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

It's relative to you. My chess prowess or knowledge is not relegated by my opponent's rating or even by my own rating. It shouldn't be my opinion is more or less substantial than yours because of an standardized rating. It should be "eval-ed" by content methinks.

indeed. When you say DH covers things none of them do, I believe it's also relative to you~he covers things YOU are interested in, what is relatable to YOU and that is cool. He has a niche that you follow. Not everybody. Unless you'd extensively surveyed everyone beforehand, I would check myself and not press send.

A matter of fact, have you had the privilege of teaching others and introducing people to the Game? just asking. I've mentored a few (not hundreds heh) and you know, all of them knew the BOPs, basic tactics, fundamental positional themes, rudimentary endgame strategy but in a practical game in real-time vs a live opponent of the same skill level, they still needed more guidance, experience. Especially in the Opening. A common lack. They could come up with combos, mating attacks, grind it out with a pawn up.

But how to open (as white) or to receive (as black) was always a common confusion. They got along with what they knew and played but since they often won with it, they became abit oblivious to why it is they won with the opening. No post game follow up on better moves. When they lost, more attributed to their own oversight rather than their opponent played better moves in the opening.

Anyways. sorry about the little detour but my point, my opinion, is still the same~you can't get by on just BOPs alone if you're interested in the game. Part of the enjoyment is learning Openings, at any level. Yes, even learning the Sicilian @U900, U1000, U1200 etc etc. Rome wasn't built in a day, and one shouldn't expect to master any opening however complex, dull, trendy, obscure in a certain timespan; it's just about the journey, reading a fine book, putting it down and picking up where you left off because you WANT to know what's going to happen next. Not, "oh this opening is too much for you don't even try". Puleeze. If we said to our kids, you shouldn't try to play chess til you're old enough to understand it, we wouldn't have had many prodigies if any. Hope you get MY gist✌🏽

Encouragement, nourishing, sharing from and to one another (not only analzing) to me is more relatable, more enriching to many of us than, "yeah, DH said this...". A great, prolific writer who probably most of us will never facetime with, chat with, or debate in any chess forum or whatever. Hope you get the gist✌🏽I think I'm finally done heh. Peace 🙏🏼

"you can't get by on just BOPs alone" <-- nobody here has said that, certainly I haven't.  I'd encourage anybody reading this to use the test I mentioned previously: look at your last 10 losses and try to figure out why you lost.  The answer for 90%+ of those losses, for pretty much any U1400 player, will be because they missed a tactic, hung a piece, etc.  It's not because the opening left your opponent with a better pawn structure than you.

And especially for a U1400 player -- knowing openings well will only get you to move 6 or 8 or 10 -- then what?  And that's assuming your opponent knows the book moves for that many moves.

Further, I've never ever suggested that a person shouldn't learn opening X because "it's too hard for your level."   In fact, I've heard many a coach (including my own) say: that I should/could play "*any* opening that is sound and that you enjoy and are comfortable with"

If anybody wants to study openings -- by all means, go for it.  If you're curious, go learn.  Chess is supposed to be fun.  But if you want to improve your level and win more games, the biggest bang for the buck is to learn tactics and learn to see them, and to learn to visualize and calculate and count over the board.  That's where most games for U1600 are won and lost.

indeed. Again, I'm corrected. Cool. I extend my apologies if I misunderstood your implied reply to ME (since it seems there's just you n I going back n forth last few posts) before I retaliate, heh.😉

The main point is,

No one is correct or wrong. Different players have different needs and there is no "one size fits all" approach to chess.

Supposing someone rated, say just a 100 pts below beats you: would you say it was because (1) he was outright a better player than you despite his lower rating (2) outplayed you in the opening and gradually built his intiative through the middlegame and so on to the endgame (3) must've been a chess prodigy with a team of coaches (4) it was you and only your overconfidence that you lost the thread of the game and turnovers (missed tactics, blundered outright, spilled your coffee etc) (5) he must be cheating?

indeed. Agreed eric, but our conversation is alittle more specific than all that.

[edit on post #178] And ok, what did Dan Heisman say about that? I gotta know🤔

The reason I promote opening principles is because, quite often, your opponent is not going to be playing theory.

So learning theory, especially for beginning players, is generally not a productive use of one's time.

