Can someone play without openings?

Does this apply to any chess subject that one might read about in a book?

"Queen's Gambit Declined ... King's Indian ... King's Indian ... Queen's Pawn Game ... Queen's Pawn Game ... King's Indian, Fianchetto, Panno Variation ... Queen's Gambit Declined, Tarrasch ... Queen's Gambit Declined, Tartakower (Makagonov-Bondarevsky) System ... King's Indian, Fianchetto, Yugoslav Panno ... Queen's Pawn Game (with ...d6) ... French ... Queen's Gambit Declined, Semi-Slav ... Queen's Pawn Game ... Queen's Pawn Game ... Dutch ... Queen's Gambit Accepted ... Queen's Indian ... Queen's Pawn Game ... Dutch, Leningrad, Main Variation ... Grunfeld, 5.Bg5 ... King's Indian, Fianchetto ... Queen's Indian ... Old Benoni ... Queen's Gambit Declined ... Queen's Gambit Declined, Semi-Slav, Meran ... Neo-Grunfeld, 6.cd Nxd5 7.O-O Nb6 ... Neo-Grunfeld, 6.O-O, Main Line" - openings from a chessgames list of games played by shakriyar mamedyarov as White in 1999, 2000, and 2001

http://www.chessgames.com/player/shakhriyar_mamedyarov.html

Yes. Play the Grob :-P

Looks like a Grunfeld, Russsian Variation, Nc6 system (favorite of MVL), where white has played the slightly odd move h3 instead of Be3 or Be2. While preventing Bg4 is understandable, it seems slow- Black should be fine here after white accepts the pawn.

The only opening you'll need is the opening of your lukajicbatalaki.

Perhaps the list does add some detail to "no special opening knowledge"?

Can Black oblige White to play "Queen's Gambit Declined, Tartakower (Makagonov-Bondarevsky) System", if White wants to play "Queen's Pawn Game"? By the way, the game started 1 d4 d5 2 c4.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1350220

 Funny that you would ask that, because yes, in fact he can. It's black who decides to answer to 1.d4 with 1...d5 (instead of, let's say 1...Nf6). It's black who decides if he wants to accept the gambit after 2.c4, and again, it's black who decides if he wants to go for Tartakower with 7...b6.

But that's not even my point. Knowing the first few moves of those openings has nothing to do with "special opening knowledge", and apart from that, just by playing "normal" moves according to general opening principles you will invariably land in any of the ECO openings. Happens to me all the time, if I retroactively look at my games and my opening knowledge is superficial at best.

Can you give us your approximate estimate of the percenatage of players who can react to all opening difficulties by recognizing the faulty logic that guided a mistake and discovering an improvement? Would you advise these players to also attempt to learn endgame play by working out difficulties on their own without consulting an endgame book? Can you give us some explanation of the reasoning that would lead to a conclusion that those not in this select group will probably blunder the first move they haven't memorized from an opening book?

Does 1...d5 oblige White to play 2 c4 instead of going for a "Queen's Pawn Game"?

Perhaps some detail is added to "no special opening knowledge"?

After 22 moves, the "Queen's Gambit Declined, Semi-Slav, Meran" game matched the position of a 1993 game.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1207485

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1133302

But apparently you do have some.

 q1: My estimate converges against zero. Maybe the best of the best, but even then I'm not sure about it.

q2: No I wouldn't, mainly due to the fact that endgame books are differently organized and presented than opening books and the amateur and even the expert player might profit much more from studying endgames than from memorizing opening sidelines.

q3: Sure. The thing is that memorizing moves won't help you if your chess problems are much more basic than that and you don't get the strategies/plans and/or tactics that are involved with those moves. It might help you not to fall for simple opening traps, but the problem is that as soon as you get out of your memorization, you're still helpless, if you don't understand why you made those moves the first place.

But remember that I didn't say that the study of openings is totally worthless. What I'm saying is that you should be really careful about how you spend your time regarding the openings. Won't speak for the higher rating ranges because I wouldn't know about that, but what I know is that at the level I'm playing right now (1400-1450 chess.com rating), spending my time with tactics is much more beneficial for my play than to spend it with studying opening books. And given the play of my average opponents, the same goes for them.

P.S. I know that I prefer open games, which is why I tend to open with 1.e5, and for some reason I like the french defense, so 1...e6 it is against 1.e5 most of the time. Doing this over time gives me some practical experience with which moves work for me and which don't but that's (if at all) the SlowMove approach to openings.

So perhaps it makes sense for the others to use opening books and/or other such material from time to time?

Is it only the organinization that makes book endgame study profitable? What about the explanations? And how about the explanations in other sorts of books (on strategy stuff)?

Is it reasonable to suppose that, outside the select group, there is only memorizing of moves and a failure to get the strategies/plans and/or tactics that are involved with those moves?

Perhaps it would be helpful if people are told stuff like this:

"... Overall, I would advise most players to stick to a fairly limited range of openings, and not to worry about learning too much by heart. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2008)
"... I feel that the main reasons to buy an opening book are to give a good overview of the opening, and to explain general plans and ideas. ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)
"... If the book contains illustrative games, it is worth playing these over first ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)
"... the average player only needs to know a limited amount about the openings he plays. Providing he understands the main aims of the opening, a few typical plans and a handful of basic variations, that is enough. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2008)

Is it a choice between one or the other? What about a mixture of the two (and other stuff)?

"... This book is the first volume in a series of manuals designed for players who are building the foundations of their chess knowledge. The reader will receive the necessary basic knowledge in six areas of the game - tactcs, positional play, strategy, the calculation of variations, the opening and the endgame. ... To make the book entertaining and varied, I have mixed up these different areas, ..." - GM Artur Yusupov