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

If you go for classical positions, you can play book moves without ever having seen them before. You can just find them yourself.

And unless you're playing someone many 100s of points stronger, you'll often get a reasonable position out of the opening.

poodle_noodle wrote: "If you go for classical positions, you can play book moves without ever having seen them before. You can just find them yourself. And unless you're playing someone many 100s of points stronger, you'll often get a reasonable position out of the opening."

"... 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)

It is interesting to read how different Capablanca and Lasker felt about the endgame. For Capa, it was the essence of the game, and for Lasker a mere addition (judging from the 5 hrs. he recommends for basic endings).

From time to time i find endgames interesting, but i still feel, that the easiest progress can be made when studying middlegames and openings (related to each other), including their tactical and strategical implications.

Because everyone is different, and everyone has different strengths, and weaknesses.  Im not saying openngs are not important, im just relating what i notice at the A level in regards to what loses a game.  And at Master level, openings become much more important, than at the A level.

I have lost game from being outplay in the opening.  But overall, my losses come from missing tactics, and blundering.

Learning Openings would be having a basic understanding of piece placement, and pawn structure asscoiated with an opening.

Opening Theory is when you know and understand an opening 20 moves deep.  

This is why i will never be that good, as i dont like studying openings that deeply.

The main reason I use Micheal De La Maza is he did  arrive to expert level tactics only; I look at some of his games and they are lacking some positional understanding. Micheal is good example a player with no talent and very low rating he studying tactics only and with hard work became expert level. He probably knew if he kept playing he probably will drop to 1900 and that is why he quit.

2 guys i know, study pretty much nothing but tactics.  They are both Expert level players.  And as soon as they get paired against anyone 2200+ they get destroyed.  

middle game strategy and endgame technique is pointless for most people when they keep getting mated in the opening.

At the 2200+ level i somewhat agree, but below that, its more tactics, and mistakes, than openings.  JMO...

http://www.chess.com/article/view/the-michael-de-la-maza-story
Apparently, he had studied openings

FishEyedFools wrote: "... At the 2200+ level i somewhat agree, but below that, its more tactics, and mistakes, than openings. JMO..."

"... 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)

"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)

hello

 @ kindaspongey, you seem sincere and in your way try to be helpful but posting FM to GMs quotes doesn't make it true; I have 2011 uscf rating and have played against all levels and my success against low rated players and even against experts is a lot time I am much better in tactics and endgame. Lets take a advance players A-class 1800 uscf I have a 70% score against them and a lot players never reach to A class. So I do believe tactics and endgame skills contributes to my success not opening

An interesting thought came to my mind:

Opening principles(centre control, piece development, castle) and strategy(rooks on open files, bishops on long diagonals, outpost for horse, stop opponent from castling, attack weak pawns) are enough to tackle symmetric openings (e4-e5 & d4-d5). But, knowledge of opening theory is required to tackle - 

a) asymmetric openings.

b) gambits (e4-e5 contains many gambits)

So, if one wants to avoid studying opening theory, then its better to play d4 and hope that opponent plays d5. But, queens pawn openings tend to be more positional (rather than tactical) compared to kings pawn openings. And in positional games, end games become the deciding factor mostly.

In short, players have two choices:

1) play tactical openings(asymmetric and/or gambits) and learn the related opening theory. 

2) play positional openings(symmetric without gambits) and learn end game technique.

Of course, exceptions always exist to the above normal trends. 

Micheal prove you don't need a trainer to get to expert level, and that is why NMs, FMs, IMs and GMs speak spitefully against Micheal because he prove that tactics alone will help you get stronger and improve your rating. A lot players talk about how to improve their game but their advice is wanting.

I can go to any fide rated tournament as a unrated and play in it and my first rating will be 1900 elo and maybe higher . Why? Because I know that tactics and endgame skills will contribute to my success, I can play third rate moves in the opeing and get a playable position and outplay them in the middle game or endgame.

<<Let me tell you one.My teacher got the IM  title without ever studying openings>>

Your teacher is probably lying to try to make a (bad) point. Also, what to one person is studying openings, to another is "getting a basic grounding".

Malarkey. In fact, I would bet money that you wouldn't break 1900 FIDE after your first 10 rated games.

In fact, you have a FIDE membership card. Why not try out your theory and let us know how you do. I'll wait. Well, I'll wait a few months.

I should be clear: I agree that studying openings isn't very important below about 1800 strength, and becomes very important only above ~2300 strength. But yureesystem places too much faith on his skills as a player from 20 years ago. If he were to try FIDE for the first time when he was 20 years younger, I'd agree with him.

The OP didn't say that the openings are meaningless. If you study tactics, you will find that tactics occur in the opening. You don't need to study opening theory to win in the opening, study tactics!

Here's an example from a game I played today. I was out of opening theory by about move 4. I'm sure there are games that have followed this path before, but that has nothing to do with theory and everything to do with tactics.

Did anyone claim that tactics and endgame skills do not contribute to your success? As for openings, it is perhaps worthwhile to think of the 1974 words of Paul Keres:

".... How should you open a chess game? There is no one correct method, no single course which all students must follow. ..."

http://www.chess.com/article/view/the-michael-de-la-maza-story
Apparently, he had studied openings.
Perhaps there are other explanations for the way some speak.
"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)