In most cases the stronger player always wins the game either between amateurs or between chess professionals. In the games between amateurs the stronger player usually wins with tactics resulting from a good position or through precise calculation or a blunder by his opponent or a combination of factors. Now between professionals the stronger player usually wins because of good endgame skills or a better position in the endgame that was a result of a good middlegame decision or a blunder from his opponent due to pressure or time trouble or a combination of other factors.
Now where does opening theory factors in all of these? Like it or not chess players have favorite openings and most have limited opening repertoire. In tournaments where players usually know each other preparing against an opponent is much easier when you can predict his choice of variations (which is not that many) as against a player with an unusually broad opening repertoire. It is not an uncommon knowledge for instance that an attacking tactical player usually is drawn into a positional middlegame where his opponent knows what to do. Knowledge in opening theory plus understanding will lead to a broad opening repertoire which will make it more difficult for your opponent to prepare against you in future tournaments or games.
By the way saying that opening theory is garbage because the old theory is refuted by the latest chess engines is just bullshit. Opening preparation with chess engines started with Kasparov. I remember Kramnik calling the computer his silicon friend. They used fritz back then, now its Stockfish or Komodo. If you are building your opening repertoire with the aid of chess engines then you are in the modern era of opening theory, but still in the realm of opening theory.
Above tactic is extremely obvious, should be seen in less than a second.
Of course, it is fully meaningless to study any theory at all. Simply because
most of the state-of-the-art theory is wrong. For example, modern theory(top GMs included)
still don't know that the Dutch is almost unplayable, because after 1.d4 f5, white has 2. d5!,
with quite some advantage.
Similarly, in the English Opening, after 1.c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6, white gets big advanatge with
3. e4! You know what, modern theoretical handbooks even don't mention this strong move.
They would prefer the much weaker 3. e3, which exhibits very good probabilities of getting an inferior or even lost game, if black manages to push e5-e4(getting a very favourable structure similar to the
French Winawer with reversed colours).
State-of-the-art theory 50 years ago was quite different from what it is now. And state-of-the-art theory 50 years from now will also be quite different.
So that, of course, studying theory is a complete waste of time.
I would analyse games(including openings) with Stockfish instead.
Hello, Ray Gordon...
Thats who i initially thought it was too. But i do not think it is Ray Gordon. Now if this person starts posting "annonymous" wins from other unnamed sites, then we will know.