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

e4 is not good. e4 is unsupported. Per strategy.

You cant learn win in 4 moves per strategy...thats not the point.

You either learn strategy or you dont...there are almost all GMs dont know what it is...but it is well defined.

Openings matter but not as much as people seem to think.

If you play openings well you get a nice position to launch your middlegame. A game of chess must still be played.

Some openings have traps that win on the spot and these tend to get youtube videos. All opening traps have a rating expiration beyond which they no longer work. Thus, traps are only a good idea if they're supported by solid play, that is if your opponent doesn't fall into the trap you're still in a good position. 

Another way in which the opening is critically important is setting the tone and direction of the middle game. Advanced Caro Kann and Open Sicilian are both respected openings, but they are completely different in character and plans. Players should chose openings where they understand the middlegame plans. 

What I'm saying is that you don't necessarily need to study openings, outside of eliminating blunders in the openings of games you play, which can be done without specifically studying theory.

Can learning theory help? Absolutely. But that isn't going to win many games, in and of itself, with most games being decided on errors later in the game, even moving into expert level. Somewhere between 1800-2000 it certainly starts becoming more important. 

I also didn't imply that learning openings is going to hurt your game, just that it may not help win games for players that are losing games due to missed tactics, poor positional play, or endgame errors.

If you don't master the principles of the openings, the opening is worthless.

Thanks, @Stil1! Your differentiation between opening "principles" and "theory"  makes sense to me in the way you've explained it. Especially with the example of the Najdorf.  From a scientific point of view I'm still unhappy with those naming, but at least now I understand what you're talking about.

@ThatSavageLeo ... once again, what you're saying implies mutual exclusivity. Learning openings doesn't hinder your ability to grasp opening principles; in fact, it may serve to reinforce them. Practically every argument I've heard against beginners learning basic opening theory is that it will somehow compromise the rest of your game, and logically this makes no sense. Someone can teach you the basics of the Caro Kann in an hour, including what your plans should be upon exiting the opening. This isn't rocket science.

Yes they are really Important and our level i.e. 1400-1700, You must know atleast first ten moves of your opening to learn how to counterattack your opponent's responses, gambits, etc. 

To be honest, what he says is correct!! I try playing a opening with imbalances and unique moves for the players of my level which is risky sometimes for me but that gets my opponents out of there prep and they get confused.

Glad we could reach an agreement.

And yes, the terms do seem a bit slippery. And sometimes principles and theory overlap, which further muddies the water ...

Opening principles and theory matter insofar as they prevent a player from entering a middle game with either not enough material to reach the endgame, or having material that cannot reach effective positions.  To paraphrase: if you don't learn how to merge, you end up either parked at the top of the onramp, or spend most of your trip in the breakdown lane riding the rumble strip.

@CouldntFindAGoodUsername, don't take this statement for real. He's just trolling, I suppose.

Opening theory and Opening principles are not the same thing. Opening theory is a specific set of moves and has a name. Opening principles are a set of guidelines which include: develop your pieces, don't make too many pawn moves, don't bring your queen out too early, castle early, don't move the same piece twice, control the center, and connect your rooks.

Many openings, and their theory violate opening principles. The Bong Cloud is considered an opening, but it violates practically every principle known to humans. The Wayward Queen Attack, preferred by 600-800 rated players and the Nelson bot also violates opening principles. Hypermodern openings, such as the Alekhine and the Nimzo-Larsen seem to violate opening principles, and yet are perfectly viable options unlike the two previously mentioned openings.

So they aren't the same thing.

i know but i was trying to say that you can use the opening principles to your advantage

-too

Learn 1-2 openings for each side (black and white) (your rating does not matter), and deeply learn the theory and the traps. My rating increased by alot once I learnt Kings Indian and Evans Gambit, Evans is easy to get into, you can play Italian and if your opponent plays Bc5 you can go into. Highly reccomend that if you play e4. And Kings Indian is great for black too, it gets them out of opening theory. At my current level I'm playing c4 for English which gets my oponents out of comfortable opening theory.

Good point. When I hear "theory" I think about memorizing the first 20 moves of a line in the  Najdorf. Obviously that is not very useful below a certain level. If theory is - as some people here claim - learning the first 3-5 moves of the Italian + a few principles, beginners will benefit from that.

I agree that trying to learn from the opening moves that you find difficult is good practice, at any level. Learning is always good (as long as it's within reason, and within one's own comfort range).

To be fair, though, Scholar's Mate can't happen, if black is following opening principles

Opening principles followed:

- open with a pawn to the center

- knights before bishops

- if possible, develop with a threat

- develop your pieces to active, central squares

- place your bishops on strong diagonals

- get your king castled early

Opening principles automatically refute the Scholar's Mate.

This is why a lot of players say "you don't need theory at lower levels ... just opening principles", because opening principles can lead to playing sound opening moves.

@stil1 - again, not mutually exclusive. you can do both, and learning the refutation wastes less in-game time and you automatically play the most precise refutation.

Additionally, as I stated earlier, if you just follow opening principles against some openings, you're just going to get killed. This is most famously applicable to the Stafford Gambit or the Wayward Queen attack. If you play natural moves, you're going to lose.

Why do you think that most beginners complain so much about the Nelson bot? There's a reason why you see so many posts hating on him, and that's because they are playing according to the principles that they have been taught and they are getting mated in 15 moves. Sometimes it's just better to know before the fact what to do.

You might add:

• Don't move a pieces twice before all pieces are developed
• Make as few pawn moves as possible

But all those guidelines only make sense if you understand the theory laying underneath.

For example, the idea behind rule "knights before bishops" is that the knights only have one or two good development fields. The bishops on the other hand have more desirable fields depending on what the opponent plays. So it's reasonable to hold back your bishops instead of committing them to early.  Following this principle by the letter wouldn't even allow you to play the Italian because you move your bishop before developing the second knight.

Following those principles blindfolded won't automatically give you the better play. You've got to know when to deviate from them. That's @NikkiLikeChikki's point as well, I suppose.