"Avoiding Theory"

I know a lot of people, and I see posts here as well, who play offbeat openings.

When I ask them why they explain "I want to avoid theory." or "This way we're playing chess from move one."

I don't understand that.  Wouldn't you want to learn some theory with the intention of improving more?

Learning opening theory (at least to me) doesn't just mean learning reams of variations.  It means learning where the pieces go in a particular opening and why.  Sure, if you're a Super GM you're going to need to know every line of every opening you might ever face 20+ moves deep.  But if you're a club player you need to know a few lines 10-15 moves deep, and more lines 8-10 moves deep, and in general just know the ideas behind the openings.

I'm curious to hear from both sides on this one...

Let's be clear here ... there are 3 interpretations of "Avoiding theory"

Case 1. I am going to play something I pulled out of my b#tt and  I'm making it up as I go along. I will say "I'm avoiding theory"  but I am hopefully using sound opening guidelines/principles and playing according to the pawn structure in front of me. The downside is that am just going to burn my clock figuring things out on the board and if this happens to be theory (that I don't know!), my opponent will gain on time and have more to use in the middlegame/endgame.

Case 2. I am going to play a  rare/unsound (for Master-level) opening or line that you probably have not heard of but I know quite well so that I can either make you burn your clock at the worst case or have you walk into a tactical minefield as a best case. The downside is that if you know this line or how to bust it, I am in trouble ... but that's a risk I will take.

Case 3. I will play a lesser known/fashionable line of a popular opening (say the Monte Carlo version of the French Exchange) counting on the fact that not many people book it up..... so once again, I will make you burn your clock to find accurate moves or have you walk into dangerous territory that I know quite well.  Unlike case 2) where the line is proven to be unsound at Master level,  the downside here is that I may get equality at best with this not-so-popular line but atleast we're still playing in my backyard (if I'm still in my book) or "chess" as they like to call it.

I've seen the majority of players who continuously improve fall into case 3 and yes, they are "avoiding theory" but not in the way you'd normally think.

Notice that I'm bringing the clock into this a lot ... with most weekend tourneys in the U.S gravitating towards a G/30 or G/45 time-control, you'd be stupid not to consider booking up "something (Case 2 or 3) " if you want to stand a chance against strong players.

I guess I should have been clearer and pointed out that by avoiding theory I don't mean avoiding main lines. I avoid main lines by playing things like the Alapin Sicilian. I mean people who will play 1. b4 or 1...g5 or whatever. Dubious openings.

---

I see your point.  Avoiding theory would be main lines AND side lines.  I'm just a patzer, but I don't play offbeat/dubious stuff.  I don't like spending my time studying and taking my chances on something that might get refuted by everyone I play.  I'd rather try to (as much as my skill level allows) play main line or side line variations of sound openings.  I mostly like playing less fashionable or popular lines myself.  Like against the Sicilian, do I want to play into a main line Najdorf against someone how might be booked up on it?  No thanks...

---

I play 1. b4 and 1. Nc3 in most of my games, but in this sense I do not avoid theory. In order to play these openings you need to understand them, just as you need to understand more conventional openings to play them well.

The reason I play unusual openings is this: When I started playing chess in a club many years ago I strolled into the club library. There I found a small photo copied pamphlet written in the 1960's. On the front page was a diagram showing the position after 1. b4. I was amazed and intrigued by this diagram, how senseless and random it looked. I took the book home and started looking at the lines, tried them out in the club games and liked the positions it led to. So I stuck to it.

This amazement has fueled a general interest in ches, and I have read books like Watson´s well known "Secrets of modern chess strategy" and Eingorn's "Creative chess opening preparation" to learn more. I have tried to master and evaluate concepts such as "compensation in terms of weak colour complexes" and so on.

