Magnus Carlsen not using standard chess openings?

I ve read, in many posts on this forum, that Magnus Carlsen doesnt use normal chess openings.  So i went on chessgames.com to check it out.  I didnt see any games  where hes not using a standard chess openings?  

Depends what you consider standard. He prefers not to play the deeply analysed main lines.

if hes not playing deeply analysed main lines then that would suggest that learning chess openings or deep main lines is really nothing but a waste of time for all levels of play?  Im new to playing chess and have figured out that i tend to do better when i dont use learned openings and just make moves based on my oppenents moves.  

That makes no sense whatsoever. The conclusion ("it's a waste of time for all levels of play") definitely does not follow from the premise ("Carlsen doesn't play deeply analyzed main lines").

It might be the case that Carlsen's strategy [ignoring that he does sometimes play deeply analyzed main lines (much more so as Black)] is ideal for him but not even for most other super GMs. It might be the case that it's a good strategy for many strong players, but not for amateurs. And there are many other ways that the premise might be true while the conclusion is false.

This is one non-standard opening he uses (and so do I now).

Carlsen logically uses opening principles. As long as he doesn't do anything rash, he is free to do anything he wants as long as he gets easy development and fighting chances.

That's how I play

lol @ you thinking a superGM goes to a tournament without opening preparation.

He's just prepared in less common lines, it's not that he's figuring out the opening at the board.

A Maroczy's Bind is a standard opening that has been studied in depth for years. It is only that particular position that was previously unknown. Carlson has plenty of opening preperation that is above all of our heads. He is not playing the grob or anything, just finding plenty of interesting positions that have not been played before.

He plays only deeply analyzed lines but they are usually sidelines. Don't forget that he is puppy of Kasparov...

Carlsen trusts his ability to outplay his opponents from an even or slightly worse position. Other players may try to gain an opening advantage by doing heavy preparation. Both are sensible strategies. Important is your observation that you are doing better without opening preparation, because that is something that might work at master level  (at least masters tell us so), but not for beginners or intermediate players.

You can bet that Carlsen knows almost everything that's in books. It's just that at the very top it's not usually enough - in order to be succesfull in highly theoretical lines you have to push theory forwards and find unexplored ideas or improvements over published theory. It's maybe there where he's not as good or - to be more precise - doesn't work as hard as some other guys (Anand, Kramnik, Topalov, Leko etc.). Carlsen prefers instead to play lines with less theoretical load just to try and get playable and complex positions that suit him.

By the way, the above by no means implies that you should be doing any heavy opening study. For a relative beginner your aproach sounds entirely reasonable. When you get stronger you may want to begin to do some more serious opening study but it must be said that most amateurs spend far too much energy on opening. Then again it might be simply because many people actually find studying openings fun.

I think that not playing standard openings is the way to go for all levels.  Especially for begineers because your forced to think every move instead of a memorized openings.  Plus it makes for some exciting games in my opinion.  

People writing chess opening books tend to assume club players are mavricks that don't like heavy duty theory anyway. Personally find like classical main line positions, and quite enjoy learning a bit theory. Need to find what works for self, and not be a sheep copying what most other people do.

As counter example, Yermolinsky in his book "Road to chess improvement" stated he was always happy for significantly lower rated players to play something unusual early, because instead of playing against grandmaster x moves was playing the lower rated player earlier.

Also in recent candidates tournament the more experimental play in opening didn't work out so well even for top players. For example 10Nb3 in Carlson v Ivanchuck, and the Na5 and benko like plan in Svidler v Radjabov. So maybe you have to choose right setting for experimental play, for example as white after 1Nf3 d5 2g3 later playing something unusual won;t hurt  you so much.

Yup Carlsen also prepares in the opening, that's why in the candidates he have GM Neilsen to help him with the opening preparation.

Carlsen is knowledgable in opening, heck at very young age of 12, he plays many deep theoretical lines in the opening.

The premise is merely based on speculation.  The fact that a person doesn't play certain lines does not address whether that person has knowledge of said lines.  It would be a strange thing to find a GM who does not have a relatively large amount of knowledge (in comparrison to amateurs) on opening theory being the elite players they are.

That being said, there are good reasons for learning openings as amateurs.

In my opinion, it is a common mistake masters make to say that amateurs should not study openings.  The fact of the matter is that amateurs DO and WILL study openings no matter what masters advise.  There is at least one reason we do this (similar to why masters do it): to get a better position out of the opening.  

If you are not studying openings, you leave yourself at a disadvantage against other players who do study opening theory, period.  Could you achieve a moderate amount of equality with your opponent out of the opening if you simply play sensible moves?  Most of the time, probably.  If you're willing to accept losing every so often (sometimes it can seem frequent) because you didn't know about a trap or strategy that occurs in the first 20 or so moves, then by all means, don't study the opening.  For those of us who became tired of losing in such situations, we study opening theory.  To each his own.

as you see from his games , carlsen uses to play closed games so, the opening .  but somehow he is more precise than anyone 

Hi, am ayman am a new friend

He can use blunt openings simply because he is the best and can get something even from them. But, sometimes, he goes too far, for example in Sinquefield, he tried an ackward opening against Caruana ( 1.e4 e5 2.Bc4?!) and he was completely crushed. But it doesn´t happen very frequently.

What is wrong with 2. Bc4? Carlsen also plays poker.