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

What do you guys mean by opening theory?

Isn't there a difference between learning theory and learning openings?

You can study openings in terms of general principles and plans - development, king safety, control of the centre, pawn structure, minority attack, trading off a fianchettoed bishop, attacking pawn chains at the base, etc.

'Opening theory' is more every move that has ever been played or recommended by GMs, along with the evaluations of some moves' strength (! vs ?), and which side has the advantage in the resulting positions (+- = -+).  Encyclopedias such as Nick De Firmian's Modern Chess Openings are supposed to give you a survey of 'theory.'

Thx There have been a lot of discussions about this topic. But I always wonder why isn't it possible to both. And I'm little confused about the terms.

For example I play the Four Knights opening with white 1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. Nc3 Nf6 5. d3 d6

Now I have a variety of moves to make and when I began to use that opening I didn't know what move was best or what the best plan was. So I played a wide range of moves like Bg5, Be3, h3, Ne2, Qd2. Sometimes I castled long another time I castled short. Some games I lost some games I won. 

Sometimes I followed the best moves without knowing it. Another time I chosed the wrong plan or move.

I analyzed my games. Later I looked at some GM games.

By looking at GM games I'm basically studying theory aren't I? Because I'm looking at moves that are perhaps the best in this position. Why is studying theory considered bad by so many people. I heard that a lot in the chess club as well. But looking GM-Games is also studying theory. 

When I'm looking at GM-games with the Four knights game I enjoy the game but I also try to understand the moves played. 

What is wrong about reading a book e.g. about the four knights variation? I mean after I played some games in my opening why shouldn't look up what GM play to get some inspiration for some new moves. It shouldn't be that bad if you try to understand what the moves do what the ideas behind the moves are. It's not like I'm neglecting the endgame or something but the opening is also important I think. I just want to try new moves and not play the same moves everytime.

So I'm a little confused because what is right or wrong? Everybody has such different opinions on that topic. My question would be why isn't it possible to study both the opening and the theory along with everything else?

Is there reason to believe that everyone can satisfy the DeirdreSkye standard for "sensible" without looking at an examination of an opening?

@Sai I agree. That's what I was trying to say(with too many words. Why not play the first moves according to theory and let say after the first 7-10 moves find moves on your own. If you're successful or not doesn't matter. Because your experience in the position will enable you to improve and find good moves and eventually the best moves. This could be theory moves or your "own" theory.

I play chess because it is fun and winning is nice but not my ultimate goal. In my chess club it always annoys me when someone say I should play this or that opening. For example recently many people recommend the London System to me but I'm an 1. e4 player. 

Also switching openings doesn't win me any games.

Of course I lose sometimes but that doesn't mean I have to give up my opening. I like e4 positions.

What percentage of "amateurs" do you feel you know?

Whatever one calls it, there seems to be an attitude that it is reasonable to give some attention to openings.

"... 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)
"... 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. ..." - Dan Heisman (2001)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140626180930/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman06.pdf
"... To begin with, only study the main lines ... you can easily fill in the unusual lines later. ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)
"... I feel that the main reasons to buy an opening book are to give a good overview of the opening, and to explain general plans and ideas. ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)
"... If the book contains illustrative games, it is worth playing these over first ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)
"... 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)
"... For inexperienced players, I think the model that bases opening discussions on more or less complete games that are fully annotated, though with a main focus on the opening and early middlegame, is the ideal. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2010)
"... Everyman Chess has started a new series aimed at those who want to understand the basics of an opening, i.e., the not-yet-so-strong players. ... I imagine [there] will be a long series based on the premise of bringing the basic ideas of an opening to the reader through plenty of introductory text, game annotations, hints, plans and much more. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2002)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627055734/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen38.pdf
"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)

"... 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. ..." - Dan Heisman (2001)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140626180930/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman06.pdf

@kindaspongey thx for the links. What's that site your using I mean the wayback machine. How does it work? Is it some kind of search engine?

Aren't there quite a few opening books that are mainly collections of GM games for this or that opening? Perhaps we can agree that it is reasonable to use such books.

"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)

Do you see much argument here for the neglect of endgame study? I guess I have to admit that, at the beginning, we did see:

"... All this stuff about openings and middlegames and even endgames seems pointless. ... It's hard to see how anything but tactics is worth working on. Everything else just seems to require the most basic study ..." - penandpaper0089

Once again, the standard sort of questions seem to me to be appropriate. Is understanding an opening a yes-or-no thing or a matter of degree? Is studying the endgame a yes-or-no thing or a matter of degree?

Do either of the quotes use the word, "useless"? Do either of the quotes refer to a necessity to "master 'everything else'"? By the way, in the beginning of Averbakh's Chess Endings Essential Knowledge, I found:
"I conceived the idea of writing a popular booklet devoted to the endgame back in the early 1950s, when I was working on an encyclopaedic reference work intended for players of high standard. Out of the mass of information on the endgame, I thought it was important to select the minimum which any chess enthusiast should know in order to handle competently the concluding phase of the game. It turned out that it was not necessary to know such a great deal."

Also:

"... 'Chess Fundamentals' ... does not deal so minutely as this book will with the things that beginners need to know. ..." - from Capablanca's Primer of Chess

There was indeed some endgame material, but also:

"... The whole structure of the game may be the result of the first few moves. For the sake of experience and practice it may be well to vary the openings, but for the sake of efficiency it might be better to stick to one single opening for the attack, and one single opening or method of development for the defence. This system may be followed until the one opening in question has been mastered. Then the player may take up a new opening, and thus gradually reach the point where he feels familiar with half a dozen different openings. Half a dozen different openings, well learned, are about all the average player needs to obtain good results. ..." - from Capablanca's Primer of Chess

cappablanco wrote: @kindaspongey thx for the links. What's that site your using I mean the wayback machine. How does it work? Is it some kind of search engine?

https://web.archive.org/web/20140714190611/http://www.chesscafe.com/archives/archives.htm

I was there before the era of computers - in fact, I wrote the first animated adventure game, Castles of Darkness, for home computers - for the Apple II. You can find me in the Giant List of Classic Game Programmers.

Before tactics trainers there were puzzle books.  Endgame studies were done to generate a better understanding of how the pieces cooperate with each other and does help with tactics.  The endgame became and is the strongest part of my game because of extensive study, principally through Reuben Fine's book.

cappoblanco wrote: "My question would be why isn't it possible to study both the opening and the theory along with everything else?"

That sounds good to me.

https://web.archive.org/ is the Internet Archive.  It stores old versions of websites that are no longer around.  It also has a lot of books and audio recordings that are in the public domain.

I used to believe and practice that chess is 99.99% tactics. I was able to get upto 1550 max with that philosophy. I was stuck between 1350-1550 rating for about an year. Then, I decided to work on some opening theory and immediately my rating breached 1600 for the first time. Then, 1700. Then, 1800. 

Moral of the story is: Chess is 99% tactics. But, you can't ignore opening theory. Studying opening is not just about gaining advantage in the openings, rather studying opening is about reaching familiar middle games. 

(Having said all the above, one can still ignore openings till 1400 rating.)

Ashvapathi wrote: "... one can still ignore openings till 1400 rating. ..."

"... For beginning players, [Discovering Chess Openings by John Emms] will offer an opportunity to start out on the right foot and really get a feel for what is happening on the board. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2006) https://web.archive.org/web/20140627114655/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen91.pdf