You don't need an opening reportoire until you hit 2000 ELO - ture or false ?

A guy from my chess club claimed that this was a quote from Judith (or Susan) Polgar.

Did she really say that ? And would you agree (at least when it comes to long time control games) ?

Case study: I've been playing 1.b3 as white and 1...b6 as black for 2 years in tournament chess (FIDE ELO close to 1800) and getting tired of it. For a major ELO rated tournament at the end of this month I plan to play something completely new: just 1. e4 and then trying to set up a logical development (somewhere along the lines of ruy lopez), following the basic opening principles (rapid solid development and then looking for opponent's weaknesses to get a target for an attack), no specific opening preparation.

Do you think this might lead to similar results like before (1700-1800 ELO performance) or am I doomed to fail to my opponent's preparation and plans, getting massacred right from the start ?

Hello, I dont know whether she said that but the simple answer is no! 95% of all players wont even reach 2000 without having an opening repertoire...

Depends how talented you are. If you can get to 2000 without studying any openings then you will most likely become a strong master.

True.Go to a big tournament without learning theory you will loose but you will wright down your plans than you will ask your trainer/chess.com/other chess players and next time you will know what to do better than your opponent.Lurining theory is boring it takes the fun out of chess.Games are not won or lost in the opening.

True.Go to a big tournament without learning theory you will loose but you will wright down your plans than you will ask your trainer/chess.com/other chess players and next time you will know what to do better than your opponent.Lurining theory is boring it takes the fun out of chess.Games are not won or lost in the opening.

I think there is a common misconception with not knowing openings. Precise opening theory and memorization is not so important to a certain extent. However, being familiar with the resulting middlegames and plans is extremely important. 

I think that's absurd on its face.  You can't even make your first move without an "opening repertoire," however limited.  

She probably meant that exhaustive opening study is counter productive below 2000, if she said that at all.

Edit: Here's Susan proposing an opening system for beginners:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dorwTb_J1uc

With repertoire i don't mean just follow basic opening principles, like getting the pices out on good squares, connecting the rooks, care about the center etc. - but specific lines that one learns.

I didn't find the Polgar quote yet, after a some google research, but plenty of other statements in this direction, for example from a blog (Dana's opening philosophy):

"But I’m not going to start today! Before I start unveiling the contents of Dana’s Secret Chess File, I first want to say a few words about Dana’s Opening Philosophy.

The first axiom in my philosophy is that opening theory is a scam! For anyone rated under 2200, that is, and probably even for anyone rated under 2400. If you look at Jesse Kraai’s Step-by-Step Training Guide on [...], you will notice that he writes that when you get to the 2400+ level: “Now is the time to take the openings seriously.” No earlier than that. Not when you’re a class D player, or class C, or B, or A, or expert, or even a beginning master.

Why do I say opening theory is a scam, instead of a harmless waste of time? Because grandmasters make a living off of our pathetic belief that if we just knew the openings a little bit better, we could play as well as they do. They write books on openings that are only useful for players over 2400 … but who buys those books? At least 95 percent of the customers are amateurs."

...

So, to sum up:

1. Opening theory is a scam (if you are rated under 2400).
2. Do your own opening analysis!
3. Make the opponent think for himself.
4. Look for good developing moves that just happen to be less popular than the main line.

"

what do you think about this ?

It makes sense but only if you elaborate more than what this above person or Polgar (supposedly) did.

"Opening theory" and "opening repertoire" could mean different things.

Learning some lines in your opening is a good thing, and can help even from the 1000 level. Don't believe me? Look at many games between 1000-2000 players, and so many of them are "won" in the opening. Even if it not won outright, one player developed an advantage in the beginning phase of the game, which would be one (or THE) contributing factor in their opponent stumbling. Around the 1500 level I often gain a strong disadvantage in the opening and it is a huge factor in my loss. Either I lose material in the beginning or just get into such a bad position that I am on the defense for the rest of the game, and I eventually crumble to the strong attack that was developed in the opening phase -- by someone who memorized an opening line better than I did. There are many games I lost that I wouldn't have, if I knew some opening lines better.

Spending hours a day on opening study would be a waste of time below master, sure, because you still don't have some other fundamentals. Better to spend time on tactics, endgames, and so on. But not at the complete exclusion of opening study.

 
Basically, blanket statements are misleading. Opening study can be useful below master level, but only as one part of the training, not as the whole study routine.

