... even [in human correspondence play], most brilliant opening novelties will still be wasted in the interesting middle games that will arise from those novelties.
Are the typical plans of the opening only relevant to players expecting to use brilliant opening novelties?
Here's a game I just played. Was it decided in the opening, or due to tactics? ...
"... 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)
... even [in human correspondence play], most brilliant opening novelties will still be wasted in the interesting middle games that will arise from those novelties.
Are the typical plans of the opening only relevant to players expecting to use brilliant opening novelties?
Another question?
You know the answer to that.
Opening theory is useful to almost all correspondence players. I focused on the use of novelties, but that doesn't preclude players just following along. I generally follow theory as long as it's beneficial to me. Others follow theory without realizing they are going the wrong way. Perhaps I'm optimistic in thinking such correspondence players will eventually learn from their mistakes. I did play one cc game against a NM which followed theory for about 30 moves then we agreed to a draw. I was Black and was very happy with the draw.
Most games will leave theory at some point. The new move could be a TN (theoretical novelty) or TL (theoretical lemon).
Kindaspongey,
Willy Hendriks' book, Move First, Think Later: Sense and Nonsense in Improving Your Chess, is really interesting. He makes many controversial claims in that book, but his opinion on studying openings, as you presented it, is actually more or less the orthodox position among chess coaches.
However, Willy Hendriks would almost certainly not approve of the general handwaving and wordy responses that occur in these threads. He believes that words often get in the way of chess understanding. His basic thesis is to analyse moves, and not worry too much about whether a good move fits some dogma.
This goes just as much for the opening as any other phase of the game. If a concrete move order refutes a general principle, then the general principle was the wrong one for that position. Studying specific openings will help to recognize the importance of tactics.
Here's a rather banal example of a concrete move refuting a general principle:
Kindaspongey,
... Willy Hendriks would almost certainly not approve of the general handwaving and wordy responses that occur in these threads. ...
Who, at the moment, is making claims about what Hendriks would or would not approve in these threads?
... If a concrete move order refutes a general principle, then the general principle was the wrong one for that position. Studying specific openings will help to recognize the importance of tactics. ...
"In these threads", is it being argued that tactics do not have importance?
... I generally follow theory as long as it's beneficial to me. Others follow theory without realizing they are going the wrong way. Perhaps I'm optimistic in thinking such correspondence players will ...
Does this justify a belief that the typical plans of the opening are not relevant to players under 2000?
"... 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)
Let's take a look at a "boring" opening played by Petrosian:
It's interesting to note that after a rather obvious looking move in 7...Qb6 White was basically forced into tactics immediately. He played actively throughout the game due to one little poke by Black. Of course he could've played 8.Qc1 and avoided the tactics but he'd be forced into playing passively even though he did nothing wrong. I'm rather doubtful that all the opening plans in the world were going to help either player.
Now imagine what happens between two club players that play into the position after 7...Qb6 8.a3. Do you seem them playing all of this because they read a book about the Slav defense?
... I generally follow theory as long as it's beneficial to me. Others follow theory without realizing they are going the wrong way. Perhaps I'm optimistic in thinking such correspondence players will ...
Does this justify a belief that the typical plans of the opening are not relevant to players under 2000?
"... 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)
I have no clue who you are arguing against. But whenever you're proven wrong, you resort to the claim that you never made a positive statement, it was just a question.
Whats Opening Therory?
...
... whenever you're proven wrong, you resort ...
In this thread, is there a specific statement by me that you imagine to have been "proven wrong"? Do you think it is appropriate to claim that a belief of mine has been "proven wrong", if I never stated the belief?
Let's take a look at a "boring" opening played by Petrosian:
Petrosian vs Sorokin ...
... Do you seem them playing all of this because they read a book about the Slav defense?
Is it realistic for a below-2000 player to try to be like Petrosian and/or Sorokin?
Whats Opening Therory?
About 11 days ago, penandpaper0089 referred to "those +/= positions the opening books like to rave about." I think that gives some indication of what was initially being discussed.
... Did penandpaper0089 ... say something about the typical plans of the opening being relevant when players get over 2000 but not before?
Yes. ...
This gives an indication of the focus of my contributions in the last 7 hours.
@penandpaper0089
Hmmm, ...Qb6–Qb6xb2 is a hollow threat, as Black hasn't enough material in the area to support further activity beyond the capture (the Queen is operating without coordination with the rest of Black's pieces), while White can coordinate his pieces across the center and kingside in no time if the Black King remains in the center, which is what actually happened.
From your comment, it looks like you understand that tactics is opposed to positional and that opening theory doesn't include tactics. Positional play is the preamble to tactical play (like an army setting the artillery on the heights and the infantry under cover prior to the engagement) and isn't in any way opposed to tactics. Actually, positional play uses tactics to force the opponent into concessions.