Sure, you can explore the main lines in the Advance French, if you find it interesting and instructive. (Or if you're at an intermediate/advanced level, where opening theory does begin to surface in your games.)

But if you try to play the French Defense, and your opponents are playing openings like this:

Then what now? They're not following the lines you read in a book.

Believe it or not, many players would panic here. "Oh no! I haven't studied my 1.a4 theory!"

Some of these players lose trust in their own abilities to play opening moves, and feel that they can only play well if they've studied the lines beforehand.

This is why I protest against theory - because it's very discouraging to see players who have been convinced (often by other players) that they have to know theory in order to play chess.

These same players get terrified of the idea of finding an opening move on their own. They get afraid of using their brain to think and find their own logical opening moves, and will instead rush to an opening book, or database, whenever they find themselves uncertain.

This is why learning opening principles can be extremely useful. If you learn (or are taught) how to make logical, principled moves (moves that encourage strong centralization of your pawns and pieces) you won't have to wonder what to do when your opponent does something strange - you'll always have a set of principles to guide you.

(Besides, most opening theory is principled. So if you play on principle, quite often you're playing the best moves in the position.)

@stil1 that's a pretty extreme example, but it depends on your target audience, I suppose. And studying some theory will expose you to common themes in the opening.

This is a game (10-minute) that I watched recently, between two 300-rated players:

It went on past that, but I think stopping there is enough to get the general idea.

This is what is meant when players say that openings are not important - at least not at lower levels.

It isn't theory that went wrong, in the above game - it was basic tactics (and a lack of looking ahead) that dictated the game. For both players.

And neither player seemed to be aware of all the moves that they were missing ... including simple captures and recaptures.

It's also clear that neither player had a decent grasp of basic opening principles, either ... although the main issue, there, was fundamental tactics.

This is one of the reasons that I support a "backwards" approach to learning chess (https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/on-learning-chess-backwards). Players shouldn't be learning openings (in my opinion) until they've reached a certain level of play.

Dumping opening theory on the above two players would not be the most helpful solution ...

The only thing which matters is good moves, whether that "good move" follows opening principles or not is completely irrelevant

But often a player who is a beginner, or just-past beginner, doesn't know what the good moves are.  We're not engines when we play.  Sometimes on move 4 or 5 there might be 3, 4, or 5 moves that look good.  So what do we do?  The answer: play the one that follows opening principles.

@Stil1 -- I'm 100% in agreement with you here.

And for others that say: well, I'm way above 300 so this example doesn't apply to me, my answer is as follows:

Even if you're 600 or 900 or 1200, the vast majority of your losses are because you missed a tactic (either that you could have played or, more likely, that you allowed your opponent to play).  (Proof: go back and look at your own games!)  Knowing "opening theory" will get you to a certain move, and then what?

It's not that you shouldn't study openings -- it's that you only have a finite time to study and you should study what will get you the most improvement.  In other words, be efficient.  Improving players will get the biggest bang for their buck by recognizing tactics over the board.  That's why so many coaches, etc., say "tactics tactics tactics".  (Heck, even Nepo missed a tactic in Game 9!).  Learning openings well, playing perfectly for the first 10 moves, doesn't help you if you fall for a tactic on move 11.

You are right and that's where calculation and visualizing a few moves ahead comes into play. I am by no means a master but atleast at my rating (around 1750-1800) i can feel that the only thing which matters is the quality of the moves.

For example look at my most recent game. Look from move ..5 d5 onwards. White played a very logical sequence where Bxd5 Qxd5 he gets to activate his dark squared bishop with d3 and he defends the knight as well... my queen is out in the open in the opening phase... looks good for white right?
But no, Bxd5 was actually a losing move and not because of some awesome tactic but because of the activity of the pieces. I can play Bf5 developing my bishop and attacking his knight, after he moves his knight i can play Qe6 and then do a quick king side attack(caslted queen side).
Instead of Bxd5 he should have played Bd3 breaking all opening principles and moving the same piece twice, obstructing his central pawns.. idea is that when he takes the kngiht back he has a direct threat of Bxc6 and then winning my pawn on e5... so now i have to react instead..

My point is, opening principles don't matter at all. The only thing which matters is good moves which can be found by practicing looking ahead and visualization. I am working on it since i am just an average player but since i started working on just finding good moves instead of opening principles my rating has increased