Yeah, I thought it was important to include that. Someone who is 1000 definitely does not need to put the level of thought that a player who is 2200 does into their openings. Heck, I didn't even really know anything about openings until I was already 1800 FIDE.
I start to notice how different a GM is compared to an average player. I've spent about 30 mins a day for the last 3 months learning 150 opening variations on chessable, and I'm still making lots of mistakes.
I'd also challenge that below master level, which is 99% of players, the Latvian Gambit isn't a good opening. Refuted it may be, but it has a 50% winning record for black on over 2m games on Lichess, whereas the most common move, Nc6, has just a 45% winning record on Lichess. Statistically, for the average player the Latvian gambit is the better move. It even beats Nc6 statisitcally for players over 2500 so is a great choice in online games, if not OTB, even at that level.
I like the idea of changing approach based on rating. I was just writing something similar
Yeah, I thought it was important to include that. Someone who is 1000 definitely does not need to put the level of thought that a player who is 2200 does into their openings. Heck, I didn't even really know anything about openings until I was already 1800 FIDE.
Great article. Thanks!
I start to notice how different a GM is compared to an average player. I've spent about 30 mins a day for the last 3 months learning 150 opening variations on chessable, and I'm still making lots of mistakes.
I'd also challenge that below master level, which is 99% of players, the Latvian Gambit isn't a good opening. Refuted it may be, but it has a 50% winning record for black on over 2m games on Lichess, whereas the most common move, Nc6, has just a 45% winning record on Lichess. Statistically, for the average player the Latvian gambit is the better move. It even beats Nc6 statisitcally for players over 2500 so is a great choice in online games, if not OTB, even at that level.
Thank you for sharing.