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

There are opening books that try to help a player see why an assessment is +/-, but perhaps the more important point concerns help to avoid going very wrong very quicklly.

"... In the middlegame and especially the endgame you can get a long way through relying on general principles and the calculation of variations; in the opening you can go very wrong very quickly if you don't know what ideas have worked and what haven't in the past. It has taken hundreds of years of trial and error by great minds like Alekhine and, in our day, Kasparov to reach our current knowledge of the openings. ..." - GM Neil McDonald (2001)

"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)

+-, +=, -=, -+, unclear, with compensation, etc., don't have the time now to access character map,

basically mean nothing: a position is either won for white, won for black, or a draw.

That simply shows how deep into the Stone Age current GMs and commentators dwell.

Most GM's become GM's when they're in their teens and twenties. How much knowledge of openings, end games, theories etc. did they have to become GM's ?- probably zero. Only lower level players study all that stuff thinking it will help them. Not surprising that the majority are still lower level. It's like someone thinking they can become a tennis pro by watching Roger Federer over and over - it's not going to happen.  

 High rated Kids and teens tend to be some of the more theoretically prepared players in practice.

There are 3 types of players at OTB tournaments that have their openings prepared:

1. The titled players.

2. The young gifted players.

3. The low rated players that think memorizing lines of opening theory is the way to go.  

I actually don't disagree with much that has been said pro and con in this thread.  Of course, at some point, one has to judge whether their chess understanding and improvement would be better served by spending time studying opening plans or by drilling tactics (or going over annotated games or playing more OTB games or learning endgames or positional play, etc).  For instance, how do you study themes and plans?  I thought I had a nice compromise ... I would pick a simple opening (Scandinavian), pick a repertoire (3...Qa5) and input early move orders/branches into a database for future reference using as many modern resources available (by S.Kasparov, Wahls, Bauer, Houska, and Emms), while reading the text comments.  What ended up happening?  I spent nearly 2 months doing this at the cost of drilling other areas where I also needed improvement.  It was a rabbit-hole that was difficult to stop once started and I am not sure how valuable it was at my current level.  In two games of ten OTB in the last several months, it may have helped early on when I kind of knew how not to blunder on early 2nd and 3rd move variations by White, but no matter... I certainly didn't play the rest of those games the way the authors I read would have approved.  This 2-month exercise was just for my response to 1.e4.  How much longer would it take for me to do the same with a "simple" repertoire as Black against d4, c4, or the flank openings? As white?  I could spend a year or more doing this just to gather a "simple" repertoire with only a superficial read of themes and plans.  But would that better serve me than drilling concrete specifics like tactics and endgames?  Maybe if my tactics and endgames were far more advanced out of proportion to my opening knowledge? I don't know. And I just don't see how one can study themes and plans without going through variations.  And if you don't go through them thoroughly and try to memorize them, then you forget them and crudely try to replicate "plans" that have evolved over maybe a century or longer from the work of past and recent geniuses. 

In the games I played OTB, the pattern was the same... once we were out of theory, and I ruled out tactics (offensive and defensive) to the best of my ability, I just calculated until I saw something "strategic" that may be of value ("no tactics here offensively or defensively... uhhh ... this sequence might lead to a half-open file here for my rook, but maybe my king needs to be safer first, or maybe that will be terrible for my queenside?").  In other words, once I was out of theory I was completely on my own and nobody here thinks that a player at my level memorizing MORE theory is a better solution than working fundamentals (unless I am misinterpreting other comments in this thread). 

Most players in the 1800-2200 range will have openings prepared. Winging it is reserved for online blitz.

Chess is a complicated game, and, for any one person, there are lots of possibilities as to what may be going wrong. For example, some players may have trouble because of too much of a focus on blitz. I certainly do not know what your problems are. Consequently, it must be kept in mind that I am only making a guess when I suggest paying attention to this quote:

"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)

You can stop trying to memorize variations without discontinuing opening work altogether. I think that playing through games "relatively quickly" is a way to "study themes and plans". Accept that you are going to be "crudely" trying "to replicate 'plans'", and think in terms of gradual improvement. One stretch of studying is not going to solve your opening problems, and it certainly is not going to enable you to avoid being "completely on" your "own". You could forget the database (for now) and confine your opening work to playing through sample games from time to time, and paying attention to the last twelve words of the Davies quote. After a game, you want to try to figure out what went wrong. If you made a mistake in the opening, a book may help you with that, and it may be worth a little time to think about how you could try to do better next time. However, it seems like a good bet that there were other problems in your games, and you need to try to identify them. Your games can be your guide as to what to study.

Do you guys ever do computer analysis after your games? I do. One thing I have noticed is that the majority of inaccuracies and mistakes happen in the middlegame and endgame. What it is expected is that blunders happen a lot especially with time trouble.

