I see a lot of posts from people asking how to improve. I also see a lot of discussion here from people who are asking things like "Is the Sicilian better than the French?" or "How do I respond to [some obscure variation in the Sicilian, usually]?". I think these things are connected.

I think that strong beginners (people who are looking to improve, perhaps rated 1200-1500) focus too much on the opening and worry too much about whether they are playing the latest opening that in GM play gives best chances for a win. In my opinion, for players who are 1200-1500 it really doesn't matter which opening they play (within reason). What is more important is that they understand the principles of opening play; they can learn and develop these in almost any reasonable opening. Indeed, if such a player was usually playing 1. e4 (and where they have memorized long variations after 1. ... e5 or c5) I would urge them to play some games with 1. d4 - can they apply their understanding of opening principles to these sorts of games? If not, then I think they don't really understand the principles fully.

In other words there really isn't any point playing the lastest variation in the Sicilian dragon if you reach the point where your memorized variation runs out and you don't understand why the moves that were played were played (and what their strengths and weaknesses were). 

My suggestion to someone trying to improve would be not to learn too much opening theory - that is, not to memorize long lines of variations. Instead I would recommend players to play naturally. That is, try to adhere to opening principles (control the centre, bring out the knights, then the bishops, castle early, exploit half-open files etc) and make the move that seems the strongest. If that means you end up playing 1. ... c5 to 1. e4 and you end up playing a Sicilian that's fine. But play 1. ... c5 because you really can see that it is stronger as a response to 1. ... e5 not because you know that 1. ... c5 is the Sicilian.

Hope this makes sense. Sorry for the long post.

yes I agree with your post. I would like to add that, if you know 20/25 moves doesn't mean you play that, because your opponent probably doesn't know theory so far. Do people understand how to respond if the opponent doesn't know the opening theory and just does something else. many times they don't.

EDIT: Some of my best clubplayers (actually the number 1 right now) does not know a lot about openings. He tries to get off theory as quickly as possible because he rules in the middle and endgame.

Typical is a game I played against a 1400 one time. For the first 21 moves I used about 90 min. to his less than 10 min. When I made my 22^nd move he went into a long think, played a bad move and lost quickly. In the PM he rattled off variation after variation, culminating in a criticism of my 22^nd move. When I asked why it was so bad all he could tell me was it wasn’t what Fischer played in a game he had memorized. OK, so it wasn’t the best but when I asked him why, if it was THAT bad, didn’t he refute it all I got was a blank stare.

What’s wrong is they read books by players trying to peddle the idea that if you play this or that opening you can win more games. They’ve also heard tactics win games so practice tactics until they puke but totally ignore other aspects of the game. They know a lot of memorized variations opponents are unlikely to play. They are 2100 on tactical servers where they are told there’s a tactic but don’t know the motif that makes it work so generally are blissfully unaware of the presence a combination when one presents itself in their own game.

An old master once told me after watching my game, "You play like (expletive deleted)! Learn how to play chess! There's more to it than your bad openings and cheap tricks."

I agree odie.

I would consider myself a beginner and while I am starting to look at opening theory more often than not I find that adhering to theory constricts ones options. There are probably countless games that I have won because my openings to follow a rigid pattern. Likewise there are probably games I have lost because I did not play the correct counter to a move. The point is when I play chess I don't think of games I have read about. I think about the basic principles as you stated and I think of past games where the same situation has come up. 

Really I think the best way to become better at chess is just to play. Anybody and everybody. Play people better than you or worse than you, but, as you play pay attention to the game. Don't just be reactive. Understand the principles of the game.

http://www.chesscentral.com/chess_strategy/chess_strategy.htm

Once you understand the rules then you can learn how to break them, then you can learn all the variations to your favorite opening, then when your opponent plays one line outside of your memorized pattern you will know what fault they have created.

Actually, i think there is a better way to proceed & improve in chess...
First of all openning knowledge is necessary with all respect to the written posts, but agreeing with them, not the long variations... Instead the openning knowlege must consist of understand the oppening ideas...
For example, for an openning like the Benco Gambit :

The Benco Gambit consists of sacrificing a pawn by black to obtain tremendous pressure on the queen side... Therefore the logical steps for the gambit are to develop the queen, the rooks & both knights sometimes & deploy them to the queenside to raise the pressure using the resulting 2 open files of the Benco Gambit.... Also, u finachetto ur dark squares bishop to help in the pressure & keep protecting it because it's a tremendous piece...Surprisingly , in the Benco Gambit, although u're a pawn down, u go for queens exchange (but no rooks exchange if possible) & which is a rare case for exchanges in chess but it must be understood....

So after u get to know all these ideas & u begin to watch how the games are played, u get to know well how to play the Benco Gambit & by training u can master it & blow strong opponents & also u'll get to deal with the critical moves that were tried against the Benco Gambit...

So , what goes for the Benco , goes for the other opennings , except that  u have 1st to try play opennings that don't have so much variations or that have a clear way on & in which u can do ur best in a good middle game... Thus , for white the e4 isn't this recommended for new pupils although it's known by the majority of people as best... Probably, d4 would be better because it doesn't have so much surprising tactics & allow an easy game...

Same goes for black in answer for white's opennings... u can sometimes deploy easy safe openings like the caro-can or the king's indian which is simple if u know its ideas & don't need to remember too much variations inside it...

So after that, the player needs to develop his middle game theory & know how to build his position & train for tactics calculation... & there are a variety of books that teach the middle game knowledge in a good way....

A last point, although the endgame is important, but , i don't agree that it must be considered before openning or even middle game like some people say, because, a lot of times , if you can play the middle game well, u can force the opponent to give u a good endgame but surely, at least the basic endgame themes must be covered ....

I m sorry for the long post & i hope it to be benificial....

I do agree with HinoNino. In my original post I was not saying that people shouldn't study openings. Of course they should. They should study classic games of various opening types and hopefully they will begin to understand why the opening principles are what they are and what happens if you ignore them. It is only really through studying openings and studying past games that one really understands opening principles.

I was just saying that for a relatively weak player (<1600, typically) it really does help them to play 1. ... c5, for example, rather than 1. ... e5. What matters is that they understand how to play the opening in a game of chess. I think there is a mistaken belief that if they learn the Sicilian they are somehow a stronger player and that knowing this opening will somehow give them an advantage - it won't.

I also do think that many people would benefit from studying endgames. I am not saying don't study openings, only study endgames. But I am saying that studying endgames can strengthen your play. How can you play the middlegame if you don't know what endgames you are aiming for?

What I would like to see is a curriculum dedicated to chess in a step by step lesson plan - here is what I mean: We learn about the bishop pair, weak squares, space and time, calculation, planning, etc... The problem I have is determining what I should be learning next, it seems to me that I might learning about focusing on something like controlling D4, when I am feeling like there is a fundamental process that I should do first before I even worry about controlling squares. What level or rating should you be at when start working on these fine points of your game? It seems to me that as you increase in skill that these are the things you start playing for.