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

Is anyone advocating that players ignore "tactics and calculation"?

"... 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

Is anyone advocating that players not emphasize tactics?

@J.Murakami : The higher rated we become than I will agree opening study is a must; an expert better have a sound opening repertoire.I see from my contemporaries that some make it to 2200 uscf but within a few months go back to 2100 uscf; Why? I believe there is two factors, they need more work on tactics and they are weak in the endgame, strong endgame skill= strong positional play, endgame skills gives a players better judgment to what pieces to keep and what to exchange. An expert has a better chance of beating a fide master 2300 if his tactic, attacking skills and endgame skills is superb but his opening is only fair ; I have seen it many time; the only time this is not true is among the 2400 elo master.

Is anyone here advising against tactical study and endgame study?

"Yes, you can easily become a master. All you need to do is some serious, focused work on your play.
That 'chess is 99% tactics and blah-blah' thing is crap. Chess is several things (opening, endgame, middlegame strategy, positional play, tactics, psychology, time management...) which should be treated properly as a whole. getting just one element of lay and working exclusively on it is of very doubtful value, and at worst it may well turn out being a waste of time." - IM pfren (August 21, 2017)

You're missing the whole point of the thread. So I'll make it very plain:

The opening is irrelevant if you blunder whatever there was to gain from it later. It's as simple as that. All the plans in the world come to naught if when it's time to prove it with tactics and calculation you cannot. Checkmate is impossible without tactics. It's also completely possible to lose due to simple tactical oversights regardless of the position on the board. A pretty knight on d5 does not simply fulfill the game's win condition. Tactics do. You look at my games and see poor opening play but ignore the simple fact that it is poor tactical ability that decides them and not some terrible understanding of plans in the opening. It's as clear as day.

We can try and flip it around and say there are no tactics in a sound position. Unfortunately no one U2000 plays that well consistently so it's a moot point. We should try obviously. But it doesn't always work out so well.

Maybe you just didn't read it because spongey is spamming and I really don't want to block the guy but I still have no answer as to how playing the opening better would have allowed me to not miss a free piece.

I think the best analogy is: openings for a chess player are like cooking recipes for a chef. Can someone become a chef simply by learning a few 'cooking principles'? No! Any chef has to learn some cooking recipes. Of course, each chef will then change those recipes to suit the tastes of his audience. That ability to adapt comes from experience and skills. Each recipe has it's typical ideas and methods. By knowing these ideas, a chef will be able to prepare better dishes. But, at the same time, can someone become a good chef simply by memorising a recipe? Of course not! A chef still needs to be able to cook. He needs to be able to have firm grounding in cooking. Tactics in chess is like basic cooking(like boiling, frying, baking, cutting...etc). Tactics forms the basis for everything else in chess. Yet, just by knowing tactics, you can't win games just as you can't cook good dishes just by knowing basic cooking. You have to learn a few recipes. And learning recipes does not mean memorising the recipe but rather understanding the typical plans, methods and ideas of that recipe. And then a good cook improvises on the recipe based on his needs. He perhaps can even invent new recipes based on the ideas and plans he has learnt. The same applies to openings.

it's ya boy onion

This would be believable if the opening allowed you to remember every position you ever play in your entire life down to the king and pawn ending. But it doesn't. Sooner or later you will reach a position you've never seen before regardless of how well both players play the game. You will be on your own and you'll have to do your own work. Hence GMs are always playing less popular openings in simuls. By simply getting opponents in unfamiliar positions early, they make mistakes earlier and can end their games faster. But a blunder on move 35 can be just as decisive as one on move 5.

And this is the problem. Tactical skill is at work at all times. Opening knowledge is not. I'm not sure why you are saying that by following a plan you'll always know what to do but that's just false. Even GMs joke about not knowing what's going on.

I really don't know what you're getting at. All I saw was that Black blundered a pawn. And then White blundered a rook. Perhaps the middlegame was played well. That's not even my concern. The point is that White blundered a rook in broad daylight despite it. Maybe 9.Nc3 is bad. Ok sure. It's not losing or anything and Black is Ok. Again this is fine and is to be expected. And it's the exact kind of position I'm referring to. You're unlikely to find this position in any opening book. You have to think on your own and find a plan. And you have to calculate. After all ...Nb4 and ...Nf6+...Bb4 are threats in the position. maybe White is better here. But he still has to prove it in the face of tactical threats in the position. Whatever plan he chooses has to not lose to those simple threats.

You don't need an opening book to see that the pawn on e4 can no longer be protected by pawns or that ...Nb4 is a threat, that Black has a lead in development, the f-line and threats against the e-pawn. Luckily it wasn't decisive. But losing the rook was. So again I don't see what good the opening was in this game for White. Not losing and seeing the right tactics seemed to be all that was required to win.

"... 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?

Is anyone advocating that players ignore "tactics and calculation"?

Really good article, by the way.

Is anyone here trying to "say there are no tactics in a sound position"?

Dont bother,dont rave.

Has anyone claimed that playing the opening better would have allowed you to not miss a free piece?

Attempts have been made to remind you of this:

"... 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?

Is it better to try to avoid doing one's own work in a horrible position?

I agree with you. Even weaker players would profit of investing a little more time to learn openings. I guess strong players like to say that opening is not important because they love to play against people without any idea how to play the first 10 to 12 moves.

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