Low rated players on Chess.com should study openings!

As a lower rated player, who is interested in the opening phase of chess, I have often read the following statement in this Form:  At your level you should not be studying openings, you should just play by applying Opening Principles!

These statements always remind me of the following old saying:

Cleverness alone is sure to come off very badly against cleverness and knowledge combined. 

During my games here at chess.com I have noticed the following:

1. Almost everyone plays an opening and most play the more popular book openings.
2. How many moves of an opening are played during a game is a function of:
   1. The Opening
   2. The amount of time selected for the game.
   3. The people playing the game.
3. Some players have a good understanding of the opening and the resulting middle game (including common traps) for the openings they routinely play. Another way to say this is they have knowledge of the common tactics that are likely to arise and are therefore less likely to make tactical errors.

Players can obtain their opening knowledge in a number of ways including:

1. Natural ability
2. From playing the same opening over and over.
3. Learning from the people they play against.
4. From studying

Some naturally talented players naturally play the opening correctly.  These are the people who say things like I never studied openings and I am rated 1700 or so.  However, if you take a peek at their games you will see that they are in fact playing book openings, well into each game.  If you are naturally talented at chess and play the opening correctly with having never studied them, you are not a lower rated player.  If you do not naturally play the opening correctly, even at lower levels it is possible that you will:

1. Lose material during the opening
2. Have a poor middle game because you did not play the opening correctly
3. Not play the same opening consistently and therefore never gain knowledge of the associated tactics and resulting middle game.
4. Risk learning to play a questionable openings such as attacking once the queen and bishop are developed.

This is why those who do not naturally play the opening correctly (lower rated players) should study openings.  This is why studying openings will improve their play. 

Can you study an opening and not at the same time also be studying opening principles?

The people who say they never studied openings and are above 1700 in blitz or rapid are lying.    Of course, I expect this forum to be filled with people claiming to be self taught without watching videos, reading books or observing other players.  

Before you start pontificating, you should see if your opening principles can take your rapid rating above 936. 

This is a pretty controversial subject around here. Just about everyone agrees that one should start by learning principles. Some people think that one should at first be satisfied with reading a few sentences on the subject, but I think that one is more likely to have some degree of comfort in the opening if one reads something like the exposition in Discovering Chess Openings by GM John Emms (2006).

"... For beginning players, [Discovering Chess Openings] will offer an opportunity to start out on the right foot and really get a feel for what is happening on the board. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2006)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627114655/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen91.pdf

Perhaps the purpose could be served by reading the discussion of opening play in some general beginner book. The real disagreement arises on the question of when one should go on to the next step. I myself think that it is something of a mistake to think in terms of a next step. Better, in my opinion, to think of opening knowledge as gradually accumulating. One first experiments with ideas and slowly learns more about some of them. Somewhat detailed suggestions are provided by Moret in his My-First-Chess-Opening-Repertoire books.

https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/9033.pdf

https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/9050.pdf

https://chessbookreviews.wordpress.com/tag/vincent-moret/

Opening Repertoire: 1 e4 is a similar sort of book.

https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/7819.pdf

Openings for Amateurs by Pete Tamburro (2014) combines explanation of principles with starting opening suggestions. Of necessity, his opening descriptions are less detailed (than those of Moret) because he tried to offer choices to the reader and give some indication of how a player might choose what to try.
http://kenilworthian.blogspot.com/2014/05/review-of-pete-tamburros-openings-for.html
https://chessbookreviews.wordpress.com/tag/openings-for-amateurs/
https://www.mongoosepress.com/catalog/excerpts/openings_amateurs.pdf
Some players may not like the idea of relying on the limited selection of an author. It is a pretty daunting project to try to learn a little bit about a lot of openings, but, if one wants more freedom to make choices, it would make sense to look at a book like Yasser Seirawan's Winning Chess Openings.

https://web.archive.org/web/20140627132508/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen173.pdf

While reading such a book, don't forget that the primary purpose is to get help with making choices. Once one has chosen openings, I again think that there is wide agreement that the way to start is by playing over sample games. Some of us think that it can be useful to use books like First Steps: 1 e4 e5 and First Steps: Queen's Gambit

https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/7790.pdf

https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/7652.pdf

as sources of games with explanations intended for those just starting to learn about an opening. Be sure to try to use the openings in games in between sessions of learning. Most of the time, one faces a position with no knowledge of a specific move indicated in a book. One has to accept that as part of chess, and think of opening knowledge as a sometimes helpful aid. After a game, it makes sense to try to look up the moves in a book and see if it has some indication of how one might have played better in the opening. Many opening books are part explanation and part reference material. The reference material is included in the text with the idea that one mostly skips it on a first reading, and looks at an individual item when it applies to a game that one has just played. Resist the temptation to try to turn a book into a mass memorization project. There are many important subjects that one should not neglect because of too much time on opening study.
https://www.chess.com/article/view/learning-an-opening-to-memorize-or-understand
https://www.chess.com/article/view/3-ways-to-learn-new-openings

https://www.chess.com/article/view/how-to-understand-openings

"... Overall, I would advise most players to stick to a fairly limited range of openings, and not to worry about learning too much by heart. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2008)

