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

I've found my opening knowledge to be of great value even though i'm only 1500.  I have trap lines memorized that people fall into more often than you would think and on top of that it allows me to get significantly better positions out of the opening.  So I would say other stuff is probably more important to study, but in my case at least, studying openings has had nice results for me.  

yureesystem is not the only case of player that got strong focusing on tactics. Seems like a very good strategy.

I face 1500s and 1600s in this site and only in 1 out of 10 games, when I put the game on the engine, it looks like a "positional" win with the graphic slowly increasing on the winner side

9 out of 10 there's often 2 or more blunders from each side that drasticly changes the evaluation.

I don't know how much that counts between 1800s but until 1600, without a doubt, almost everygame is decided on tactics alone.

There are too many cliches about tactics deciding every non-professional game ... As I stated earlier, at my last two tournaments, I played 900-1200 level players, and there were very few “tactics” in any of my games until well into the middlegame (past move 15), but there were many “weak” moves (engine evaluation changes between 0.5 to 0.8 pawns) that eventually led to a collapse. I don’t consider these weak moves to be “tactics” because tactics servers usually require close to a 2-pawn change in the evaluation for the position to be considered a “tactic”, therefore training “tactics” doesn’t directly train one to avoid these weakening moves.

"... 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)

"I've been coaching titled players and teaching amateurs for a couple decades now."

 

Mr. Murakami, your picture makes you look like you in your early to mid-twenties!!

Playing white it is easy, minimum knowledge needed. With black it is not quite so simple. 

 

 

That's true black has to be a bit more cunning to win. Opening theory is another name for trying and learning. Black has to wait for an error.

 

Yeah, well you look like a despicable villain with lots of minions running around.

I feel like there are just too many possibilities and I don't have time to study openings; what if they don't reply as I expected? Or what if I am black and they try an opening I've never seen? My time is much better spent working on tactics. At least I can learn the basics of tactics

If opening theory means fight for the center, develop minor pieces first, castle ASAP, don't bring queen out too early, then I agree everyone should learn. I just can't see trying to learn a bunch of openings, unless you are a very advanced player. No matter how far you get, you will soon be out of your comfort zone against good players. 

No one is blaming anything. Please refrain from this red herring. The point is that openings do not affect results U2000 so they have little practical use. Now if you're some kind of amazing player with complete tactical mastery and never blunder and only lose because of positional junk then fine. You're the greatest player alive. Congrats. Because even GMs seem to miss tactics. Otherwise it's probably a lot more than getting outplayed in Karpovian style that keeps people U2000.

Another great quote that's true of chess at GM level where they put you in a lost position and seal the deal because they have mastery of the game. Not U2000 where people blow advantages all the time. You speak as if winning a lost position is an automatic win. So what if you get in a won position? You still have to calculate. Unless the opponent rolls over you're going to need tactics and calculation to win the game. It's semantics yes but it's a simple truth that can't be escaped. You can't win a chess game without tactics. You can have amazing positions and simply not be able to capitalize because of poor tactical ability. And that's the problem.

 

You can be amazing in the opening and fail simply to an easy tactic such as the one I missed in the OP. What then? After hundreds of posts I see that almost no one is talking about that position at all or how playing better in the opening was somehow supposed to help White win a won game that is supposedly a forced win. This happens all the time U2000. Someone leaves the book, both players are on their own and tactics occur. Because even the best laid plans need to be proven by tactical devices.

 

And this is the issue. You're more likely to win or lose due to a random tactic rather than some long and well played game by both sides. No one should ever just wait for blunders obviously. But they're coming one way or another.

And here is yet another great quote by another titled player. He does not advocate ignoring openings completely. However the obvious importance of tactics is emphasized:

[–]danielrensch 9 points 1 year ago 

What about something in between those extremes?

"... 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)
"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)

Is something only of value if it provides a comfort zone for the whole game against a good player?

"... 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's important to understand why this is so. It's simply that blundering may be more difficult in better positions. ..." - penandpaper0089

"... 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

Perhaps easier than playing in a "horrible" position?