You don't need reams of analysis across multiple openings.  You should be familiar with the main lines of your opening and the typical middlegames/endgames that result.  That can easily get you to 2000.  There's a guy in my club who is that level and doesn't even know the names of the openings he plays nor what the theoretically best lines in his openings are.  He just makes normal looking moves and gets to a playable middlegame.  If you asked him about the Moscow variation of the Semi-Slav he'd give you a blank stare.

Danas opening philosophy is COMPLETE TRASH!!!!!!! This made me laugh for a while, maybe it is sarcasm?

I read his blog every so often and I'll try to explain what I've read there. Dana Mackenzie is a LM from California and has an interesting blog that I recommend. He wrote this "opening philosophy" post a few years ago and FM Dennis Monokroussos (sp?) wrote an interesting response that's floating out there somewhere. Monokroussos basically pointed out that if you're spending time thinking up your own lines and starting positions, you're creating a type of opening theory, which is inconsistent with opening theory being a scam.

What Mackenzie seems to be saying (and I agree) is that class players tend to focus too much on memorization and learning reams of lines of theory as a sort of "magic bullet". Check out the library of any adult class player and more likely than not you'll find books with titles like "Destroying the Gruenfeld", "Win With the Wing Gambit", etc. (I made those up but you get the point). Many players think that they will get lots better by memorizing an opening and dominating their opponent with their knowledge of some deep trap in that opening.

Mackenzie's philosophy is basically to be self-reliant, focus on ideas over memorization, and don't spend your money on other people's topical theory books unless you're a strong master. My apologies if I've gotten this wrong, and he or anyone else can correct me- I just thought I would weigh in because I read his blog.

On another note- Mackenzie won a brilliant game with a home-cooked line of the Grand Prix in 2006 wherein he sacrificed his queen on move 6 and destroyed a well-known local IM: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1648780

Without a solid opening repertoire a player cannot reach 2000 Elo. So my answer will be no, you must have know your opening; every player who is ambition must start with 1.e4 to be a well rounded player. Classical opening is a must to be a strong player, sorry no Larsen Opening 1.b3 or English defense 1...b6 is not adequate to reaching 2000 Elo. In chess club players who play junk opening stay low rated and I believe is the same for every players.

That line is over 100 years old...and if Black wants it, 8...Ke8 is just a draw

That's ture.

There was a time when learning chess openings was considered primary and essential. These days, everyone...zombie-like...says: "Tactics and endings".

The truth, or so it seems to me, is a balance between these Yes! and No! extremes.

I do think the "old school" put perhaps too much emphasis on memorizing dozens of openings as well as memorizing their names and variations. That stuff is enough to make a beginner's head "swim".

I suspect that most chess players will agree that opening concepts are absolutely essential...take control of the center (either old style with pawns or hyper-modern), develop your pieces, Ns are more powerful at the center of the board rather than the edges, castle early, don't move any one piece twice (if possible), don't get your Q out too early, etc.

But I will go further, even if I am the only chess player on the planet, to say that it is also important for a beginner to study several of the primary openings...don't even worry about memorizing their names...but come to learn the why and wherefore of several of these openings.

Chess used to be a "thinking man's game". These days it seems to have drifted into a "knee jerk game"...don't study fundamentals, just make speed moves and whamo, eventually you'll be just fine.

No wonder the average chess player is around 1200.

for internet chess you need a broad base of openings as lets face it you can play alot of games in a day and may face all sorts now it helps to have lines you know well but youve gotta be prepared for anything if truth be told 

you could of course not follow this advice keep flipping to games explorer let the comp do the work but where is the fun and personnal development in that and it is not really chess to be a puppet of game explorer is it 

Hell, I don't know anything about openings. I was making up openings and I just hit a rating of 2000 fide last week. I think that below 2000 fide/uscf, opening knowledge isn't important at all and you should just concentrate on tactics since that's where the majority of games are going to be decided.

I agree with these general sentiments. I will also add that if you aren't figuring out how you prefer to play, what you are good, where you are bad, why all of these things and what generally works or doesn't, you are wasting precious time in gaining priceless experience. I recommend studying the principles of Botvinnik's system for learning chess.

It makes me happy to hear a strong player say something like this. 

When I began studying last year, I kept hearing high rated players say that studying openings is useless for someone at my level.

I made the stupid mistake of believing that for a long time. Then I started using my own opening study system which is basically as you suggest, getting to know the resulting plans and positions rather than memorizing lines. 

I'm quite happy with the results. It has definately helped me improve my game.

So I would say that although you don't need an opening reprotoire it can certainly help if you want to advance your game. And, if you have gotten to the point that you know the basic principles of openings and middle-game play, then you are ready to start learning about specific openings.