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

I think that's great what you did.  

I would only suggest that for adults who are busy (jobs, family, etc.) and don't have hours, the key is making one's learning time efficient.  And so, e.g., learning the principles you just mentioned (where are the good squares pieces belong on), and a few others (control the center, develop pieces quickly) can speed up one's learning tremendously, as opposed to going through MCO and figuring it out that way.

A timewise efficient way to do this would be to spend some time learning opening principles and then play games through a good annotated game collection (Chernev's Logical Chess is often the first one recommended, and I would recommend McDonald's Chess: The Art of Logical Thinking as a great second book)

Another method (actually both methods should be used) would be to play games, and analyze them -- particularly comparing the openings you played with MCO (or Chess.com Opening Explorer).  Heisman recommends playing slow chess (which he defines as 30 minutes or more) *or* blitz (say 5 minutes), using the blitz as a way to efficiently play a lot of games and looking up openings afterwards.

As for learning openings themselves, he recommends the above methods as well as learning a "tabiya" for some openings that you end up playing -- the tabiyas don't take long to learn.

(But, again: for those under 1600, particularly those under 1400, it's tactics which causes most of the losses)

Such learning can yield terrific insights, I agree. But I also believe that such opening study isn't necessary to play the opening competently.

One can reach a decent level of opening play by following a few simple opening guidelines:

- place a pawn to the center

- develop your kingside pieces to purposeful squares

- support your center pawn with another pawn, or with pieces (or exchange it away, if supporting it isn't possible)

- castle early

- develop your queenside pieces to purposeful squares

All the while, keep an eye out for basic tactics (stuff like pins, forks, skewers, etc ...)

If you follow these simple ideas, you should be able to reach a playable middle-game in most openings. And that's all most players should be expected to do: reach a middle-game that's playable.

Not a "superior" or "engine-approved" middle-game ... but just one that's playable.

Ideally, both players should have some central pawns and pieces developed - ideally on logical squares. Both players (hopefully) are castled.

Now: play chess. And watch out for simple tactics, along the way.

Theory should only come into play (in my opinion) when players reach a level where they begin wanting more from their openings - securing more long-term advantages, for example. Or if a player has become quite familiar with a particular pattern of development, and they'd like to dive a little further, to learn about common middle-game strategies that arise from such positions.

If a player is beginning to think about these kinds of things, then they're probably ready to start diving into theory.

To illustrate my point: a player might ask: "Where should I develop my king bishop here?"

"Should I develop it to b5? Or to c4? Or to e2? Or should I play g3, and develop the bishop to g2? I don't know what theory is best here."

I would say: "Don't worry about theory here. Any of those moves is fine. I would play any one of them. They would each accomplish the same goal of developing your bishop. The only move I would avoid is Bd3 here, as it would block your d-pawn, and you'll probably want to move that pawn later."

On the other hand you could say: Because  you're acquainted with  the theory you know that each of those moves are fine. If you didn't knew the theory, you'd waste time figuring out which move would be the best. Especially 3.g3  would be hard to figure out by yourself without any knowledge of the underlying theory.

Edit: Sorry, of course it's 3.g3, not 4.g3.

Keep it simple...When you're not sure what to do always develop, improve the activity of your pieces, and control the center.

@IMKeto: You've left out Bb5. Is that a stupid opening move?

I dont know...is it?

There are superior moves, and inferior moves, yes ...

But for the sake of practicality, most players don't need to worry about "best" moves.

"Good enough" moves will usually suffice.

Bc4 is arguably better than Be2, due to the fact that it places the bishop on a more active diagonal. But a player could still play Be2 without concern, even against a titled master. Because it's still "good enough" to play.

For example:

White has done nothing fancy. Just developing pieces and castling. But that's good enough to play on.

It's a game now. No theory needed. No bells and whistles. Just simple, clean development. Game on.

Yes, I see your point in this example! Thanks!

Kudos to you, you didn't fell into my trap!

It was difficult at first to see through your witty sarcasm, but i pushed on.

I won a game recently with that move.

I guess it was a total victory. Win ...check...win quick..check. 3 moves.  Cheers.

Could be quicker in 1 move thoiugh.

How sad that people are so happy to win quick.

I must be a sycophant...I like a good loss to learn.

Whats wins now? *pound the table like a little kid* 

indeed. Great topic : what should one play after vis a vis 1. e4 e6 2. Nf3 Nc6? (although the poster actually asked where one should place their KB) I ask in return, wouldn't it be nice if you knew what opening you would like to play? The trendy Italian game 3. Bc4 notably a Giuoco Piano (3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6) perhaps? Maybe get funky with the Evan's (3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4)? Then again, what if black draws you into a Two Knights (3. Bc4 Nf6) ? Options are 4. d3, 4

4. d4, 4. Ng5-they're all playable but BOPs can't guide one after the fourth move in a set opening.

My point is, in any hobby you take up~whether it be Martial Arts, Cars, Card games, eSports~isn't it one's due diligence (common sense too!) to at least study somethings first instead of just winging it ? "Winging it" in the sense of blindly going into it on basic guidelines alone. That's my take anyways. Happy Holidays guys & gals✌🏽

It's not exactly about winging it - it's about learning that the opening is, primarily, about developing your pieces.

Using principles, a player can learn how to properly develop their pieces and reach a playable middle-game - and in the process, realize that they don't need to know theory to do so.

You mentioned that white might not be able to go past move 4 in the Two Knights. I bet I can reach move 15 on principles alone.

I'll play white. I'll let Stockfish play black:

We made it to move 17 against Stockfish (well into the middle-game), using just simple, logical developing principles.

Can theory be helpful? Absolutely. But too many players, these days, feel that learning theory is required - and they feel as if they aren't capable of playing a single opening move unless they have studied it beforehand.

The moment the game strays into new territory, these players feel a spurt of panic. "Oh no! I haven't studied this line! Now I don't know what to do!"

They begin to feel as if they're already lost.

That feeling of worry wouldn't exist, if the player was comfortable enough with opening principles, and trusted enough in themselves to find logical developing moves ...

You can play 1.nf3 and then just "wing it" from there, depending on what black does next. But it's not so much "winging it" - it's just "playing chess."

My main point is not to argue against theory - but to argue that, for the majority of players, theory isn't necessary. I make this point because so many players feel crippled by the mere thought of playing openings, as they've come to believe that one must learn theory, and that to play a single non-theory move is "wrong".

But that's not chess; that's just memorization, and being afraid of finding your own moves.

@Stil1, what a terrific post!  Thanks.

I'd like to put a different spin on things (while completely agreeing with you)

Suppose a person first learns some opening principles.  OK, what next?  Given that we don't have infinite time to study, suppose we had to choose between learning some specific openings, or practicing tactics.  What to do?

I think what many are missing here is there are many components to being a decent chess player: two of them are (a) knowledge; and (b) skills.  Many would argue that for anyone under 1600, and certainly anyone U1400, skills must take precedence (after some basic knowledge, like opening principles).  Getting to move 6 perfectly in an opening doesn't help you if you're going to lose material on a tactic on move 12.  

The essential skills I'm talking about are calculation, board vision, and being able to see tactics (for you and your opponent) when they arise.  One needs all three in order to do the most basic essential thing on your next move, which is "is my move safe?" and "is this the best move I can find?"

(Dan Heisman likes to estimate that being a good chess player is 2/3 skills and 1/3 knowledge; while elsewhere I think he guesstimated that 95% of chess books and videos are about improving knowledge, not skills).