Beginner? Don't use this opening - It's too theoretical! Better yet, don't learn any openings!

Exactly this

Not necessarily memorized. If you really understand the moves and reasoning, then memory comes naturally. As for playing fast... 

We found the problem. And the second problem is I never advocated for hard memorization.

Not sure what you mean

Agreed, but it will be hard to get the same line

ok but what are you trying to say?

I mean, the guy I was talking to on the left was a KID player, so we were talking about the KID. Against the KID I almost never play d5, preferring to play Nge2 and fianchetto my bishop. 

"I learned this line by heart"

That it's firstly about getting simple positions, learning what they should learn, and then get to theory/playing an opening that' hard for beginners

Watch Gotham's guess the ELO you'll immediately understand

The guy played a losing move in the Sicilian on move 6, he  got to a losing position, his opponent didn't capitalize, he later went on to win the game and didn't understand his mistake. He went home and thought he should keep playing the Sicilian. Another day, he got to a tournament OTB, he got the same line I made the same mistake, his opponent capitalized and he got destroyed. Yes, you might say people should analyze games with coaches, until they understand what the engine is saying. BUT NOT EVERYONE HAS A TUTOR TO ANALYZE WITH!!

Hanging pieces and stuff... 

When I Was around 800-900 rated otb, I would always get a Italian game with all four knights out, bishop on c4-c5, or maybe pinning. I almost never hung pieces, but I would still lose games because I didn't understand, Oh, Nc3-e2-g3 is a thing. Oh, you can push h4 in these positions. I would always miss Bxf7 ideas, because, hey, I didn't know that the entire point of developing a bishop to c4 was to attack f7. 

Often times, I hear people say "just develop your pieces" but it doesn't work if you don't know why you develop them to that specific place.

That's exactly my point, if you make one move blunders, 700 moves combinasions that doesn't matter at all!!

Ben is hilarious btw thanks for the vid

Which is the whole point of why I advocated for incremental learning - in large theory openings like the najdorf and dragon, you can't possibly learn everything in one go - so you learn a bit, play a bit, improve on your theory a little at a time. Of course crushing losses have to happen - but chess engines are so easy to get nowadays, it's almost too easy to find why you get crushed in under 20 moves.

Yes but again, what's the point of knowing that the Italian is e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4, if you don't know why you're making the moves

Let's get a little deeper, what's the point of learning the Mieses Scotch endgame when you don't know how to punish off-beat lines by understanding because you aren't good enough to do so

If you make one move blunders then that's on you, not the opening. But don't you think that if you play an opening you know, chances of hanging pieces would decrease significantly?

Idk this is getting complex and I'm tired

Why would you be learning the mieses scotch endgame around 1300 level? Dude, stop giving extreme examples.

They would if they play the lines you study

But why not decrease the blunders in all situation, by learning tactics, instead of learning certain openings

looooooooooooool

It's all related

What's the point of learning tactics if you don't know when to look for tactics? If you're never aware of how the pieces are set up in your opening, you can NEVER find the tactics. Example, my brother - he plays e4 and e5 (normie lmao) and Italian as white. But he almost never is able to find any Bxf7+ ideas, but when I ask him to look at Bxf7 - he always finds the right lines. HE just doesn't know to look for it.

So basically you guys are saying that we are falling into the same point with different routes?