Do You HAVE to Learn Openings to be Good?

Does anyone else hate openings?  I'm wondering if you can be a good chess player without having to memorize like a bazillion openings and different variations of them and lines to take in all those variations?  

I have trouble just learning one type of opening and really hate the process.  I like the middle-game and end better where things are already established.  But I know too that if you botch your opening then you could be in trouble.  

Where is the line?  Or is there one?  Do you more or less just HAVE to learn openings if you are to ever become a good player?  

ETA:  Also, what would "proper" opening preparation/mastery consist of?  Would you have to know like 90-95% of all openings?  How deep into each would you need to know (e.g. 10-...15 moves?)?  And how long does this type of mastery take to learn (years?...months?....)?   

no, but it would help

You do, although maybe a few openings are neccesary up to like 1200, also they do not have to be memorized deeply (only like 5 moves or so)

If you wanna get to the higher levels - yes , you kinda have to.
However- You could always go with the principals;
Develop your pieces and control the center as much as you can. Try to trade your bad pieces for opponets good pieces and make a long-range plan. Always be on the lookout for tactical possiblitys, and notice what your opponet is doing ; this way, even if you don't know the opening, you should do pretty fine.

Generally, from my own expirience: A scillian dragon formation works about 90% of the time.  

You win 90% of your games with the Dragon?

Assuming an equal footing in opening, middlegame, and endgame knowledge, I think studying openings is probably the quickest way to improve of the 3. 

But are you going to go wrong by studying middlegames or endgames instead? Not really. So long as you make reasonable moves in the opening (develop your pieces, contest the center, and protect your king) and don't blunder you should be fine.

Just take Carlsen, for example. I think he has much better opening knowledge than people give him credit for, but hand him a playable middlegame and he'll outplay anyone more often than not.

Nope - i just get to a good position.
I could do stupid stuff in the midgame after that (: 

This is the most important thing at lower rating levels. I've read a number of different thoughts on the issue but you can probably get away without much opening study until you are 2000+ ELO.

Most games at lower rating levels are going to come down to missed tactics and as long as you come out of the opening without any major weaknesses (which opening principles will help with) then you should be fine.

I know in most of my OTB rated games (and casual games even) I'm out of book within 5 or 6 moves. I have had a few games go longer than that or transpose into a a specific line, with the longest line being something like 10 moves.

Define "good".  1600? No.  2600? Yes.

Hmmm, good question.  I guess it's subjective, but good enough to consistently beat:  

a.)  beginners

b.)  one-step up from beginners (whatever that is)

and to consistently at least compete well against (if not flat out beat):

c.)  one-step up from the "one-step up from beginner" category   ...maybe what you might call a "mid-level" player?  

That's very subjective I know, but just my own current definition of "good."  Hope that helps! 

I also added an "ETA" note to my OP above:  

Also, what would "proper" opening preparation/mastery consist of?  Would you have to know like 90-95% of all openings?  How deep into each would you need to know (e.g. 10-...15 moves?)?  And how long does this type of mastery take to learn (years?...months?....)?   

no

ETA? As in Estimated Time of Arrival? XD

Back to your question. If you desire to really get better, I would study openings. I personally might not be too good at chess, but I know many who are, and they constantly tell me about studying openings as being a key compenent of good players (Not that you can't be good without it, it's just most(All?) high-level players have studied openings).

It depends on what you mean by "good." You can certainly reach 2200 without knowing much main line theory. Usually players who do this have their own pet systems they have developed. When you avoid learning main lines, it often has a cost: you may easily find yourself reinventing the wheel. I knew a player who plateaued in the 1900s range and had an aversion to studying openings. He perpetually would handicap himself in the opening. He would sometimes talk about his theory that someone can reach FM without studying the opening. Hey, it could happen! But I don't think it's a very smart approach to competitive chess. If you are going to be good at breaking the rules, you need to have at least a decent awareness of what the rules are.

Edit: I just noticed that the OP mentioned "one-step up from beginner". In terms of beating people under 2000, you can use just about "any old thing". A lot of class players don't really understand the openings they are playing and get confused easily. Effective opening study is a lot more than memorizing moves.

I think that while you can certainly infer the best opening moves by obeying general principles, consider that you will burn exponentially more time doing so than someone who can determine the best move (within a certain line, and to a certain depth of play) instantly.

That being said, I have the same issue, and given most of my games are still more instructive than competitive, I think there's also something to be said about simply having seen a given formation enough times that you start to appreciate its advantages and disadvantages - to me this feels more productive than formal study.

@defenserulz

Nobody, sans perhaps Kasparov, knows 90-95% of all openings. At your level, your're going to be ahead of the game knowing main line ~10 moves deep for 3-4 openings total. e.g. take the Ruy Lopez, you should probably know main line 

And know why you're doing each move and general plan, like we're eventually pushing d4, knight on b1 is going to f1 and either e3 or g3, etc... And maybe know a bit about some tricky lines lines you don't feel comfrotable playing otb, like Marshall. Otherwise, no real reason to know every single variation at your level.

Agree with KOAT and MetalRatel.

With regards to how you go about learning openings, the advice I follow is to pick one with White, plus one with Black against 1 e4 and another against 1 d4. Get a good resource on each - preferably a book, but there's also plenty of stuff on the web. If you buy books, make sure they are not too difficult - ideally you want good wordy descriptions of the plans for both sides.

Have a look through the books, but don't try to memorise anything. Then as you play these openings in your games, check with the book after the game to see where your game differed from the book moves, and see how you could improve if faced with another game that started with the same moves. 

This way you grow your opening repertoire slowly but steadily, and you won't be trying to memorize anything that you don't understand

Until youre at least USCF 1900 - 2000 you dont need to study openings.  What you need to do is find 2 openings with white, and black, that you like to play.  Learn the ideas, and principles behind those openings. 

The only reason the opening exists is to get to a playable middle game.  That is where the fun/study/learning starts!

IMO you should at the very least study the opening as it occurs your own games. Database searches can help to find sample master games, but this is harder if you play a lot of junk. Computers can help sometimes, but they aren't very good in the opening. You need to be fairly strong sometimes to push them in the right direction. Ideally it is helpful to have a master for guidance, but of course this often has a price. If your goal is to become a master though, this can save a lot of time and avoid a lot of frustration.

It's not black or white.

http://www.chess.com/blog/hicetnunc/too-much-opening-study