... Micheal De La Masa ... was one of the few low rated player to go to expert level studying tactics only; ...
http://www.chess.com/article/view/the-michael-de-la-maza-story
Apparently, he had studied openings. Also, it is perhaps worthwhile to consider how long he played at the expert level.
... tactical studying is so essential to one growth as a player.
"Every now and then someone advances the idea that one may gain success in chess by using shortcuts. 'Chess is 99% tactics' - proclaims one expert, suggesting that strategic understanding is overrated; 'Improvement in chess is all about opening knowledge' - declares another. A third self-appointed authority asserts that a thorough knowledge of endings is the key to becoming a master; while his expert-friend is puzzled by the mere thought that a player can achieve anything at all without championing pawn structures.
To me, such statements seem futile. You can't hope to gain mastery of any subject by specializing in only parts of it. ..." - FM Amatzia Avni (2008)
... Micheal De La Masa ... was one of the few low rated player to go to expert level studying tactics only; ...
http://www.chess.com/article/view/the-michael-de-la-maza-story
Apparently, he had studied openings. Also, it is perhaps worthwhile to consider how long he played at the expert level.
One thing that doesn't really jibe about the Heisman article is the talk about de la Maza 'plateauing.' When de la Maza first started playing in July 1999, he was reading Silman, studying openings and playing in a huge number of OTB tournaments at classical time controls, and his rating went up. It would seem that studying openings and strategy, and playing regularly do help your rating rise, but that is hardly surprising.
... Why GMs and IMs might hate DeLa Maza. ...
Any dispute of specifics written by Silman?
"Mr. de la Maza ... tells you, over and over and over (page after page after page), what he’s going to do for you without teaching you anything." - IM Jeremy Silman
There are 16 pages before one gets to Chapter One Chess Vision Drills. Here, by the way, are some excerpts from an approximately page-long description of one drill.
"Use [these drills] if you feel that you are missing obvious opportunities or are taking too much time to find simple moves. ... start with the knight on a1 and move it to b1 in the shortest number of moves, ... physically hit the squares that the knight moves to, but do not move the knight itself. Once you have completed the a1-b1 circuit, move the knight from a1 to c1. ... After you have completed all of the circuits that start on a1 and go to all of the other squares on the board ..., move the knight to b1 and repeat the process. ... This drill will take half a day to complete. ... (64*63) pairs of squares ..." - Michael de la Maza
"on page 47 of his book: 'If you do not have access to a computer you should make every effort to get one. New computers can be purchased with a monitor for under $400 and used computers can be purchased with a monitor for under $200. The money you spend will be immediately returned to you when you start winning prizes at tournaments.'" - IM Jeremy Silman
"his sample game (one of his own in which he plays White), where he shows how one should think move by move:
'Opponent’s threat: No significant threats.
Decide move: 1.e4 of course! 1.e4 c5 Opponent’s threat: No significant threats, but watch out for …Qa5.
Decide move: No tactics. 2.Nf3 or 2.Nc3 are both reasonable. 2.Nf3 d6 Opponent’s threat: No significant threats.
Decide move: No tactics. 3.e5 is most shocking. Continue development with 3.Nc3. ...' ..." - IM Jeremy Silman
"... the 16 pages he devotes to reader’s praise. The title of this chapter is 'Success With Rapid Chess Improvement.'” - IM Jeremy Silman
http://dev.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/Rapid-Chess-Improvement-p3511.htm
And here is a GM John Nunn comment:
"... de la Maza ... recommends ... going through a set of 1000 tactcs problems seven times. One might imagine that a suitable set of 1000 positions would then be provided, but no, readers are advised to buy a piece of software ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)
JamesAgadir wrote: ... Larsen probably knew a lot about b3 ...
... It was impossible back then to analyse an opening so open ended like Nimzowitch Larsen's attack.What to analyse? ... The main advantage of a good player is his superior understanding.That prevents him from getting bad positions in an opening like 1.b3.
"... You must have a repertoire. ... when you get especially interested in one opening ... probably you can find a book about that opening alone. ... When a new move is played, add it in the margin of the book or on loose sheets of paper or in a little notebook. ..." - GM Bent Larsen (1974)
... The answer in the question how much an adult can improve , can't be given because unfortunately hardly 1 out of 1.000 is willing to do what it takes. ...
Is "improve" a yes-or-no thing or a matter of degree?
Dvoretsky and Yusupov only trained promising young players. ... I have the example of a woman that was a total beginner 5 years ago and she is close to 1800 FIDE today. ... She never studied any opening , ... She has never done any tactic training.Her only training in the club is basic checkmates at start , and basic endings later.That's it.Nothing else. ...
