Does anyone NOT study openings?

It's called "reading." Make sure to read the entire paragraphs though!! And if something I google searched long ago makes me a "know-it-all" then I fear for this forum.

*So, you are speaking with the authority of "something I google searched long ago". Have you really managed to convince yourself that you are the only person here who is capable of reading or using the Google ? Do you really believe that the secrets of chess mastery can be googled in half hour, and then you know this?

...it is not even possible to achieve a mastery of the opening only by memorizing lines and without understanding of the resulting middlegames and endgames..."

What are you talking about? That has nothing to do with anything I said. I don't even memorise openings myself let alone suggest someone else do it!!

*Well we don't communicate do we. When we suggest that studying openings is useful we don't mean only (or even primarily) memorizing opening lines but understanding the ideas of the opening and therefore being able to orient yourself in the resulting middlegames and endgames. This is the point that you didn't understand, and apparently still don't. I think that I am going to discontinue this 'conversation' at this point since I anticipate that I will only be getting more complaining about you (and some other unnamed persons) being misunderstood, mistreated and so on and nothing at all pertinent to the subject.

Just learn the first 5-6 moves of the Caro-Kann in the main variations and you'll be fine.

I agree that some opening knowledge is required - so you can get yourself into a game where you can use your middle game skills, and not just be beaten by your opponent on space, position and material! Also to learn things like scholars mate, the fried liver and traps in the opening, so you don't fall into them. A good term to remember if your worried about traps is:

"An honest man can never be conned"

And the same is true in chess, if your not overly greedy, and focus on gaining checkmate instead of sweeping up every last bit of material, you'll play better chess! hope this helps.

On a side note - does anyone know any good books to help me with my attacking middle game? Thanks.

An interesting thought... probably very true.

Books on the middle game:

Art of Attack in Chess by Vladimir Vukovic. This is mostly about attacking castled positions, but is a great book with strategies you can apply to any attacks. This is quite an old book, but I now own a translation with algebraic notation (Everyman Chess).

The Art of the Middle Game by Keres and Kotov. Another classic, this one is in descriptive notation (Dover). Keres and Kotov deal with various aspects of middle game strategy, including a section dedicated to attacking. I count this book a must-read.

i haven't learnt openings yet - started playing in June this year (even though i joined in June last) and many of my games are a complete mess in no time. Either i battle my way back into the game (as someone else here pointed out) or i'm forced to resign. I'm gonna join as a gold star member very soon and use the 'book' openings available for premium players b/c if i can bumble my way to middlegame relatively unscathed then i've discovered i'm usually about as good as anyone i've played so far. Openings are the reason i've put my 'live' chess on hold. I'd spend all my time on the first few moves then make ridiculous mistakes under time pressure against inferior players. I want to be playing against 2000-2200 (turn-based) rated players pretty soon and i'd venture that knowing openings is an absolute must. I lose 75%+ of my games from my lack of this basic knowledge

http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=29826209

 skylark plz explain this game and why did your opponent resign?

Yes, thanks Patrick. I'll definitely start with King's Indian in that case. Once i sort my openings out i'll go back to 'live' which i love. I see you're near enough 2000 rated at blitz - whooo - i don't think i'll get to that level but 1700 is a realistic goal for me. Maybe 2000 turn-based.

 Hi Streptomicin. He can't stop me promoting my pawn! It'll be a queen versus bishop.

Lol, I was thinking you are white. Sry, well played.

Yeah, i will improving my turn-based soon and start to try longer rated matches!

Im pretty bad in chess so yes i study opening and everything i can.

Is there any subject without theory? so opening is needed for chess aslo.

To study openings or not ? This is an individual thing, imo.  The answer depends on what you want from chess, your goals and what type of chess will you be playing most ? If you only want to play for "fun" and are only going to play on sites like chess.com then opening study certainly isnt necessary, you can use books and data bases here so why bother ? If you only want to play for fun and dont really care about your results why study chess at all ? Just play and have fun ! I think its more fun when you win than when you lose but maybe thats just me. If you intend to play otb tournament chess and want to get a title from otb play then you will have to study all phases of the game to do that unless you are a genius like Capablanca or Morphy, but I doubt any such geniuses would even be on this server myself.

I  believe all 3 phases of chess are equally important if you want to go above 2000 otb rating. I think it would be bad/wrong to over-emphasize opening study to the neglect of the middlegame and/or endgame ofcourse so the key is to find a balance in your work/study of chess. Another thing to consider is the level a players is at and the strength of their opponents. I wouldnt give the same advice to a 1000 player that I would to a 1600 , or a 2000 player.

I have noticed that the overwhelming majority of players here that say opening study isnt important , or isnt even necessary, are weak players. Just a coincidence ?  I dont think so. If you are losing games in the opening then you certainly need to do some opening work. I have seen beginners that believe they should only study endgames and yet they are lost by the time they reach an endgame most of the time and are often "busted" after the opening. I dont care if you have the endgame skills of a Capablanca if you fall into an opening trap, or get mated in a sharp middlegame it wont do you any good. Look at your last ten lost games, where are you losing the majority of your games ? Find the weakest part of your game and work on it first .

I dont believe there are any titled players who don't ( and never have ) studied openings, excepting a few chess geniuses.....

NM Reb, Thanks for the comments. I'm new to the site and have only picked up the game again in the last year. My study time is limited so getting sound advice on how to effectively invest my time is valuable.

Watsonfan8, Thanks for the question.

Anthony CG I generally agree with you on this, but I don't want people to think openings are worthless at anything below master, because they're not. These days, openings are even underrated by most people as all you ever here is "rarely study openings". I have already mentioned the benefits of studying them, and realize they are not the priority, but they are better not ignored. Endgames are nice, but it's far from clear that they are the most important as they say (and as you may have guessed, I don't think they are most important). And I'm talking about us amateur players. Especially beginners, games are very often won before the endgame. This does not really mean a pawn was won, no, it really means that as much as a piece or two pawns were lost or the king got mated.

If we start a thread on endgames, I bet that Anthony CG and several others will write in to say that studying endgames is stupid because everyone knows (or some unidentified 'titled players' say, or it's all over the Google) that the opening is the most important. Personally I admit that I haven't studied endgames much but this is my shortcoming and I would never dream of saying that they are not important. I reckon that the middlegame is the most important but I am somewhat skeptical about how much it can be studied from books, I think the middlegame is mostly learned by playing and analyzing GM games.

I would say analyzing master games is the next step once you learn the "basics" (in a middlegame book). And of course you have to play as it's far from easy to implement advanced positional ideas or complex combinations in over the board play. The point is all three areas of the game are important, some a little more important others (and this of course depends on a person's rating and weaknesses), but all important for the improving player.

I am sorry that we can't seem to communicate, maybe it is a language problem and that would be okay. But it is somewhat regrettable that you blame me for this. I am pretty sure that my English is all right. (This doesn't say anything about me as a person.)

The important things to realize is that Openings exist because the individual moves follow a plan, just like your plans in the middlegame.

Look at the Ruy Lopez, second only to the Sicilian in the amount it's played.

1. e4 - it makes sense as a move.  1...e5 makes sense because it deprives White of playing d4.  2. Nf3 is a response to that, challenging the piece that prevents d4 while developing a piece.  2...Nc6 responds again.  It protects Black's ability to prevent d4, while developing.  So White plays 3. Bb5, to remove the piece that protects the piece that prevents d4.

It all means something.  Opening moves weren't handed down by the chess gods, they were discovered and played for a purpose.