Does chess openings really matter if you will win or not?

You may not like or agree with Jeniums statement but he is correct. 

I gave an example of what happens when someone emphasizes opening study at a low level. 

But in the end...this will be argued til the end of time.  This argument ranks right up there with the infamous "Tactics vs. Strategy" emotional war. 

Study what and how you like.  If it bring you enjoyment and keeps you playing chess then so be it.

I am not belittling anyone.  Also, my argument wasn't that practicing tactics is more important than studying opening theory, my argument was that below master level basically everything (tactics, strategy, endgames, pawn structures, opening ideas etc...) is more useful than memorizing opening moves. But again, if you enjoy learning theory, by all means go ahead...

Don't put words in my mouth. I said that's what it CAN do. I didn't say it was a done deal if you played without opening theory.

You forget if you have a bad opening your overall skill will be less of a factor. You will usually be at an inherent disadvantage. Also you are the last person I would talk to about straw man arguments considering you just misrepresented MY argument.

IMO opening knowledge is more important than opening theory. You could know all the moves of the Scheveningen sicilian but lose because you thought it was a good idea as black to trade all the pieces and lose because of your weak d pawn.

you could also make do with studying only a little theory and spend the rest of the time learning about the hedgehog structure, which would probably be a good use of anyone’s time.

Not saying that theory is bad. But knowing where to draw the line between theory and actual play is crucial. Another reason why I enjoy alekhines defense- you get to experience caro kann, French, open games, and unique positions all with minimal theoretical knowledge 

knowledge of various middlegame ideas directly translates into better opening play since you’re working towards middlegame goals right out of the opening.

I'm not saying you always need to play an opening to the letter. Generally in my games my first 4 moves will be the same but the rest is partially decided by my opponent. Learning openings can help beginners learn/understand basic tactics, give you an advantage in the opening, and just make decision making in the beginning easier.

"You forget if you have a bad opening your overall skill will be less of a factor. You will usually be at an inherent disadvantage."

This depends on the skill level of the players.

It's almost like student 2 didn't learn any actual tactics or endgame strategies, which are just as crucially important as openings. Almost as if he learned 1/3 of what he needed to...

That doesn't really contradict my argument in any way, considering I said USUALLY and you disregarded my other arguements.

This is why i said it "depends".

I don't forget, but I honestly have no clue what you are talking about. That being a GM will not help you if you play 1.f3 and 2. g4? Or what do you mean by a "bad opening"?

Unless you play a sharp or trappy line, which you shouldn't do anyway if you are not willing to study theory, your overall skill will most definitely help you even if you are start the game from a slightly worse position.   

Sometimes

What a funny game. I can do that too:

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said you said it's a done deal. I just said that memorizing opening moves is not necessary to avoid losing material.

If you want to win, you have to have a good understanding of how to play the opening well. You need to know CCA (Checks, Captures, Attacks), and know-how to attack and defend against common opening and gambits. 

Again...this depends on the skill level of the players.

OK.  Then how about if he adds "for anybody U1400, possibly U1600".

Perhaps this anecdote will get at what I've been trying to say.  I picked up a well known and well respected book (that is supposed to be for folks above my level) and I asked a very well respected coach "would I learn anything from it."

He answered (paraphrasing): "of course you will learn something from it, but that's not the question you should be asking.  You should be asking: is it the best use of my chess-studying time.  You'll get better much more quickly if you understand "checks, captures, threats", and tactics, and counting *and* if you are able to apply them during a real game."

After being stubborn for months and not taking this advice to heart -- and getting my head handed to me in tournaments where I was ahead coming out of the opening in almost all of my games -- I realized the truth of another maxim I read on here somewhere.  One of the ways to not get better at chess is to pay a coach and ignore his advice.

(and, I'll add again -- for anybody reading this who is U1400: look at your last 5-10 losses.  Did you miss a significant tactic (or allow your opponent to play them) in almost all of them?  If so, what does that tell you?)

There are tactics in the opening to. 

When you hear "study opening" do you think the person do A: memorizing moves without understanding them, B: looking at openings lines how to set up your pieces good, counter opening tricks and also set up your pieces so you can get you to a position in which you can do tricks or longer plans. Or C: something else. 

What i do is, puzzles, youtubevideos, chess lessons (openings, tricks, endgame etc), playing the actual game, dailys, rapid, bliz, and analyze the game after. Also i have rented a book that I read. 

So kinda the plan is to learn from many sources and on every part of chess. 

When I tried new openings i learn things that I didnt know before which I can use in other games even when playing a different opening. 

Here's an unfamiliar position.

Now we have two players, who are both asked the same question: "What are a few good opening moves for white, here? And for black?"

Player 1: Glances at the above position and sees several reasonable ideas on how each side can develop.

Player 2: Glances at the above position and thinks, "I've never studied any theory from this opening position, so how could I possibly know what's correct to play??"

Don't be like Player 2... Be like Player 1.

Its funny but when you ask these engine heads what does that move do? 

You usually get something like the following:

"Its the move you play here..."

"Its what theory says to play..."

"Its what GM <insert name here> says to play..."

"The engine says its the best move..."

What do all of these have in common?  None of them answers "why" the move should be made.

Yeah because if you study theory then you turn off your brain? 

960 is tricky for a new player as myself. Since every starting position is diffrent. But i have manage to get the same rating in 960 as in normal. Not that it matters. 

But i find 960 to be very fun. But i play it in daily chess and not livechess. For me 960 would be very hard in blitz. Since i have to build a plan from scratch.. Sometimes in 960 pawns are not defended from start, etc.