Importance of knowing openings?

Okay. So I've been playing chess on and off for a few years -- I consider myself a "casual player." I know certain strategies and to try to control the center of the board and things like that. I've never really learned openings, however. How important is it to know specific openings? Are they so important that they make or break the game and separate the masters from the novices, or can one get by without memorizing patterns, simply by being cautious and watching what the opponent is doing?

Knowing openings means you don't have to spend lots of time trying to understand your opponents moves, since you've already done your homework ahead of time. It also means you understand the general plans for both white and black, the themes, and any traps. Not knowing openings will generally mean that you get an inferior position to work with in the middle game, or you have to spend a lot of your clock time (assuming its a tournament) figuring out in a couple hours what people have spent days/weeks/months studying and writing books on. However, in my opinion, it's best to just understand the general theory of most openings, and not try to memorize too much. Memorization can play tricks on you in a game, and leave you not really understanding why it is you're making those moves.

No, but it helps to understand your "repetoire".  If you play chess you have one.  It's the moves you like to play.

Go read some about them.  Go see how the masters deal with it.  It will improve your game.

But no, if you want to improve your game most as a casual player, practice tactics.  It is "losing" chess rather than being beat, that is the most common problem for the casual player.   

if you are being honest about where you stand-- it doesn't seem important to learn anything more about the opening.   if you get through the openings without losing pieces or getting them stuck..and still lose... you are probably weak at understanding tactics.

one problem I sometimes see in beginners is that they play a good opening until the opponent plays something tricky and they fall for traps.

 

this is again lack of tactical awareness.   also you can learn a good bit of tactics AND openings if you study traps.  so learning how common traps work seems like a good idea

Depends on who you're playing. Against opponents of the same (fairly weak) skill level, knowing a few dozen opening lines isn't a big deal... how often will your novice opponent play into one of your "known" lines?

As the skill level goes up, the need to book up a bit also increases.

Understanding is more important than learning lines off by heart.  As someone who plays 1...a6 as black, have had over the board opponents "prepare" for me by learning some line that gives a theoretical advantge aginst my  a6 defence.

   However as soon as they out of their preparation i beat them because a theoretical advantage means nothing if you dont understand how to play the position

1...a6, lol, cant help but laugh. 

Karpov got defeated with it tho, so I guess I can also fall victim of a weak queenside.

It is not 100% sound but in practical play that matters little. Does not fare so well in correspondence games, but over the board it fine.  Theory is biased against it, for example one publication gave a position as bad for black, but in the Kan section of the same book there was an indentical position which the Author reckoned was fine for black.

 

 

Opening databases most of the time suggest trash after 20 moves or so depending on the opening and how much it has been analyzed.

"... I feel that the main reasons to buy an opening book are to give a good overview of the opening, and to explain general plans and ideas. ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)