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

Some expert achieve 2200 uscf and drop back to 2100; why?, tactics and endgame skill are low par against masters.

I going with my experiences, I played a very 2300 uscf and outplay him in the opening and in the early middlegame I had a plus and slowing he started to outplay me and steer it to a rook and pawn endgame; he had a king, king rook pawn and king bishop pawn and rook and I had a rook and king and miss many draws chances and lost. So opening doesn't matter against masters because they are stronger in tactics, know their attack patterns and some them are beast in the endgame; so if you want to be successful get better in tactics and endgame.

I have no fear against a 2200 fide or uscf, they are lacking in certain skills and if I play sensible I should have a playable game; now a 2400 uscf or fide that is different story, no matter how sensible I play he will crush me. I only drew one 2480 uscf and I do fear the 2400 elo, they play a level I don't understand.

You talk like you are some otb expert but your rating is? Do you understand what pieces to exchange and which ones to keep? I can train a beginner on mostly on tactics and some elementary endgame against your student on only endgame and my student will beat your student. Amateurs below expert level are inept and incompetent in tactics and that is why  they lose and no amount of endgame study will improve their skills until they get better in tactics. What I am stating is facts and from otb play and observation.

yureesystem wrote: "... I can train a beginner on mostly on tactics and some elementary endgame against your student on only endgame and my student will beat your student. ..."

"... 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, ..." - GM Artur Yusupov

"... 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)

@kindaspongey thx It's nice to see some chess related content. That Keres quote implies that although there is no right way to open your game the opening is still something you should study along with tactics, mating patterns, middlegames, endgames etc.

I see kids in my chess club who are very good and they look at some basic lines in some openings but they still practice tactics and mating patterns a lot.

Just because someone studies openings or opening principles doesn't mean they neglect other parts of their chess skills.

It's funny how people who say openings aren't important (the same guys recommend lazy openings they found in books like "Crush all openings with one system: Play the [Insert opening name here]")

are the ones who have this lazy attitude towards other parts of the game, too.

They learn one opening system against everything and never think about their moves. Instead they mindlessly repeat their moves thinking: Pah! Opening doesn't matter! Chess begins at the middlegame. 

A move is a move, it doesn't matter whether it is played in the opening or in the middlegame or in the endgame. And if it is a bad move there will be consequences.

If you are not playing above expert strength in proper OTB controls then your tactics are not good enough. You can study other things but tactics should be the first study priority. A 1500 player is a 1500 player because he/she blunders too much and doesn't take tactical opportunities, not because they are not booked up in a specific variation of the Nimzo Indian or some other opening line.

Yes. Why? Because under 2000 you simply aren't good enough to continue to play logical moves forever. The moves that just so happen to be good in the opening phase are good not because the opening is a phase in which special rules change the way the game is played. But rather because they make sense according to the position. Regardless of whether it's move 3 or move 30 you must be able look at the position and play according to the position. But that's just being able to analyze positions yes? It's not some special skill that is used in the opening. It's used for the entire game. The opening may have practical challenges in the fact that nothing has moved but they are not so difficult that you should be forced to lose if you make a positional mistake against amateurs. A tactical mistake on the other hand can be decisive.

We can see this with engines. Players like Kasparov have called them stupid. Players say that they understand nothing. Take the opening books away and they play badly in the opening. But they don't seem to just lose in the opening or have the problems most people complain about. Why? Is it their amazing opening skill? No, rather it is the fact that they don't blunder very easily at all. Perhaps they get into horrible positions or even positionally lost ones. But they rarely lose outright in the opening. Because the fact is that someone has to blunder for that to happen. And guess how most games under 2000 are decided. It certainly isn't amazing understanding of the opening that's causing this.

What occurs at higher levels is simply that players have gotten to the point in which they are able to take advantage of even small positional issues and cause problems for the opponent. So those positional errors that aren't losing suddenly become a problem because your opponents will actually be able to take advantage of them and press for a very long time. Under 2000? No such thing. And even so plenty of GMs like Judit Polgar have talked about having trouble in the openings and having to win in the middlegames. Surely this is not impossible for us to do.

One thing that needs to be differentiated is correspondence play.

While it's true that purely human correspondence play is becoming a dinosaur whose only realm where it's not completely extinct may be chess.com (maybe), it is still a testing ground where even the lowest of fish can study and benefit from opening theory. It's even possible for the plankton of the chess world to contribute something to opening theory in correspondence chess!

So, while I agree with the general consensus that opening theory is vastly overvalued by players rated under 2000 OTB, there is still a use for it for correspondence players.

But, even then, most brilliant opening novelties will still be wasted in the interesting middle games that will arise from those novelties.

Are typical plans of the opening only relevant when players are good enough to continue to play logical moves forever?

"... 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)

Are typical plans of the opening only relevant to players who are forced to lose after making a positional mistake against an amateur?

Is anyone advocating not learning tactics?

Is it realistic for a human to hope to be like an engine in this respect?

"... 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)

Are the typical plans of the opening only relevant when players are able to take advantage of small positional issues and press for a very long time?

"... Take the opening books away and [engines] play badly in the opening. ... Perhaps they get into horrible positions or even positionally lost ones. ..." - penandpaper0089

Perhaps that sort of thing happens for humans, too?

Here's a game I just played. Was it decided in the opening, or due to tactics? Yes, I know the answer. 

And if you try to find the opening past about move 5 in a book, you may be disappointed. (I found one game in a database that followed the same course to 7.Qd2.)

Is it easier for some of those below 2000 when having less trouble in the opening?

Are the typical plans of the opening only relevant to players expecting to use brilliant opening novelties?

"... 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)