Dan Heisman (2001): "... Once you identify an opening you really like and wish to learn in more depth, then should you pick up a book on a particular opening or variation. Start with ones that explain the opening variations and are not just meant for advanced players. ..."
https://web.archive.org/web/20140626180930/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman06.pdf
... Chess is not openings , is not tactics and is not endgame.Chess is the ability to feel the position. ...
GM Artur Yusupov: "... This book is the first volume in a series of manuals designed for players who are building the foundations of their chess knowledge. The reader will receive the necessary basic knowledge in six areas of the game - tactcs, positional play, strategy, the calculation of variations, the opening and the endgame. ... To make the book entertaining and varied, I have mixed up these different areas, ..."
"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)
... the ability to feel the position ... is the difference between the good player and the bad player. ...
Is quality of play a matter of "good"-or-"bad" or a matter of degree?
"... The level at which one plays is governed by a number of vague and poorly understood factors. The first is what one might term 'natural talent'. ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)
Mikhail Chigorin played in his first tournaments at the age of 24, and went on to challenge for the world championship a couple of times. Yuri Shabanov played his first tournament games at age 26, and went on to become a grandmaster at age 66. Shabanov hit his peak rating of 2505 at age 64-5.
... Eventually chess is about making your mind work.Endgames do that , tactics do that but openings don't do that.Even if you learn basic plans and ideas , it's not enough.Because these plans don't play in auto pilot.They need an accuracy , a correct timing , things you won't have without further understanding.Things like " exchange that piece" or "push that pawn" to have increased chances for a favorable endgame come into play. ...
Don't those last thirty words involve "making your mind work"? Aren't they things that can be helped by looking at sample games in an opening book?
dannyhume wrote: "De la Maza showed that tactics and playing games alone will do it without endgame, strategy, or openings."
Dan Heisman wrote: "[de la Maza] studied openings, endgames, and other chess knowledge' information. ... Michael studied [IM Jeremy Silman's How to Reassess Your Chess] intently."
... Without good endgame technique how do you expect to find them or understand them? ...
Who is advocating neglect of endgame technique? And, of course, is endgame technique a matter of "good"-or-not or a matter of degree?
... Half(at least) of the games opporunities for a win go wasted.Amateurs have no idea how to convert a favorable middlegame to a winning endgame yet they are the ones claiming that they don't need endgames because they never need to play one!They can't even understand the irony.
Those who have the ability to take a small advantage and convert it to win via good middlegame and endgame technique have their reasons to study opening.That small advantage is for them a potential point.For all the rest , the small advantage is nothing.
Perhaps that is part of why one sees advice like:
"If you want to improve in classical ( slow ) chess you have to work on all 3 phases of the game . ..." - NM Reb (August 30, 2017)
Point out to me a Grandmaster or International Master that doesn't know a significant amount of opening knowledge and I'll eat my shoe, laces and all. If you want to become a strong chess player (I'd say 2200 or above), you must eventually learn it. That said, you specified under 2000. Let me tell you a story of three chess players. One was rated 1900, one 2200 and the other 2300+. The 1900 and 2300+ were very strong at tactics with the latter being good at some opening knowledge too. The 2200 was an openings beast. The 1900 and 2300 had pretty solid games. Sometimes the 1900 would win (though rarely) in tournament play against the 2300. Other times he drew. He lost, naturally, more than anything, but the games were close and competitive. The 2200 and 2300 had pretty competitive games as well, with the 2300 winning a bit more than the 2200. The 1900 got eviscerated by the 2200 almost every time they played each other. He only beat the 2200 once in a tournament game and only once or twice (I'd say once) got a draw. Within the first 10 moves of most of the games, the 2200 had already outplayed the 1900 and most of their games didn't last more than 20 moves.
I was the 1900 player. It was humiliating to get crushed so easily when others couldn't do that to me and it's because I had very little opening knowledge. The lesson here is that, while tactics are very important for players of all levels, understanding the opening is just as important. At higher levels of play, it's probably the most important thing. If tactics were, Nakamura would be world champion, not Carlsen. In essence, even though you can get by without opening theory, you're limiting yourself and will never have a shot at being truly strong in chess without it. It's like having a surgeon who knows all of the human anatomy but doesn't understand how to use a scalpel.
As a USCF A player, i can tell you that opening knowledge/theory is way down on the totum pole regarding what loses you a game.
1. Tactics.
2. Blunders.
3. Lack of middlegame plan.
4. Lack of endgame knowledge.
5. Openings.
I think you have to look at your own games, and decide for yourself where you are making your mistakes. If you make a lot of mistakes in the openings, study openings. If you make a lot of tactical blunders, study tactics.
The player who understand opening principles and he is a beast in tactics and endgame can play any opening with proficiency because he can calculate better and his evaluation is more accurate than his opponent who only concentrates on opening.
Can anyone expect to quickly satisfy the yureesystem standard for beastliness in tactics and the endgame? What happens when facing an opponent who doesn't "only concentrate on opening"?