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

I think the key to this problem is to define what 'studying' openings mean? I think differing opinions on this topic are partly due to what 'studying' means to different people. For some, it means knowing 25 moves and 5 different lines. For others, knowing the name of the opening is also a study. In short, there are different levels of 'study' possibilities. So, the question should not be if openings should be studied. Rather, the questions to ask are:

What openings to study? And how in-depth should the study be?

I realize now that Kindaspongey is a special kind of troll. 

He is trying an experiment to see if a person with absolutely no knowledge of how to play chess (he has never played a single game on this site) can appear to be an expert by inserting quotes that seem to have something to do with the topic at hand. 

He can even appear to challenge other people's understanding of chess by the strategic use of quotes. He just needs to be careful to avoid certain words. If a thread is about helping beginners, he just needs to be careful not to mention beginners in his quotes. Then, when he's challenged about a quote that isn't about beginners, he can pretend that he never was talking about beginners.

He can talk about opening theory by subtly changing the conversation to "repertoires" and then pretend that nobody was actually talking about theory at all. 

When he does want to make a statement, he phrases it in the form of a question, so he can never be proven wrong. 

Sartre called that sort of argumentation "mauvais fois". Colloquially, we can say he's a disingenuous troll.

Did you get this from a ouija board? Whatever the source, it is incorrect.

Is there a place where this thread came to be "about helping beginners"?

"... Why are players U2000? ... It's tactics. ..." - penandpaper0089 (~13 days ago)

To take the previous post as an example, what is disingenuous about attempting to see whether or not you want to identify a place where this thread came to be "about helping beginners"?

Is it a change of subect to bring up the Yusupov quote after a comment about the level at which openings actually affect the game in a relevant way?

Do you have a quote of me pretending that nobody was actually talking about theory at all?

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/can-someone-play-without-openings

Really? What opening books do you read that teach forks, pins and skewers or double attacks and how to find them? Do your opening books keep you from blundering or is it simply that you can see the tactics well enough that you simply don't throw away pieces? I doubt we can say that it is your knowledge of the Najdorf that keeps you from blundering pieces can we?

Sure opening books do go into middlegame themes but they don't keep you from blundering - tactics being the deciding factor in games U2000. And what about positions that are nothing like the opening? Knowledge of the Slav became irrelevant in Petrosian's game for example once we reached an isolated pawn game. But the point is simply that it is tactics that decide games for most and not the opening. You can play the opening perfectly if you want to. That doesn't mean anything if you just blunder in the middlegame.

Just look at the position I posted in the English earlier. Can we say that I missed Qg4+ winning material because I don't understand the English opening well enough? I think it had nothing to do with that and everything to do with simply missing hanging pieces and checks. In fact, simply looking for checks for no apparent reason (something you're supposed to do) might have led to seeing the winning attack anyway.

My impression is that JMurakami was referring to "the tactical execution" of a plan?

"... 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 there any reason to doubt that JMurakami (or anyone else) thinks of "forks, pins and skewers or double attacks" as the sort of thing one learns about in a book about tactics?

Does an opening book have to prevent blunders in order to be useful?

"... blundering may be more difficult in better positions. ..." - penandpaper0089

"... 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. ..." - IM Willy Hendriks (2012)

Did anyone claim that opening books are helpful for all positions?

"... 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?

Exactly

It's not about what "seems" important but what is. Looking at the game for what it is, you can't win a chess game without tactics. Most games U2000 are lost due to blunders, not bad opening play of some kind or due to Karpovian understanding of the opening by the opponent. Without tactics winning is virtually impossible. Checkmate, the game's win condition requires tactics to actually execute. Therefore openings for most people are simply not important. Can they be useful? Of course. Learning about R+3p endings when you're 1200 can be useful too. Practically useless, but maybe you get something out of it every blue moon.

When does the opening actually become important? When games are no longer decided by blunders. Why? Because what you did in the opening actually leads to great positions that you utilize well and don't just throw away. And since quotes are being spammed for some random reason:

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"

I'm not telling anyone what to do. I just don't find openings practically useful at all. if you're blundering then the opening is not helping you in getting to the game's win condition and has little practical use.

I know a kid that was told 2 years ago by his coach "You will be a Master in 2 years"

Well here we are 2 years later, and this same kid hovers around 1800.  

Why?  Because he has convicned himself that he needs to study openings so ridiulously deep his game is suffering.  After each loss he gives the same 2 excuses:

"I mixed up my opening theory"

"I forgot my openng theory"

Why is he losing games?  Because of tactics.  

He wont listen, his dad wont listen.  

Bottom line IMO: 

Saying you don't need openings is as silly as saying openings are the most important. Players who wish to keep improving need to give serious study to all areas. People who say you only need this, or don't need that, are dealing in gimmicks. There are no gimmicks to improvement (in chess or any other complex skill).

No there aren't. But I see no point in studying something that has little to no effect on my results. When and if the time comes when that changes then I'll act accordingly. Now isn't that time.

I've reached the 2200 level without ever actually studying an opening. Not in any formal, structured sense, anyway.

My main form of studying has been trial and error. Play a game. If I lose badly in the opening, I'll glance back at the game, find where I went wrong, and tell myself, "Huh. Better remember not to do something like that next time." Then I'll move on and play another game. Rinse and repeat.

This is probably something that'll make chess difficult for me once I reach, say, the 2300 level or so—where opponents start to get really booked up. But up until that point, I agree with you: most players don't really need to study openings below master level.

This is also what I recommend for opening study. Over time you can build a nice repertoire for yourself.