Opening Theory Is Pointless For Most People That Will Ever Play. Why Bother?

We can't say that any of them have poor positional or tactical play.

No. But tactics typically lead to the game's win condition and openings do not. It's not until a certain level is reached that openings actually affect the game in a relevant way. This is the way I see the game at any rate. Some may disagree but I don't see the openings as very important at all.

"... A remark like 'games are rarely decided in the opening' does not really do justice to the issue. ... even if an initial opening advantage gets spoiled by subsequent mistakes, this doesn't render it meaningless. In the long run, having the advantage out of the opening will bring you better results. Maybe this warning against the study of openings especially focuses on 'merely learning moves'. But almost all opening books and DVD's give ample attention to general plans and developing schemes, typical tactics, whole games, and so on. ..." - IM Willy Hendriks (2012)

"It is important for club players to build up a suitable opening repertoire." - GM Artur Yusupov (2010)

That would be because in order to be a good player you need both.  At last, we are finally making some progress here.

If you don't believe that most games U2000 are decided by blunders but rather by good opening play then fine man... It couldn't be further from the truth though. Familiarity is useless when the game becomes something you're not familiar with which is inevitable.

Since you like quotes:

GM Magnus Carlsen when asked about what is important to breaking the 2000 barrier quotes:

"Studying tactics, I would say. Up to that level, most games are still decided by someone hanging a piece...or blundering a checkmate - haha"


But there's more:

"Until you are at least a high Class A player: Your first name is 'Tactics', your middle name is 'Tactics', and your last name is 'Tactics'." - FM Ken Smith

“Most class players are not triangulating each other to death”. - FM John Jacobs

The most striking however is this one:

"Thirty years ago, Teichmann said that chess is 99% tactics. And despite the enormous strides of chess theory since then, his percentage can only be reduced a few points

  Many amateurs think that master games are usually decided by some deeply-laid plan covering all possibilities for at least ten moves.. That is what they conceive the grand strategy of tournaments to be. Actually, however, strategical considerations, while quite important, do not cover a range or depth at all comparable to the popular notion. Very often, in fact, sound strategy can dispense with seeing ahead at all, except in a negative or trivial sense. And it is still true that most games, even between the greatest of the great, are decided by tactics or combinations which have little or nothing to do with the fundamental structure of the game". - GM Reuben Fine

"... A remark like 'games are rarely decided in the opening' does not really do justice to the issue. ... even if an initial opening advantage gets spoiled by subsequent mistakes, this doesn't render it meaningless. In the long run, having the advantage out of the opening will bring you better results. Maybe this warning against the study of openings especially focuses on 'merely learning moves'. But almost all opening books and DVD's give ample attention to general plans and developing schemes, typical tactics, whole games, and so on. ..." - IM Willy Hendriks (2012)

Is anyone arguing in favor of not learning tactics?

Are you asserting that if I end up with a +2.00 position out of the opening and blunder a piece in the middlegame that the opening was actually meaningful in reaching the game's end state which is likely a loss for me? Are you saying that the chances of blundering being low would offset the FACT that most games U2000 are lost due to blunders?

"... Take the opening books away and [engines] play badly in the opening. ... Perhaps they get into horrible positions or even positionally lost ones. ..." - penandpaper0089
Perhaps that sort of thing happens for humans, too?

"... blundering may be more difficult in better positions. ..." - penandpaper0089 (~42 minutes ago)

And easier in worse positions?

Of course it does! But there's a stark difference between being in a losing position and the game being over. Because regardless of the ugliness of the position there may well be tactical problems to solve. Against GMs you're probably done but U2000 it may still be anyone's game.

I'll put it this way: the probability can't be all that relevant if blunders are the leading cause of loses and not the opening. Perhaps players are getting familiar positions. It isn't stopping them from blundering, whatever the chances may be.

I would not use the word, "offset", but, if it is impotant to be concerned about blunders, why wouldn't it be desirable to reduce the chances of blundering?

 Is "stopping" likely to be accomplished if the chances are only reduced ?

Are one's chances better if one has managed to avoid a losing position?

I don't think it actually matters. Sure you can play stuff like the Colle or London and try to get positions that are quiet as possible. I like to play the English to avoid tactics in the opening which also means less concrete positions and opening theory. But all this really does is push the blunders from say move 5 to move 15 or something. And a blunder on move 15 can be just as devastating as one on move 5. Sure there is also the point that the opponent could also blunder before you do because they aren't any more sure of what to do than you are. But it's not really something that you should consistent results from imo. It's just something extra that you may or may not benefit from every now and then. But I'd rather benefit from good play and leave probability or luck to work on it's own.

As they say in Golf, " you can't win the tournament on the first day, but you can lose it".  How many times have you butchered the opening and won the game?