                  With this Observation I suppose a player can get by with little opening theory and get's his living in the middlegame. I mean sometimes we find ourselves in worse position or slightly worse position but still manage to get a draw or sometimes get a win. The opposite situation is also true where we have the advantage in the middlegame but couldn't convert or worse manage to lose a winning game.

                   In relation to this, could this be the reason that top GM's delegate the opening prep to their seconds and continue to work in the other areas of their game? 

The reason most people keep searching for the perfect opening is tht when they lose they invariably blame the opening rather than their lack of chess skills.

   So learn the caro kann, lose a few, call it a stupid opening then move onto the next one. 

A bad driver can buy a new car but he will still be a bad driver

 That is not absolute truth if you replace the word " Perfect " opening with the " suitable ". A lot of people has problems to realize exactly what opening positions like to play or in the process, they actually understand that the opening has chosen for to play it gives the opponent some options to divert the transition to the middlegame in positions they don't like to play.

One of these players between others was Bobby Fischer and Gary Kasparov when they finally realized that the Gruenfeld defense can pose to them a positional struggle cant solve against players like Petrosian and Karpov. 

An opening defense can transpose to many things due to the fact that Whites have always the choice of the set up at their disposal.

The search of the perfect opening is actually the search of the pawn structures you want to play and the familiarity of ideas on how to deploy pieces in such way to contest the opponent. After that comes the technical part of the game where you have to understand how easy is for you to adapt in the solutions you need to find. 

For example, someone who wants space and dynamic positions to maneuver and apply pressure will try to open the position earlier if its possible, someone who likes more closed and static positions plays differently.

Its not the opening that makes the difference but the way you want and like to play the opening phase.

No, we don't need any theory. Just play moves that look good. b4, g4 and then a4 and h4. 

I think we shouldn't put any effort into our chess skills. Just play 10 bullet games a day and you will improve in no time. Middlegame theory, endgame theory who needs theories checkmate is our goal.

@Jmurakami

Thanks for the comment i didn't realize the engine they use here has some issues. Anyways I use my own engine and older version too because I mostly understand it's evaluation.

That is interesting, Karpov is good example to use, his opening repertoire were very narrow, as white he played 1.e4 most of the time  and black Nimzo-Indian, Queen's Gambit Declined, Ruy Lopez, Caro Kann and Sicilian; very conservative opening repertoire with very little risk of losing. Karpov's positional and endgame skills allow him to wins games that most GM couldn't at the time. It come always to this do you have other skills to help you win games after the opening, model games and good annotation is not enough if you lack other chess skills once you have superior position; can you calculate well, how good is your evaluation judgment, can you spot that killer move that will end the game, can you attack well, can you explore that tiny advantage to a win and can you squeeze micro endgame advantage to a win, can you judge correctly the minor pieces exchanges { is exchanging my bishop for the knight a good move and why?, is it better to not exchange any minor pieces because doing so will allow my opponent to draw easier { for example I exchange my bishop and keep my rook but this will diminished my advantage greatly if I keep my bishop and rook his defense is tedious}, all this that I mention require chess knowledge and that is why opening is not enough. The amateur that spend his time in deep in theoretical study like the Sicilian Najdorf , how can he develop other essential chess skills when all his time spend on keeping up on all Najdorf theories.

After 1987-88 Karpov switched to 1.d4 and never played 1.e4 again. He also quoted the decision like this: After 1.d4 there is potential for a richer play.

Kasparov's Scheveningen proved a tough nut to crack.

Before Kasparov, Karpov was very successful playing 1.e4 and as white Karpov  was winning many games in Scheveningen using the Keres variation 6.g4; especiaaly his beautiful win against GM Hort. I am big fan of Karpov. One of my favorite match was Karpov versus Polugavesky, Karpov' 6.Be2 made it weapon against the Najdorf variation, his games seem simple but were very complex and deep, there is a lot beauty in Karpov positional play.

 @J.Murakami, that game you share was a good illustration how to take advantage poor moves and what pieces to exchange and keep; this good judgment in your part in deciding to go for opposite color bishop. I really enjoy this game a lot.

Oh man, what a game.  That could've been me as White.  Doubled pawns and a backward pawn?  Sign me up!  But yeah, the dynamic of center control, two bishops, and control of more space more than compensates for the pawn structure illusory defects.

What's the theory about?

         So yeah, possibly pointless for opening. Because if you start opening yourself, the opponent might close and attack you. At that rate, we need to get options of what we are going to do. Attacking or defending. Most of the time, don't ever put your queen out.

Why I can't I release my Queen early?

       Yea, you can't even in early middle game. I would do that in the middle middle-game. You understand what I'm getting? If not, the queen can't be developed early. If necessary, you can. If someone takes your black pawn 2. exd4, yes you can take it with you queen. 2... Qxd4