this post was submitted on 08 May 2025
33 points (100.0% liked)
AnarchyChess
5601 readers
52 users here now
Holy hell
Other chess communities:
[email protected]
[email protected]
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Also, games need you to know opening theory that is not useful for puzzles.
I've been doing only puzzles for over a year now and I just started playing blitz. Either I fuck up the opening and get wrecked, or I survive until the mid-game / end-game and I have my chances at winning.
I've heard lots of chess content creators make claims like 'you don't need to study openings until like 1600 elo. You don't lose games because of a slightly losing opening, you lose because you still blunder your queen.' I kind of get it, but if it was ever good advice, it's at the very least outdated now. At 1100, the first thing I see in sooo many games is some sort of scholar's mate-esque opening trap and if I don't blunder outright, I often need to burn a minute or two to evaluate all my options while my opponent clearly knows the flowchart of the opening. It's a big disadvantage.
That's exactly where I am. I've been doing only puzzles because it's a shorter time commitment than a full game. I really need to start focusing on openings.