make those moves "mistakes" that can be "punished".  
  
  ---
  
  ## 3 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_9 on 2019-07-16. Score: 7
  
  I think your problem comes from the difference between memorizing the opening theory, and understanding it. I suggest you focus more on understanding, why this move is played (both yours and theirs). This way, you can think during the game, why this move could be not optimal and play accordingly. Even if you do not know, how to take advantage of it, you can it least follow the theme of your opening.
  
  To understand the theme of an opening, you can (most of the times) read books about it. The introduction will contain the goals of the opening most of the times. You can also just take a chess board and look for yourself, what the lines of the openings are about.
  
  To understand the reasons behind the moves, just play out different moves, which look natural to you. I recommand not to use an engine at first, and only check afterwards, if you missed something. Do not memorize every line, but rather look for common motives, which appear, e.g. they do not defend a field, so now you can put your knight there which puts pressure on a crucial field. Or they trade DSB, so now they have a weakness on dark squares (if pawns are on light squares), so you can try to capitalize on that.
  
  My personal experience however is, that at your level (and some levels above) gaining minimal advantages through the opening is not so important. A lot of games will be decided by tactics, so remember to constantly look out for them!
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_10 on 2019-09-05. Score: 4
  
  Ahh, this is the difference between studying openings, and really learning to play chess. Openings are really fundamentally different pawn structures, so what you are asking to learn are opening pawn structures. Here are the books I recommend to players seeking my advice.
  
  a. “Complete Chess Strategy” volumes 1,2 and 3 by Ludek Pachman. (This teaches about many basic plans, and what you are striving for with your pieces and pawns, especially. To this day, I still credit THIS SERIES with making me a master.)
  b. “Pawn Structure Chess” by Andy Soltis. (This extends the above to specific opening structures.)
  c. “Chess Structures: A Grandmaster Guide” by Mauricio Flores Rios (This is an extension of “Pawn Structure Chess”, and is deeper, and covers more structures. It is outstanding especially if you have already covered “Complete Chess Strategy”.)
  
  P.S. I peaked at 2298 USCF, and I never studied any openings, just how to play structures.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_10**: Also, if you take this approach, when an opponent deviates from book, which is often for weaker players, you will still know how to play a particular opening, assuming there is not an immediate winning tactic.  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_11 on 2019-10-31. Score: 1
  
  It's a simple answer. You've done all you can to avoid understanding how to play in the opening and now you're stuck. With white you play a system opening and with black you memorize lines.
  
  The solution is to get back to basics and understand your opening principles of center, development and king safety. Stop trying to avoid theory and actually learn why you're making these moves.
  
  
  ---
  
  