At what rating level should you start stuyding openings?

And by studying, I mean memorizing brute lines along with the general ideas. My opinion is that anybody below 2000 should just know the general ideas. When they reach 2000, they should memorize the basic well known lines and responses. Once they hit 2200 or so, they should start immersing themselves in some of the different variations. And then after 2300, they should learn most of the played variations. What do you think? Kasparov said "At the beginning level, openings really don't matter." (And to Kasparov, anyone under 2400 is a beginner). Do you agree?

Hard to argue with Kasparov.  He's had a pretty good career and might just know a thing or two about the game and how to improve at playing it.

Yeah, I agree. And then once they reach 2450, they should memorize all the variations. Right? I do think people below 2000 tend to exaggerate on the importance of openings too much. They study it too religiously, as if it's their salvation to a higher rating. I don't think memorizing lines and lines will help at all, because chances are your opponent will go out of the book lines and you'll be rendered helpless. But when you reach 2000 and beyond, your opponents are more aware of the variations, which means you'll have to be prepared too.

I probably sound like I'm just reiterating and copying your thoughts, but I do agree on this. And besides, if Kasparov himself said it, it must be true.

By 2000, a player will know pet openings pretty well. By 2200, they will know some of these openings, with variations, fairly deep, or be good enough to play into many of the book lines without prior knowledge. If there is a bust to a particular line deep into the variation, they may be unaware and suceptible.

I have to wonder just how deep and thorough the knowledge of the vast array of openings is in a player of 2300+. It seems to me, they will be aware of the lines they wish to play, those they wish to avoid, and the transpositional possibilities which exist to keep themselves out of less familiar openings.

-------

With a more limited definition of "opening study," such as: "learning a few openings a few moves deep in order to get a reasonably good start in most games," this is clearly beneficial to a relatively new or inexperienced player. If one is having trouble cracking 1100-1200, it may be time to do a little study.

When I was playing the rinky-dink local tournaments, most players 1400-1500 (USCF) and above had done some opening study. Most below that level had done none.

I always went into a tournament with at least an opening in mind I wanted to play as white, plus a defense to 1. e4 and a defense to 1. d4. (Perhaps even one to 1. c4.) It helped.

I have always agreed with not only Kasparov, but a great many chess teachers and other Masters who I have heard comment on the subject.

Opening memorization is a waste of time until at least the 2000 level.

Once you understand the components of chess thoroughly, that is the time to start memorizing lines because that is when every little subtlety will be clear to you. You can see why a pawn move is made or why a piece is placed on a particular square instead of another when you understand the chessic elements thoroughly and can realize how they fit in with the themes and ideas of the opening in question.

Also, the natural by-product is that your knowledge helps you to remember the line more easily because you see that the moves are, indeed, natural.

This idea is shared by most people, but the number 2000 might be debatable. Imho, I don't think it's possible to reach 2000 without a decent opening repertoire. (By 2000 I mean a true OTB 2000, not chess.com "2000," lol)

A 1400 player who knows a pet line of the Sicilian probably has a distinct advantage over a 1400 player who only knows the Ruy Lopez three moves deep and wings it from there, all else (tactical skills, etc.) being equal.

That makes no sense. A 1400 player has an advantage over another 1400 player, all other things being equal? You'd think that that player would have a higher rating then, no?

I think Kasparov was gently suggesting that if a player didn't have enough natural talent to reach 2000 Elo without studying openings, he/she would never become a very strong player.

That is probably true,but I know a player rated less than 1600 USCF who beat an IGM in a simul in less than 15 moves.  Later he told me that he just happened to have 'studied' the variation that same morning.

Well, I would say around 1200 or so, but really whenever you understand the principles behind the opening and opening ideas in general. I say that having "learned" an opening my third week into playing seriously. (Needless to say, I failed miserably. For anyone who may wonder, it was the Catalan opening.)

I definitely see people who still hang pieces regularly and yet seem to know a lot of opening theory (at a superficial level, I imagine). That seems a waste. However, I do like to work on a small repertoire--a couple of openings as White and a couple as Black. I also investigate openings a little as they come up in my games.

I should have been specific. If the player with a little opening knowledge gets the opportunity to play a line with which he is familiar, in that game, he should have an advantage, all else being equal. He may indeed come away with that "higher rating."

Yes. I agree.

No, I think the number is more around 1600, though it depends on how complicated the opening is. In my last tournament (as a 1650 OTB) the two games I lost was because I didn't know the theory! In the king's indian Samisch (not even a sharp king's indian line) I got into a clearly inferior position and my opponent (about 1700) made me suffer from it. I lost to a 2250 in the semi slav defense as well all because of not knowing the lines. Nobody likes to memorize without understanding each move (meaning they may know the "general plans" but still not know why a specific book move is played as the reasons are often very deep.) but sometimes it is necessary in order to get results. So I don't think openings should be mostly ignored until 2000 level!

Well, if you are at 1200 to 2000, what do you study?  Tactics, End Game (which you hope to get to at times), Strategy, what?  You really should study something.

In my opinion, why not openings?  It is the first thing you are going to see from better players.   Study the positions and the lines.

The only other option is to just play and learn by experience and watch your rating get hammered.

I say from the beginning you should work on one to four common openings, trying to do more than memorize them, but understand them.

You should seriously start studying opening theory when you seriously take chess, it is simple.

Hmmm... if you gain such an advantage, you certainly could figure this out.  They only way to a draw is to not put the king in check when it is set up.  How would you get there it you are ALWAYS at a disadvantage?  White has the advantage from the get-go.

I don't know, I understand your point.  But certainly most books and most teachers start with openings, do they not?

I agree with the rest of your post, but I don't think mate with Bishop and Knight qualifies as a basic ending. It is too rare.

I think he used that as an example of a tough one to "wrap your head" around.

I have found that when I use the mentor (set to random progressive), although I am a "comeback" player, I do better training on the endgames than I do on tactics, strategy, or openings.  Not sure why, maybe that what my brain retains the best from 30 years ago.

A good friend of mine is +- 2150 FIDE and got there without book knowledge (he owns zero opening books and has no chess software). I've seen him as black play 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5 4.h4, then he thinks for half an hour, comes up with 4...Na6!? and goes on to draw his IM opponent. He knows where his pieces should go, is tactically good and his endgames are superb. I think he needs to start improving his openings now to go any further.

I also know 1750 players who know the Najdorf 20 moves deep but never go up in rating.