Should you Study Openings?

As the title of this post suggests, I would like to discuss whether or not amateur players should spend their time studying openings. It's a topic that seems to constantly divide chess educators. At the top level, spending time developing opening ideas/weapons is a big part of their preparation. Is it smart to imitate what our idols do?

The main arguments I have heard against opening study are as follows:

1. The winner of the opening battle does not necessarily go on to win the game
2. Chess is 99% tactics. Therefore studying tactics will be much more beneficial to improving players
3. Memorizing opening moves can hurt development if you are simply trying to remember instead of understand the moves
4. Studying specific openings are a waste of time. Instead, you should learn opening principles (develop your pieces, control the center, get castled, ect.)

I have also heard some intermediate stances, such as:

1. Players should not study openings until they reach XXXX rating, then they should start incorporating it into their routine
2. Studying openings are okay to a degree, but they should never be your main focus 

While I can sympathize with these arguments, I don't believe they make a strong case against anyone studying openings. If you study in the correct way, opening study can be a great way to elevate your game, no matter your level.

Opening Study Improves Confidence

The more I have improved in my own chess journey, the more I realized how important the psychological aspect of the game can be. I'm surprised this is not discussed more often but I think it is something that is overlooked by many players.

When a player makes a mistake in chess, sometimes it can be classified as a "chess mistake" where better overall chess skills would have prevented the mistake. These mistakes could include miscalculations, misevaluations, or the inability to choose a correct plan. However, mistakes are often made for psychological reasons. I've heard players say, "I didn't calculate that variation because it looked scary" or "I trusted my opponent when he made a dubious move because he looked confident and was playing fast". These are mistakes that would not be fixed by having a better understanding of chess, but would have been fixed by changing your mentality. 

As a result of studying openings, players develop confidence when they are able to reach positions that they have already analyzed at home. Here is an example of psychological mistake in a game I saw recently between a USCF 1700 rated player against a USCF 1500 rated player:

Opening Study Teaches Middlegames

This may be the most important benefit of studying the opening. By learning and understanding the theoretically critical moves in a given opening, you develop intuition for the correct middlegame plans. Do you ever wonder why there are not many books that deal specifically with the middlegame yet there are seemingly endless opening books? I think it is because the term "middlegame" means nothing in a vacuum. We need context for what type of middlegame we get. For example, studying middlegames that result from a QGD/Carlsbad Structure will not help in understanding plans in a Najdorf Sicilian. I would even go a step further and say that studying openings is studying the middlegame, if done properly. 

Opening Study Improves Time Management

I have worked with players that have time management issues and I often see that they think too long early on in a game. What ends up happening is once they reach a critical position later on in the game, they do not have the proper amount of time to analyze the position since they mismanaged their time in the opening. 

On the flip side, I can say nothing feels better to be on the other side of the equation and see your opponent burn time while you are still within your preparation. Here is example from a recent game of mine:

Opening Study Teaches Thematic Tactics

There is more than one way to study tactics. Some people use tactics trainer or review books which contain tactical problems. I think another useful way to improve your tactical prowess is to study tactically complex positions within your opening repertoire. Studying in this way also has the benefit of giving you experience calculating positions you are more likely to get in your practical games. 

Ultimately, I see nothing wrong with studying the opening, even for more beginner players. I would not say that you should neglect tactics, endgames, or other forms of study. I wouldn't even say that opening study is more important than those categories. However, I most certainly would not condemn a chess improver for devoting serious time to the opening and I believe it does have benefits when applied in the real world. For me personally, studying openings was the main component that improved my rating from about 2000 USCF to 2200 USCF and I wish I had devoted time to it sooner. 

Feel free to comment below. I would love to hear what other people think about this topic!