In the game you give, nothing prevented Black from seeking shelter with 10...Bf8–e7 or 11...Bf8–e7. It was poor positional and opening's judgement to allow White's 12.e3–e4 with Black's King still in e8. For the novice, the position after White's 25.f4–f5 may not be foreseen when playing 11.0-0, but for anyone who has studied those symmetrical e3–d4 and e6–d5 pawn formations, is a typical punishment when one side's King remains in the center. In the aforementioned position, although there's "material balance", White's coordinating 1 pawn and 5 pieces against Black's King surrounding squares, and have the Nd2 in reserve; Black, on the other hand, is using 3 pawns and 2 minor pieces as sole defense, as the other pieces aren't covering nor attacking anything of importance. Just pay attention to how many attackers and defenders for f7 (which also explains Nf3–d2 and f2–f4–f5).
So, yes, White was forced into tactics without meticulous preparation. However, he had no need other than 11.0-0, as 10...Nc6–a5 was unjustified (hence a bad plan) as the attack on White's b2 and a3 pawns is meaningless when White will counter with his full army against Black's poorly defended King.
For what is worth, Black's plans in that system usually include trading a couple of minor pieces and setting the other 2 near his King, while using the c–file and the threats against White's queenside pawns to distract the White pieces from the center and kingside. Setting his own Knight on c4 (thus blocking the c–file) and leaving White freedom to attack on the center at the price of just a pawn, was suicidal, even against a 15 year old unknown player (at the time).
How do you know ...Qxb2 is bad? Does it just look bad or is there proof? Did that proof come from intuition or was calculation actually necessary to prove that it's bad? What about ...Qxb2 in the Najdorf or the Trompowsky? Can you eye-ball those positions as well and come to a conclusion? Often times terrible looking moves work just fine. There were plenty of ugly moves that Black could have played in the game and interestingly they all required great calculation to prove they were not sufficient. Whether ...Qxb2 was justified or not, White needed to be able to calculate lots of potential lines in order to prove it. That's the point really. Knowing wasn't even half the battle in this case.
The fact that Black may not have played as well as he could is even more telling. Despite the fact that Black made these errors White had to play with amazing activity to be able to prove that these errors were actually relevant. This is another point. Anyone can look at the game and say, "this shouldn't be here" and that shouldn't be there." But could anyone prove the point with the activity and calculation ability shown in this game? If not White would be a pawn down for nothing despite having a more aesthetically pleasing position.
And finally, how relevant are Slav defense themes here if the position is not even a Slav anymore? Instead we ended up in some kind of isolated pawn game with an extra pawn for Black. It may not even be important but f4-f5 is actually a known plan in isolated pawn games when there is no bishop on c8. But that's a typical middle game plan and not simply some opening theme. Opening books will rarely go out of their way to deal with things like this because that's typically not what they're made for.
But Petrosian's ideas on the play are the most illuminating. Sorokin may have been fully aware that this is a dangerous way to play and he may have done it simply to change the nature of the position or to try and defeat his opponent in the complications. Were I playing White here against Sorokin I doubt I would find Petrosian's resourceful moves.
The difference between levels of players isn't their capability to understand the logic in the position, but their precision . . .
For the typical novice, chess can be complicated because they don't know what to look for, so they waste time analyzing more than they should, or moves they shouldn't.
Perhaps at higher levels it's not a matter of understanding, but a novice's lack of precision due to not understanding the position is the same as... simply not understanding the logic of the position 
Let's take a look at a "boring" opening played by Petrosian:
Petrosian vs Sorokin ...
... Do you seem them playing all of this because they read a book about the Slav defense?
Is it realistic for a below-2000 player to try to be like Petrosian and/or Sorokin?
No not at all. It is realistic however that you could be forced into complicated positions that don't resemble your opening of choice or have any themes that you can latch on to at all. Your book knowledge may not be very helpful there. It doesn't help much that this happens in just about every game of chess.
penandpaper0089 wrote (~6 minutes ago): "... It is realistic ... that you could be forced into complicated positions that don't resemble your opening of choice or have any themes that you can latch on to at all. Your book knowledge may not be very helpful there. It doesn't help much that this happens in just about every game of chess."
About what percentage of chess games have you witnessed? In how many of those did you have knowledge of what the players had been reading?
"It is important for club players to build up a suitable opening repertoire." - GM Artur Yusupov (2010)
"... [After 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bc4 Bc5 4 b4 Bxb4 5 c3, if] Black plays 5...Bc5 ..., White can play the desired 6 d4 with less risk. With [5...Ba5], Black pins the c3-pawn, thus not allowing White to take back with the c-pawn after 6 d4 exd4. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2010)
Could a comment like that be helpful to a player below 2000?
In chess it's easy to take for granted the things you've known for a long time.
Sounds like you wasted a lot of time memorizing opening lines.
Take a player who only studied _____ and knows nothing about openings, and suddenly the openings don't seem so unimportant.
... 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.
Is it easier for some of those below 2000 when having less trouble in the opening?