Knowledge vs. Opening Theory. Who wins?

It is the common pratice nowadays, to isolate one's chess study to yards and yards of concrete opening analysis. This has become even more prevalent as immense chess databases have become available to everyone.

On the other hand, there is a school of thought that maintains that this is not the best way, and that it is more important to study and understand the overall fundamentals of position, tactics and endgames.

I have a unique perspective on these arguments, as, in my youth, I was primarily of the opening variation school, and only later, switched to the fundamentalist school.

It is possible to do alright with opening theory alone if you have the attributes of A. Being highly intelligent, and B.Having a good memory.

In my youth, I followed this praxis, playing tall on theory in such openings as the Sicilian Dragon, King's Indian, Ruy Lopez, Max Lange Attack....etc. With no essential knowledge of what chess was really about, I rose to the rank of Candidate Master OTB, and Master in Correspondence chess. So, it can be done.

However, when I reached my old age (I feel as old as Methusala on some days) I found that for various reasons I could no longer play this way. It was then that I turned to a true study of the game of chess, and all its aspects. This research eventually led me to develop my own opening theory based mostly on a solid fundamental knowledge of the game, and an emphasis of theme, motif and structure, rather than reems of "he plays 1, and I play 2, and he plays 3, and I play 4....". I am a much better player and student of the game for it. I found that my enjoyment of chess increased exponentially, as I could just sit down and "play the game", instead of trying to remember the latest wrinkle in opening XYZ.

My only regret is that I didn't do this sooner, so, with that in mind I exort all players (especially young players) to take up the gauntlet and really study the game of chess from all aspects.

Here is a reading list, and a place to start:

1. All of the "Excelling at...." series of books by Jacob Aagard.

2. "My System" by Aron Nimzowitsch.

3. "Aron Nimzowitsch, a Reappraisal", by Raymond Keene

4. "The System", by Hans Berliner

5. "Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy", by John Watson

6. "Questions of Modern Chess Theory", by Isaac Lipnitsky

7. "Lasker's Manual of Chess", by Emanuel Lasker

8. "Silman's Complete Endgame Course", by Jeremy Silman

When you are done with these, and are ready to cut your teeth on some interesting and sound systems, I recommend starting off the "beaten path", with

"The Final Theory of Chess", by Gary Danelishin

"Tiger and Dragon, a Complete Chess System", by Walter T. Downs

"The Bear, a Complete Chess System", by Walter T. Downs

Danelishin's work can be found in the download section:

http://www.chess.com/download/view/open-encyclopedia-of-chess-openings

and my two works, can be found in the download "Other" area at:

http://www.chess.com/download/view/chess-systems

I wish everyone the best of chess....

Thank you for the wonderful advice and recommendations. I learned to play chess as a child but never took it seriously as a critical thinking tool until very recently. I find studying style and and structure much more interesting than memorizing openings. I play the various openings, of course, but I like to have a reason to play a move other than simply going step-by-step.

Whomever has better knowledge of endgames will win. 

"It is possible to do alright with opening theory alone if you have the attributes of A. Being highly intelligent, and B.Having a good memory."

dang.

i would say i am biased towards openings but not opening theory. About 70% of my chess books are on openings yet i dont know theory past move eight in any opening (besides a few catalan lines which i dont play anymore)

That kind of blows my mind. I feel like I have to know pretty deep lines in my openings to get wins against strong opponents but I feel relatively worse than average at picking moves in a neutral position, so I feel like I tend to need every advantage I can get from the opening to compensate.

Interesting post from 10 years ago. I was the opposite 20 years ago by being an intuitive  attacker and stubborn end game player. We did  not have chess books in the ghetto lol.

Picking up the game again, engines, analysis and the information overload is amazing. I was actually encouraged to learn openings and theory which translates to positions that I can appreciate now. I have switched to a calmer game as a result. When you think of winning, material or positional advantages comes to mind but with modern technology, teaches you can also win by restricting your opponents and removing all counter play which is annoying.

Another example of engines influencing  play is racing the flank pawns up the board. 20 years ago, who would of thought h4, h5 and a4, a5 are normal moves? They call it the crab?

A world champion is opening up with b4.

These are reasons why I do not own a chess book at the moment.

It is all a matter of time. If you don't know the theory in an OTB game/match, you will spend a preposterous amount of time trying to come up with the correct plan and moves. And I believe that not everyone can do that — to actually find the schemes behind the very first moves and their key concept is no short of a miracle, at least for a club player averaging 2000.

Knowledge beats opening theory.

The most famous example: Marshall had analysed his novelty 8...d5 for years and then played it. Capablanca felt honour bound to accept the gambit.

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1095025

As for the book recommendations I disagree. The backbone of any chess book are annotated grandmaster games. IMHO one can do without any book and just study online annotated grandmaster games.

Yeah, that's how I used to feel, which is why I play stuff like alekhine's defense... you don't need too much theory, just a feel of the position.

You can get by with a logical grasp of the position, and "think your way through it", until you hit a certain level of play.

Eventually, though, theory becomes more and more crucial, especially the higher you get.

And theory doesn't just stop at openings. There are also theoretical pawn structures, theoretical piece placements, and theoretical important squares to control (depending on the position) that experienced masters know, and if you aren't aware of these, chances are you're going to maneuver incorrectly.