When I see a stupid looking opening such as 1. Na3 or 1. e4, f6 I still feel this exitement, and I want them to work. Still, when I see newcomers to chess propose 1. ...g5 as a good answer to 1. e4 "because it stops 2. Nf3", and give 2. d4, Bh6 as a continuation I feel sad for them. This is not the logic behind the opening, and will not lead to anything good.

I'm not, then, avoiding theory, I play openings that I enjoy playing. It should also be noted that there is a vast difference between openings like 1. b4 and 1. ...g5 (which I play very occasionally--it too has a logic: pressure on the dark squares). 1. b4 is not dubious, it is unambitious. 1. b4 will not with best play lead to inferior positions for White, 1. ...g5, or even 1. g4 most likely will.

---

Nicely put!

I was at a tournament and the game next to me went something like 1. e4 h6 2. d4 g5 3. c4 c6. The guy playing Black was crushed in 20 moves or so but was gloating after the game that "I had you out of your book on move one. I forced you to think." Huh? You got killed because you let your opponent steamroll you.

---

He forced somebody to think at a chess tournament? Kind of like how he forces the people around him to breathe ? :) 

i've noticed that if i make a stupid mistake in the opening it usually affects the rest of the game, so i try to play moves which i am more familiar with such as d4, e4 and e5 etc because then i won't get into "trouble" as easily !

I rember playing 1.b4 too. But it is basically becasuse of the fun of it. I just wanted to get out of the positional feel that im used to so i try to conquer my self by playing offbeat lines

hhahaha, great.  

OT ive been through quite some opening witht he intent of avoiding theory, but now i figure openings are better used as a long run investment than a short term suprise weapon.  That is, in lets say 5 years time youll know the lines of a strong opening well, while in the london system for example you wont gain any knowledge from the opening. A classic example being a quote from, i think korchnoi (??) along the lines of "anyone who doesnt take the time or purpously avoids learning the mainlines of ruy lopez are taking away from their chess" 

As per Shivsky's post, one could also play an entire unfashionable opening that's fundamentally solid on a human level. My reason for taking up openings such as the Scandinavian (Valencian Variation), the Philidor (Lion Variation), the Old Indian, the Czech Benoni etc., as well as aiming for similar or identical structures with the colours reversed, is that they can't just slide into complete chaos at a whim of my opponent, and not a lot of my opponents are gonna invest in trying to crack them from the outset. (There are some Shirov g4 lines in the Lion, but even they can be handled solidly.)

Bottom line, the slight passivity is a price I'm willing to pay in order to make my chess life easier. It makes me wonder if I'm missing out on developing important chess skills by avoiding theoretically monstrous openings from both sides, though.

Very interesting thread, indeed. Thanks for the post. Many people had the opportunity to express their ideas about this important subject, which can be classified as “everybody knows”, but in what meaning?

I think trying to avoid theory as early as move 1 or 2 is kind of an attempt to run away from the necessary burden of studying openings properly.

However, there is a point that I think I misunderstood or maybe I’m in conflict with common sense.

If I’m black and my opponent plays 1.b4, that’s not “avoiding theory”. That’s Sokolsky Opening and I’m fully responsible to know at least two types of replies as Black; the first being an aggressive reply, aiming to win (who is surprising whom? 😅) and the second being a calm, drawing reply, with simple moves played fast.

Sokolsky is a respectable opening and a Black player can only call it “surprise”, but not “out of theory”. That’s theoretical, given that you did your homework well.

Back to “avoiding theory”, I sense something more personal, rather opponent-specific approach. You are paired with Player X at round 6 and everybody knows he is an expert in Sicilian Najdorf. If you feel that Player X knows Najdorf ideas better than you, you get scared and try to offbeat him with 3.Bb5+. However, you must be sure about that this continuation suits your style, and you are fully aware about how to handle the position in different scenarios. If you are not, then you only hit yourself. (who is surprising whom? again 😅)

Personally I don’t like avoiding theory, I try my best to dwelve as deep as I can. After that, there comes the point of “my own” moves, which give me great satisfaction to find, despite burning some time on the clock. 😎