Do You HAVE to Learn Openings to be Good?

I learn by exposing myself to all sorts of opening set ups, trying to make normal moves that don't break opening principles unless I think a position warrants an exception, and try to find good plans in middle games. Why worry about an occasional amateur who knows more book theory of a position than you? May you can beat them with better middle game or end game play, or what worse you have a nice study game to see how that opening should be handled. My opinion people try to play like masters and study like masters but forget that masters already worked out the basics and all they have to focus on is openings- we still need to do the basics first!

Hahaha good joke... 1800 Uscf is NEVER 1950 Fide Elo. A national master in USA is 2200 Uscf. So you want to tell me that he would be rated 2350 Fide? You know that this would be a Fide Master ? I think 1800 Uscf is definetly lower than 1800 Fide( It simply has to be like this because of the titles in USA and the ratings on Chess.com compared to the Uscf and Fide Ratings). My question was just how much lower the Rating is....

I am a decent chess player and I don't memorize openings. Since my first exposure to chess when I was a child, I love to experiment with different opening moves. Perhaps I am just bored with similar positions being repeated over and over again. I also don't always follow opening principles and try to break them whenever possible (depending on the risk!). It's fun, especially since mistakes in the openings tend to be more forgiving than mistakes in the later part of the game. After a while, I become comfortable in dealing with a variety of positions, which I think is good. This is why I believe that it is beneficial for newcomers to try out all kinds of openings and have fun. It trains your creativity and resourcefulness, especially when you end up in a bad position.

However, I am not a professional chess player. I play chess for fun. When your livelihood depends on winning a chess game, then I think you should seek out advice from the pros.

@Till_98

Again, you're making the assumption that an average 2350 player having a higher uscf than fide implies that an average 1800 player has a higher uscf than fide, which is strange assumption and happens to be flat wrong in this case.

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/uscf-to-fide-conversion

And I wouldn't take the formulas in that post to be foolproof either, there is obviously a high leval of generalization to allow for easy conversion between uscf and fide.

25 hours ago·Quote·#33

Till_98

@yureesystem: I think your example doesn't really support your point, at least as far as you related it. After reading it, I can come away thinking that you (Elo ~2000, who studies openings) played an FM (Elo ~2300) who does not study openings. Therefore, at least your FM opponent got to 2200+ without studying openings. I am pretty sure there is missing background there. I presume you played into one of the few lines the FM was not well prepared for, or that the FM was trying out a new system for the first time.

I also find it hard to believe that you could reach 2200 without a fairly in-depth study of the opening in general, all of the openings to some degree, and your own openings in detail. Such a player would have to be uncannily strong in other aspects of the game, given that your ambitious 1800 players come to tournaments armed to the teeth with memorized opening lines, and yes, a bad opening slip WILL result in a 2200 losing to an 1800 who knows the lines.

Some amount of opening study is necessary well below 2000, too. When I reached 1500, I had a pretty strong endgame (for that level) and I knew the general plans of my openings, and I was solid if not advanced tactically (for my level). But I lost against higher rated players (~1575+) because they knew specifics. The sharper your openings, the earlier you will have to start studying specifics. I am currently attempting to solidify my status as an 1800+ (USCF) player, and I find that knowing the lines takes a back seat to tactics, it is true, but if you don't know the lines, you can be caught out by lower rated players more often than is possible to retain a high rating. But I think ratings are useless when discussing specific knowledge and skills because, for instance, one player may be rated 1500 because he knows his opening lines 15 moves by heart but is terrible at tactics, while another player may be rated 1500 because he is a much better endgame player than anyone else at that rating, but hasn't studied much else. So don't get sidetracked by ratings - the important message is that opening study is important for any developing chess player, almost no matter what that player's level (the lowest levels should concentrate entirely on tactics).

