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

One reason experienced players may seem preachy about this is... I think we all tried it. At least I know I have. I bought some opening books as a beginner. I spent a whole month memorizing lines from a book, taking notes, that sort of thing. Then I started playing, and sure some wins came easily when I was able to copy moves into a winning position, and that felt really good!

But my rating barely improved. Maybe 50 points.

Later I put the same amount of work into Soltis' book Pawn Structure Chess, and again into a tactics book, and again into Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual. Each of these 3 sessions (roughly 1-2 months each) gained me 100-200 points.

So yeah, as much as 600 rating points for the other stuff vs 50 points for openings.

So then when we (or at least I) see these topics online, I say, no, memorizing lines isn't that important. Do I memorize lines even today? Sure. Of course. But that's just the frosting on the cake. If you forced me to play totally different openings my rating would hardly drop 100 points.

A cake with no frosting is meh!

My man made yet a 2nd straw man argument just after I pointed it out. Love of god bro I said it will be LESS of a factor. I never said that I could beat a grandmaster if he played a bad opening.

You said " You don't need to memorize 'theory' though to avoid losing material." Meaning I said you DID need to memorize theory, so yes that's exactly what you said, but in different wording. "What a funny game." That's not being disrespectful at all. Also arguing by insulting rating means nothing. Obviously you've practiced before but you forget the idea that maybe you just have more raw talent?

Yes, it does -- but not as much as some beginners think it. I'm not an experienced player but from what I've seen and heard, once you've got the basic opening principles down (developing your pieces, putting pawns in the centre of the board, castling early, clearing the back rank and connecting the rooks, etc.) you shouldn't need to worry about theory or specific openings too much until a more advanced level (1700-2000?).

Since neither you nor I are at that level yet, we shouldn't focus on heavy theory or "which opening to use", as long as we have a few good openings that follow the basic principles and fit our playing style. I still use the same four or five openings for each colour and I've found that switching up my repertoire has brought me no improvement. A lot of beginners, myself included, make the mistake of studying openings in great detail, expecting it will increase their rating. The truth is that studying what makes the openings good is a much more appropriate use of your time at the level we're at, and I don't think you should be studying specific openings in depth until you reach an advanced level of play.

Again, I'm not an advanced player and I've only had a few years of experience with the game so I may not be the best to turn to for advice. Hope this helps.

Maybe you can explain what you mean then? Why would your overall skill be less of a factor and what do you mean by a "bad opening"? Unless you fall for a trap and lose a piece or get mated it is exactly your overall skill that will help you out, after you misplayed the opening. Happens all the time.

No, I am not particularly talented when it comes to chess. I just have tried different things to improve. Some worked well, some didn't. And like many lower rated players I've also memorized long opening lines and bought opening books, hoping to compensate for my lack of skill and finding a short cut. For example, there was a really cool trappy gambit line Tal used to play in the Open Ruy. Unfortunately my opponents didn't care for theory and deviated, so that the line which I prepared never appeared on the board. Finally, after a few months, I managed to catch an FM and got a winning position. I was quite excited. A few moves later I blundered a rook and lost.

My point is that even if you manage to play the first 15 moves like a 2700 player, and continue from there like a 1000 player, at the end of the day you're still a 1000 player. If you practice tactics, read strategy books, analyse your games and raise your overall skill to say 1400, you will be 1400 even if you fall into an opening trap once and then...

Of course, you don't have to agree. And I am sorry if you feel offended, but I think there is a reason why most masters and advanced players do not recommend beginners to focus on opening theory, while many beginners think it is a good idea. (However, as I said before, I think learning a few moves and some ideas of the opening is a good idea.)

Now feel free to accuse me of more straw man arguments because you never mentioned the Open Ruy....

What does 'less of a factor' mean to you? I don't see what's confusing about that. I didn't say it wasn't an extremely important factor. I said it was less of one.

This below is what I've been trying to tell you the entire time bro… "(However, as I said before, I think learning a few moves and some ideas of the opening is a good idea.)"

I don't usually play out an entire opening exactly how it's supposed to go,(according to theory) as you said, people deviate from Opening theory. I said learning Opening theory and openings are beneficial to learning HOW to do what you should do in the opening and basic patterns. I pointed out earlier that I don't normally play every opening in every game the exactly the same way.

I also notice that it took you a while to reach 2000. In 2014 you were around 1700, still far above average, obviously you worked but you were always above average talent-wise.

When Grandmaster Ben Finegold was asked, by a 1500, what openings they should study to reach 2000, Ben answered by saying this:

(1-minute video.)

His answer was surprisingly controversial. A lot of players strongly agree with him. And just as many seem to strongly disagree ...

Thats only going to be controversial to those that think openings matter.  But to be honest he is right.

Wow, a lot of people disagreed?

Here's a simple argument in favor of what Finegold said... the opening is the most forgiving phase of the game.

Even a beginner could beat the world champion if it's a pawn up endgame (far outside passed pawn, and the beginner has been taught how to do it). But in the opening both sides are unorganized and there is no contact between forces. What that means is no forcing moves, no threats of any kind... even if a player screws up it's basically impossible to punish them. Punishment comes later, in the middlegame.

Anyway, the point is the opening is the most forgiving phase, so of course openings matter least.

One of my favorite quotes:

A mistake in the opening you can recover from.

A mistake in the middle game will hurt you.

A mistake in the endgame will kill you.

Play h4, a4, and rook h3. I would like to see how you do in the opening. I would also like to see that grandmaster play another grandmaster with those same moves see how often he wins. It WILL be a lot lower. I've never seen Magnus Carlsen or fishy or Hikaru or Nepo or Bobby Fischer start a game with those kind of moves if they truly 'Matter zero.'

before anyone says I wasn't really checking for grammar when saying those "ors." Since I know people on the internet PREY on grammar mistakes.

 Although the quote you mention is something I'd agree with 100% IMKeto. However recovering from a blunder in the beginning is still very difficult assuming you play someone who knows what they're doing. I'd be surprised if you disagree with that. Pawn endgames can be a nightmare if you're down one.

I beat a 1900 with black playing 1...a6 2...h6 so yes it can be done.

Was this in daily or bullet because you don't seem to do much on other types of games.