When to study opening?

If there is a current topic started on this please direct me to it.

I have heard several opinions as to when someone should learn openings. Learning Openings to me is different than learning opening theory, (control the center, develop, etc..). Im talking about learning a specific opening as far out as 10-15 moves and then starting variations at that point.

My personal opinion on this would be to wait until around the 1800 – 2000 level. Or unless you are playing against this level constantly now. I think this way due to the amount of study time one can put in on an opening, only to play against people that don’t play the opening/opening replies that you have studied. You may as well have been studying tactics or endgames as you will more likely find yourself there than in the 15^th move of a Sicilian Dragon against a 1400 level club player.

What are your thoughts on this?

As long as you put some thought in it, you can start working on openings whenever you want.

I do not think I know any opening out past 10 moves exept a single line or two. That being said I am just starting to work on learning a couple openings more deeply. 

I have no idea that is why I have asked there. My not so powerful knowledge of openings taught me how to transpose some things and make opponents life miserable by playing what I played and taking him to "unknown" paths.. 

It has mostly worked and rarely back fired. To have surprise in your sleeve is always good. 

My basic pre game preparation was to visualise first and second moves that I wanted to play or achieve and think about what might follow from there. Obviously lack of opening theory knowledge prevented me to play main lines after 1.e4 as you get kicked sometimes in something that your, even lower rated opponent knows better, and I just wanted to prevent that from my early days.

One of the new things I am doing is preparing on my opponent and trying to make him comfortable by playing his opening lines but basicly target on his "strong" weak point in the positions he has won and is likely to play.  But punish him for not being prepared to what is coming to him :) That way I am learning not only openings but opponents repertoire and style of play. Last time I have made a mistake and studied only games my opponent has lost and therefore wasn't able to recognize his strong points. Plus I have ignored fact of what I have already learned about him :)

I have recently started to study chess "full time" again. And that brought me to couple of ideas why and how to study. But I am still not confident with the methods I am using. So I would like to hear as much opinions as possible on what it is that works for you :)

That's overkill in my opinion.  Unless you're a master or often facing master opponents or something like this.

one thing that is hard for me to know is what is the best possible line in the opening you are studying. Then it is easier to find out trees of moves, in case your opponent deviates. 

I don't think there is anything like perfect opening though. So all the preparation and study will go perhaps down to: be armed with general principles, various plans for various positions and study pawn structures?

I don't know. I am really swimming in here :D

I want to achieve CM FIDE atm. And my opponents are likely going to be 2200+. I play usualy first board in top team. Got invitation to national leagues etc :) I got into stage, where getting powerful opening knowledge is nearly a necessity in order to improve :) And to learn opening the best means to play main lines and try to understand ideas behind them (according to some GM). Mainly pawn structures etc :)

So I am trying. What I would like to know are the methods I should be using :) I can't possibly eat up database of 60k games with perfect understanding. 

Other GMs, IMs recommend study your own games and analyse them thoroughly.. Which I agree with a lot as well.. (but biggest part of my problem is that I found myself in position where even move 1 meant I am out of theory :)

@mattisks

1. Do you have chessbase?

2. Lets get specific: What openings do you prefer? You mention that you wish to play the best lines, but there are many best lines..

Just because some U2000 player has an opening fetish and knows the grunfeld 20 moves out in a dozen different variations doesn't mean you need to study openings to be able to give them a game.  Find a sideline and get out of book early or play a system.  All you need is a playable position where you understand the main ideas.

I would say start learning openings when you are getting into time trouble against your opponents because of the early stages of the game, without getting reasonable play after the opening. Pretty well you have to know some openings when playing blitz or bullet chess.

I used to play lots of systems and some specific openings. Theory lasted me only for few moves. Rest I was analysing myself. Like Trompowsky, my theory ended somewhere after Bg5. Veresov I have started with my "own" idea 1.d4 2.Nc3 or 1.Nc3 with idea of 2.d4 or 2.e4 and then analysed as I was getting more and more experience. 1.Nf3 d5 2.e4!? Tennison Gambit. As black I was experimenting with own systems of Modern Defense. Then I was playing Pirc, where I had bit of a good knowledge of theory, Gurgenidze systems in Caro Kann, Caro Kann, Alekhine Defense etc. Occasional experiments in Sicily or Open games. 

Now I realized to stop confusion I need to have strong repertoire. So I am evolving around 1.e4 and as black trying all possibles, mainly QG, Slav, Semi-Slav, Dutch Stonewall and maybe newly inspired by my friend will try Leningrad and against e4 usually Sicily either Dragon or newly Najdorf, but grasp all the lines in Najdorf is very tough school.. 

I use free online databases and sometimes have peak in GMs pot in chessbase. I don't use computers at all :)

I know I am a week late on this topic, but where do you research the ideas behind the openings? I understand memorizing lines isn't super valuable, but I want to know the thories behind the openings because there must be specific reasons why certain lines are more common and certain "playable moves" are very rarely or never played by masters.

@noobstarr

Either van der Sterren's Fundamental Chess Openings (FCO) or the considerably more expensive 4 volume Chess Opening Essentials do a credible job of explaining why moves are made.  Van der Sterren in particular will take a paragraph to explain one move.  If you're going to specialize in a particular opening then you need something specific to your opening and of course databases go much deeper, but then that's not what these volumes are designed to do.  Six to ten moves in an opening explained well is more helpful than the old style of presenting line after line without explanation.  My usual 2 cents from the bottomless jar of pennies. 

I have found out recently that studying opening will give you couple of things. But mainly. The main lines that are played nowadays might not always be about looking for advantages, as for looking for playable and rich, complicated positions (depending from GM to GM - remember that everyone has its own style of play).

So studying openings and relying blindly on that knowledge might be very deceiving. There might be best moves and best lines, but they might be hard to find out even for very strong player/and or very strong computer. 

That is main reason why I switch from studying openings to something more meaningful as looking for my own ideas, which I have been doing in the past and analysing themselves as well as comparing to what is usualy been played. 

There is nothing better than wisdom that comes out of your own thoughts. You can eventually build up on this :) 

Variety is also a key. I used to play one opening and on the beginning I found many amazing ideas for my own game. But as I used to play them more automatic in the future, the brightness and sharpness have left the game. If that is happening to you, it is good to switch for different type of openings. Learn something new and keep old weapons to reload in the future ;)

If you are not playing in rated otb tournaments, there is no need to study opening theories 10-15 moves deep. You are not planning to be a master, aren't you? Better study tactics; basic, intermediate, advance until master level. You will enjoy chess more I assure you.

I am planning to be FIDE Master. But somehow.. I don't feel studying 15 move lines will kinda get me there :) It might get me advantage out of opening. It is all that it might get me. 

I feel, whenever I study "Master" level games, that it is not entirely the opening, that gets them this high! It is the overall package they have.

There is one game I followed recently and the black lower 2300 was playing just amazing chess. It wasn't just result of preparation but his style and skills in middle game that got him to his 2300+ awesomeness :)

There are quite a few study plans out there, and Dan Heisman has written some good stuff on how/what/when to study. Google his many Novice Nook articles on ChessCafe. 

I've heard a lot of people say that it's not worth memorizing openings until after you're rated 2000 or so.  But you can study openings, and become very proficient in some openings by playing consistently and reviewing your games, and reading about common themes/ideas in openings. Memorization is not required for this. 

will check that out later, thanks :)

Ideas behind moves is what matters. I gottu agree with that! :)