should we memorize openings or not??

1st thing: learn the basics of opening play, and just a few basic lines in the openings you play (really nothing deep).

After that, you can get much stronger by just training your tactical vision and positional understanding, without opening work.

Then, whenever you get hit by some opening variation you don't know, you go and analyze the game, and pick up a relavent good line or two in that variation.

That way, memorization comes slowly, but with experience... It'll be much harder to forget.

Of course, analyzing opening positions is a great way of improving your understanding of the game, and as a bonus, it makes the analyzed positions much easier to remember.

Just sitting and memorizing dozens and hundreds (and more) lines is largely unnecessary until you are wayyyyy stronger (way stronger than me, actually (I'm about~2100)).

I fully understand that just learning openings is not enough but I feel it is an important step in improving.  

The proof is in the results.  I learned a few common opening moves and my rating quickly went up after being flat for a long period of time.  At this moment I am probably over rated since I have only been playing games from former opponents who have challenged me to a rematch.  They were close in rating but now that I am learning openings and improving they are rated lower than me.  

I will plateau again and then I will be forced to learn the reason behind the opening moves as well improve my middle game tactics. 

It's important to be able to regnognize why you've plateaued -- it may not always be something you can address by working harder at openings, but if it's worked for you so far and you think there's more benefit to be had then by all means continue.

I realize that once I plateau again learning deeper or more openings will have no noticeable impact to improving my rating but the results show that it was a good first step.

Good post. Absolutely, just a few basic lines in the opening for most.

I would like to go deeper with a few openings, but which ones? It seems like very few people start out with 1. e4 e5, as an example. That takes the Ruy Lopez out of the equation, plus all the other "Open Games". Maybe 1. e4 c5 (Sicilian)? I was getting that a lot in blitz in the beginning, but not so much anymore. It's mostly unorthodox replies to 1. e4. Perhaps that's what blitz is all about. With so little time for thinking, confuse and confound the 1. e4 player.

I follow the following opening principles below - 

Three Rules of the Opening

1. Control the center (preferably by occupying it with pawns);

2. Develop - bring your pieces from their starting position onto squares from which they exercise influence on the action (start with the kingside pieces because of the next rule);

3. Castle (usually short, since it can be accomplished most quickly and safely).

-----

Also, I do believe it helps a beginning player like myself to have a few short opening lines memorized a few moves deep.

Examples:

Center Counter 1. e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3. Nc3

French Defense 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3

Caro-Kann 1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. exd5

Petroff Defense 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. Nxe5

Philidor Defense 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4

Sicilian Defense - Grand Prix Attack 1. e4 c5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. f4

Pirc Defense - 1. e4 d6 2. d4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. Nf3

Alekhine Defense 1. e4 Nf6 2. e5

----

Below is a 5 minute game that I just played tonight and lost due to time. My opponent had 30 more seconds on the clock and my king was not close to being mated. I gave each move just one second more than my opponent, due in part to a very unorthodox pawn opening. I call it the zig zag. Perhaps there's a name for it?

"Memorize" is probably not the right word.  After you play a game, you should analyze it, and try to figure out where you went wrong.  If you are going wrong in the opening, obviously you are going to have to change that line in your opening repertoire to something better.  You can read through books, and play through grandmaster games looking for better moves, and then try them out, and practice them, so that you will be able to use that line in serious OTB games later.  Instead of trying to memorize specific lines, I think it's better to learn by doing, practicing the lines you want to play in training games until you know them.

Memorization helps me in blitz, as does post analysis afterwards to find better moves. I believe they go hand in hand.  I wonder how much of an expert/master player's moves are from memory in a blitz game?  

One example of memorization to save time on a 5 minute blitz game:

I'm White and play 1. e4. My opponent plays 1...d5. Now, when I was a new player to chess a few months back, I went into a deep think when I first saw 1...d5 in OTB. It looked like a trap. Now I know to play 2. exd5.

What I don't like about the Center Counter is this: 2. exd5 is forced. There is no other move for White that is better.

 2 exd5 is not "forced" unless you are playing in a thematic event in which the move is required. 

@some point U need 2memorise but if U practise da openings regularly; U wont need 2memorise anythng

@Musikamole: such a combination of c6, e6, g6 etc is just bad; in particular all his pawns are on white squares, so you might try to trade off his black squared bishop and make use of all the holes.

Anyway, what you see is that your opening knowledge (the little bit of some lines you know, and the fact that you control the center, develop pieces etc) is already vastly superior to that of your opponents. So you know enough of the opening right now.

So figure out why you're still losing to players like this (as you probably do every now and then, otherwise you wouldn't be meeting them anymore), and work on that :-)

Many openings have sequences that are fairly 'forced'. 2.e:d5 is the best move, but I imagine there are people out there that will play 2.d4 and head off into the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit, or possibly into the Caro-Kann or French depending on Black's response.

Or 2.Nc3, for that matter.

i think memorizing is hard but not pointless, because say were playing a 1800 who has not studied opening against a 1600 who has, the 1600 will have a much better beginning strategy and will probly gain an advantage

"Memorize" sounds to me too distant, like you are taking something that isn't really your own and trying to keep it in your mind without really having any opinions about it.  I think it is better to learn opening lines by practicing them, trying out different ideas, seeing what works and what doesn't.  Then when it comes to a serious game, you will have a much better grasp of what themes you should be looking out for.  You should probably try not to play moves when you have no idea where you are heading with them.

Remember sounds so much warmer than Memorize.

Remember your openings, what you've played, what you've seen others play, games you've played over in your opening, pertinent corrections to your inaccuracies you've found in books.

Indeed!  If the question was 'Should we remember openings or not?', who in their right mind would say no?

Absolutely brilliant. 2. Nc3 never occured to me, perhaps because it was beat into me by so many opening books to play 2. exd5. There's no published variation (move 2) for the Scandinavian Defense that I have seen. Is 1. e4 d5 2. Nc3 a different opening?

Below is an extremely recent match (2009) where White plays 2. Nc3 and wins! This move will be great in blitz, as I'm sure Black is banking on 2...Qxd5, followed by agressive play using the queen. I hate this type of early queen aggression.  It drives me bonkers!

Wow! White is miles ahead in development by 6. 0-0! White has castled and has three minor pieces developed, while Black has two minor pieces developed and has not castled. What a beautiful picture. It's so much better than the standard Scandinavian line. I'm very excited! Thanks Scarblac!

The tactical sequence starting with 7.Bc4 to 14.Nxc4 is pretty impressive !

It's possible that it's more common in the move order 1.Nc3 d5 2.e4. If Black plays 2...Nf6, I think it's an Alekhine (1.e4 Nf6 2.Nc3 d5).

But there's a bit of a downer that I only thought of later -- I don't know how often you'll meet it, but after 1.e4 d5 2.Nc3 dxe4 3.Nxe4 Qd5!?, does White have anything better than 4.Nc3 transposing back into normal Scandinavians?

 White has 4 Ng3, Qf3, and 4 d3 all scoring well for white with the first 2 scoring more than 60%. Whats very interesting here is that after 4 Nc3 my database says white scores less than 50% and yet the same position from the normal Scandinavian move order says white scores better than 50% ??!  LOL