Does anyone NOT study openings?

I study openings, but with more focus on general ideas and concepts instead of sharp lines where a good memory is important, so I tend to lean towards 'systems' type of openings where move order, etc. are not as important (though usually grant the opponent equality, which for my level is going to happen anyways).

I think the key really is to just evaluate your games to figure out the reasons for your losses.   Most, if not all, of my games are lost from simple middlegame tactical oversights, so I know studying openings is rather pointless if I want to improve, I just enjoy learning more about the openings I do play :)

I don't study openings, you'll learn much just from playing.

I guess I could climb higer with opening study, but I think it makes chess so boring.

Memorizing moves out of a book is boring, but learning about pawn chains and stuff like in the french is quite interesting for me.

Yeah, in the the French, you have to make more pawn moves in the beginning than normal. Ordinarily that would be bad, but your opponent has to do that too!

Ah - it was e4 e5 etc. Oops. I must have misread. Still, the stuff I wrote about the French was worthwhile, even if it was trying to counter a point that didn't exist!

Well I don't:

That´s the other 10% played by 1. e4 e5 beginners.

I was that guy, but I'd like to clarify that was I was talking about Giuoco Pianissimo (or a variation of 4 knights that leads to an almost identical position). There are exciting variations in the Italian Game, such as the Moller Attack and the Evans Gambit. I myself remain a proponent of 1.e4 e5.

Yeah I know what you mean.

Me too. But I migrated from the Italian to the Ruy Lopez.

I want chess to be a fun time, not something else I have to study.  I'm sure that will make me a 1200-1500 player forever, but I'm ok with that.  I like doing the daily puzzles and the tactics trainer.  The live chess, speed games are fun too.  Not too much thought and game is over in 10 minutes.  I'm sure memorizing an opening or 2 would be helpful for those, but it's almost like cheating.  I like figuring maybe 2 or 3 moves down the road, not 10.

Well, I dont play the Italian much as white, but it is an interesting opening in its better variations.

It's insanely tactical when white starts saccing pawns left right and centre (and I'm not talking about the Evans).

Well I'd accept your comments if it were not for this last remark. How would learning a few openings be cheating ? Let's say that I am not interested in cooking (which I am not) and I don't want to learn much about it. I can make some simple food when needed and I can live on it. Maybe this is a reasonable position. Should I accuse a cook of cheating if they prepared their recipes in advance ?

Why would black take the knight instead of developing the other knight?

Yeah atos, when I reread my comment I thought the word cheating might have been a little harsh.  I meant cheating in the sense that by using someone else's opening, they have done all the thinking, planning, calculating etc.  You have just done a little memorizing.  Not cheating perhaps, but it doesn't take much effort to get a correct answer.  Games should be a test of your own abilities, not someone else's.  But like I said in my first post, I just want to play for a little fun, not make a living with it.  If you are making a living with, that's a different story.  Cooking on the other hand is a little different, if someone has a great recipe, by all means copy it and cook me some food.  :-)

Well, let's use that way of thinking in all the aspects of the game then.

If you study the Lucena position, that's cheating, if you read a book on tactical problems, you are cheating, if you read a book on positional understanding, you are cheating, if you play through a master game, you are cheating.

Basicly, all aspects of learning that you do with outside help, be it book, friend, looking through games etc, is cheating, you aren't learning on your own, you are just stealing already developed ideas.

No, I am not making a living from chess, I also just play for fun. I usually use theoretical openings because they tend to be more fun. They have interesting strategic and tactical ideas that I wouldn't have come up with on my own. However, once you have learned an opening well, you will understand the ideas that are behind it.  You will  still need to do a lot  of thinking, planning, calculating etc. but that will be later on in the game, and you will not be down on material or in an inferior position by then.

I am not a rated player, but I have been playing chess for 45 years. I first experienced dramatic improvement upon studying middlegame tactics. However, there was further improvement after studying the opening. In my experience, a player who approaches the opening intentionally has an advantage over a player who sees the opening as just some stuff you have to do in order to get into the middle game.

Lest anyone be unclear what is meant by an opening, this other discussion offers some definitions.