"... 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)
"... If the book contains illustrative games, it is worth playing these over first ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)
"... the average player only needs to know a limited amount about the openings he plays. Providing he understands the main aims of the opening, a few typical plans and a handful of basic variations, that is enough. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2008)
"... Everyman Chess has started a new series aimed at those who want to understand the basics of an opening, i.e., the not-yet-so-strong players. ... I imagine [there] will be a long series based on the premise of bringing the basic ideas of an opening to the reader through plenty of introductory text, game annotations, hints, plans and much more. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2002)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627055734/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen38.pdf
"The way I suggest you study this book is to play through the main games once, relatively quickly, and then start playing the variation in actual games. Playing an opening in real games is of vital importance - without this kind of live practice it is impossible to get a 'feel' for the kind of game it leads to. There is time enough later for involvement with the details, after playing your games it is good to look up the line." - GM Nigel Davies (2005)

"... there will come a time, whether on move two or move twenty, when your knowledge of theory runs out and you have to decide what to do on your own. ... sometimes you will leave theory first, sometimes your opponent. ... It happens in every well-contested GM game at some point, usually a very significant point. ..." - IM John Cox (2006)

"... Review each of your games, identifying opening (and other) mistakes with the goal of not repeatedly making the same mistake. ... It is especially critical not to continually fall into opening traps – or even lines that result in difficult positions ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2007)

https://web.archive.org/web/20140627062646/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman81.pdf

I've never studied openings.

"... everyone is different, so what works for one person may likely fail with another ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2002)

https://web.archive.org/web/20140627084053/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman19.pdf

you are also only play the computer on the weakest level, so often that chess.com left a personal message to you in the introduction of the new computers. 

To the OP...

Study whatever, and however you want.  As long as youre having fun, and learning something, it doesnt matter.

Study openings. I studied openings when I was an 800. I bought the largest collection of openings in one book that i could find, then read it through, cover to cover, like a novel. Then I gained 900 points. well, i also studied tactics, but the openings were important. also, now i have a pretty slick reputation in openings in multiple states.

Yes. Both are true.

"... Overall, I would advise most players to stick to a fairly limited range of openings, and not to worry about learning too much by heart. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2008)

"... the average player only needs to know a limited amount about the openings he plays. Providing he understands the main aims of the opening, a few typical plans and a handful of basic variations, that is enough. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2008)

You make a lot of true points. But if the question is how do I best improve most efficiently(?) then swallowing your pride and losing online games while improving concrete analysis (e.g., tactics and endgames) is probably the best way to go with a minimal amount of "opening" study (limited to what you want to play consistently and potentially learn from). 

Online games mean nothing. I played in a 1200-1400 tournament on this site several years ago and I won among my group in the first round (6 wins, 2 losses)... I remember this because I had the games computer-analyzed on this site and what did the analysis reveal?  I made 38 opening "inaccuracies" in 8 games... my 1200-1400 level opponents, however, collectively made ZERO(!!!!!!)  My first mistake on average was move 9, compared to my opponents on move 12.  But I blundered nearly 1 less per game than my opponents, always later in the game.  Now in OTB chess, I have had 1 game go to move 8 and another to move 10 perfectly in theory.  The rest have all sorts of "learning opportunities." 

Online games mean very little and can be frustrating... people can look up opening theory or dinkle with an analysis board for hours and then you think you are not getting better because of the opening, yet they claim they figured out some book-move. Let it go. Work on your "skills", as DeirdreSkye might say.   

Now if by studying openings, you mean supplementing analytic study with a good conceptual book on the stuff you play and looking up your own inaccuracies, so be it ... but even then I think those who focus more on the concrete analytical part will gain faster, simply because it provides the basis for future understanding strategy and openings (you understand the "why" part of these more abstract subjects, so can learn and remember it better in novel situations). 

Actually I have found that playing totally made up openings levels the playing field down to who is the better chess player. 

OK. I keep saying this and don't want to be thought to be a spammer. 

Try "Live960' chess, at least once a day. The pieces are placed almost at random - you can only win by applying basic chess principles.

To find it, go to Play Chess and then the small chess board.

To IMBacon

In post #7 you said “Starting out studying openings is not the correct way to go.” Concerning this statement I have the following questions:

1. Are you saying that studying only openings is not the way to go or that including opening studies in your improvement plan is not correct?
2. What do you believe is the way to go?

By now, perhaps many of us could recite this in our sleep.

After every game you play, check your moves vs a database and don't switch openings often.

I wouldn't really call that studying, I'd say it's just part of playing.

It's the beginners who buy a book on the Najdorf and learn lines 30 moves deep that are wasting their time.