Understanding Opening Theory

"People don't know theory at my level."  You hear this all the time, and there is almost an element of reproach lurking here.  "Uncultured swine, not knowing the right moves."  On the flip side, we have some people who study lots of opening theory, knowing it by heart, and never get to play it in their games.

At this point, we should back up and ask, "What IS theory, and why do we need to know it?"

I have a lot of thoughts on this topic.  Today, I want to look at just one base element of opening theory and describe its general evolution.  Ultimately, opening theory is simply the most principled and challenging way to develop your pieces and create a plan out of the opening.  This will explain it in action.

The Building Blocks: Opening Principles

Surely everyone who reads my blog knows me from my course on Opening Principles, but for the sake of completeness, there are three primary opening tasks: develop our pieces, control the center and castling.  If we do all three, the opening was a success.

So let's do that: develop all our pieces as fast as possible, castle and control the center.  It might look like this:

This is completely 100% principled ... and completely boring.  Yawn-inducing.  There's no play.  Neither side can do anything, and there's almost no risk of making a mistake.  Case in point, I can have Black throw away two moves, playing ...Kh8 and ...Kg8, and the evaluation changes by 0.1.

What's the problem?  Sure, we developed our pieces, but we didn't put any pressure on our opponents.  We didn't give them any problems to solve.  We both played natural moves, leading to a natural position where the natural result is a draw.  If that's all there was, chess would be a pretty dull game.

Is it possible to follow the opening principles but apply pressure as well?  Sure there is: instead of meekly playing d3, let's try to take the center with d4!

This still follows opening principles: it fights for the center and prepares for more development.  It's big advantage, though, is that Black cannot simply copy moves.  Something like the following might happen:

White wins the e4-pawn in the end.

If Black can't simply copy, then he needs to think for himself.  Meanwhile, White has an easy time finishing his development.  This is the birth of opening theory: using different moves in order to achieve better results by applying more pressure on our opponents.

Specific Example: The Ponziani

The more we think about applying pressure with our opening moves, the more ideas spring to mind.  In the Scotch example above, we played d4 and recaptured with our Knight.  That's okay, but it would be even better if we could keep our two central pawns.  That gives us an idea: let's try c3 + d4.

If we look at low elo players on lichess, the following is a pretty common example:

White has accomplished just about everything he could want: fast and easy development, more space, huge control of the center, better placed pieces and Black's natural moves, like 8...d6?, allow 9.Qa4+, losing the Bishop.

This is a huge improvement over simply developing our pieces, like in the first example.  This is developing while applying pressure.  It's much easier for Black to go wrong, and Black needs to do something to avoid all of this.

What was the problem for Black?  He did simple development (Nc6, Bc5, Nf6), but he got run over in the center.  Is there a way to apply the opening principles but without letting that happen?  Aha, ...d5!

Black strikes back in the center!  Now it's Black who has easy development for all his pieces, and it's White who has to react.

Hmm, it should would be nice if we could fight for this c3+d4 break as White but without allowing ...d5 from Black ... wait a minute!

And yes, this is precisely why the Italian is more popular than the Ponziani: White keeps the option of playing for c3 and d4, and it stops the immediate ...d5 break.

Do we see what is happening here?  We have an idea for White: break in the center to apply more pressure than pure symmetry.  Black then finds a way to neutralize that. White then finds a nuance to discourage Black's reply.  Now the ball is back in Black's court.  This goes back and forth.  This is opening theory (at a basic level, of course, but still).

Does Theory Matter?

"People don't play theory at my level."  Good!  That means, by definition, your opponent's aren't using the plans and ideas that place the most pressure on you.  You can either play normal moves and reach a good position without effort, or you can do a bit of studying and figure out how to place the most pressure on your opponent, getting a really good position.  Good or really good, that's a heck of a choice!

Of course, opening theory goes much deeper than what I've described here, but the process is the same: one side gets an idea for an advantage, and then the other responds. In the modern era theory goes extremely deep, but the consensus is that White has no hope for a theoretical advantage in almost any opening.

So, does theory matter?  At a low level, you never play it; at a high level, it leads nowhere. Increasingly, the emphasis is shifting from, "Let's get an advantage," to Korchnoi's old adage, "Let's reach a playable position."

I know this sounds like I'm dismissive of theory.  For all practical purposes, I am.  Remember, the main purpose of theory is trying to use the opening principles to put the most pressure on your opponent as possible and, ideally, emerge with an advantage.  Do you know what an advantage is?

Mainline Alekhine, SF 16 at depth 40 says +0.6.

This is an advantage.  White has more space, a lead in development and more central control.  This is pretty clear, and White wins more often than not ... but it's pretty small.  It's not as if Black is dead.  Indeed, Black has lots of natural moves: Be7, 0-0, Nbd7, probably ...c6 to reinforce the Knight or maybe ...c5 to strike the center.  White has a lot of work to do to prove anything.

This is ultimately the "problem" with theory at the amateur level: even if everything goes perfectly and you reach a dream position with a clear advantage, you still have to play chess.  There's a lot of work left to do.  It's easier than an equal position, but it's still work, and the better player (and not the better-prepared player) still has every opportunity to play for a win, with either colour.

Conclusion

I have much more I could say about theory, but this is a nice place to wrap this one up.  Ultimately, people don't play theory at your level?  Good!  That makes your job easier.  They do play theory? Then they will put more pressure on you and maybe even get an advantage.  The vast majority of opening advantages, though, are like what I showed above: a better position but far from decisive.

You can learn some theory yourself to avoid this.  The better you get, the more theory you likely need ... but the amount you truly need is almost certainly lower than what you think.