Stop it @Jenium - your argument is just a caricature of what people have said. NOBODY here has argued that openings were more important than tactics. That's just an annoying and dumb straw man argument. The only thing anyone has said is that knowing theory is better than not knowing theory, that studying it isn't a waste of time, and that it sometimes can give you an advantage. Seriously, just stop belittling people.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I genuinely don't understand the argument. Why would skill be 'less of a factor' if you started with -0,3 from the opening as opposed to +0,3? Does this also mean that skill is less of a factor for Black because he/she is starting from a worse position?
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.'
I beat a 1900 with black playing 1...a6 2...h6 so yes it can be done.
I did NOT say it couldn't be done. Please read through my comments before arguing them. (although I wouldn't blame you if I made a really long comment)