Also, it should be clarified what is meant by "learning openings". Do we mean learning opening principles and guidelines, learning opening traps, learning specific tabiya out to three to five moves, learning the typical tactics that arise from the openings you play, learning the typical middlegame plans in the openings you play, memorizing variations out to 10 to 30 moves, or learning the typical endgames reached from the openings that you play?

I believe opening study should involve each of those activities, more or less in that order. The particular type of opening study you engage in changes according to your level of play (and, more importantly, your previous openings study progress).

It is important to learn what is appropriate for you level. This is where a coach can help you avoid a lot of frustration.

If Magnus Carlsen forgot every opening he knows today does anyone here actually think they would stand a chance vs him?

Well that's one of those hypotheticals that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. You learn positional principles from studying the opening, so does that disappear while we try to divorce openings from the rest of chess? Reshevsky was known to have a terrible memory about opening preparation despite being a very strong player, but opening study is a lot more than memorizing theory.

Jlconn, it took me one year and half to become a A class (1800-1999 USCF), I believe because I study classical players like Fischer, Capablanca, Karpov, Steinitz, Tarrasch, Morphy and Alekhine my foundation is good. Reti recommends 1.e4 to every player below master level, I believe that is why progress so quickly, I did not play junk opening but Standard opening ( main line only), if white responded to 1.e4 I would play 1...e5 or 1...c5 only, I believe 1..e5 teaches you develop your pieces naturally and the pawn breaks are easier to spot (...d5; ...f5; and possible ...c6) and the same for response to 1.d4 would 1...d5, Queen Gambit Declined is easy to understand and hard to beat; I hve faith in classical style, you are rarely in a cramp position and have a solid center, it is more than memorize moves; it is understanding the ideas in a opening or defense. Off-beat opening, King Indian Attack, Reti Opening and English, Colle system and any non-mainline below expert should be avoided if you want to reach expert or higher. Seen in my chess club low rated players playing junk or non-standard opening and staying low rated. One friend who was  a 1400 USCF played junk opening, until told him if only play 1.e4 your rating will go up, he took my advice and immediately is rating climb quickly, he also study Chernev Books which I recommend too. One the reason I believe I became an expert because of my strong foundation in the opening and other areas I study in chess.

 Jlcom gook luck to pursue to 1800, I also hope you make it higher.

I disagree with this. I have quoted an IM with 2400 rating. He told he reach 2400 without giving much attention to opening study.

You learn positional principles from studying chess, whether or not you're studying openings doesn't quite matter. And not trying to argue that studying openings wouldn't help someone's chess skill, but the argument that it's a requirement to reach a certain level is faulty. And judging by this forum appears to be soley based on a person's experience and the level is +/- 300 rating points of whatever player is making the argument.

I'm rather inclined to say the answer to these questions is rather simple:

The openings are a part of chess, so yes, of course, you should study them.

Chess is becoming a more concrete game, so the importance of opening study is increasing at the higher levels, but first you should probably start with studying older master games where the application of fundamental opening principles is easier to understand.

Why complicate things with all these strange theories that have little practical relevance? Openings are chess, middlegames are chess, endings are chess. As with any aspect of the game, there are good and bad approaches to study.

@ jambyvedar: Can you show us the quotation please? If this IM really said he had no plan of opening theory during reaching a rating of 2400(!) then he was definetly lying or at least he wasnt completly honest. Come on, everybody who plays at a higher Level ( 2000+) has to learn opening theory, exspecially International masters! Everybody can prepare for their "Bad" opening lines, so they would even get crushed by a 2000 player. You cant play your best chess if you are already worse in/ after the opening. Thats simple, but true

I just play for fun and trying to memorize all these openings takes the fun and creativity out of the game so I just choose to not waste my time with openings.  But that is of course a matter of opinion.

I hate learning openings, middlegames, and endgames. Can I ignore all of these and still be good?

OMG...is his TONGUE in his CHEEK??

Play Chess 960 if studying is a burden. Any one can challenge me.