Why do we want to learn so many openings......?

Why do we want to learn so many openings? That too some of us learn them 35-40 moves deep by heart !! So sad....... and such players often leave playing chess after 5 or 6 years ........ really sad......... This habit of memorizing opening theory very deeply is a bad habit ......... We should memorize some lines , but only till 12 - 15 moves ......... This way , after 12 - 15 moves we have to play on ourselves , using our brain ........... a very good habit ..... and it sometimes confuses our opponents if we don't play according to theory ...... then they start thinking and eventually think what to play after we have played our so called 'novelty' !  So , I say that you all should memorize very less openings ........ and if you dont want to memorize at all , then simply follow these principles :

1. Develop Your Pieces Towards The Center(Knights first , then Bishops) .

2.Castle your king as quickly as possible .

3.Dont move any of your pieces twice , unless neccessary .

4.Lift your queen and connect your rooks .

ok all said ........ thanks for viewing my post ...... 

also do comment .........

Some variations are so forced it is mandatory to know 40+ moves at grandmaster level.

Thank you, captain chess 101

rdecredico wrote: Move order issues and precision in the openings is quite relevant in modern chess. 

Exactly

5. Learn when to ignore each of these rules.

Eg: Rule 2: Castle your King as quickly as possible. In my most recent rated match game, playing Black, I castled on move 27... and at the time I was a bit concerned that I might be castling too early. I won the game with a very pretty attack.

Choosing a chess opening is like choosing a fighting stance. The stance alone isn't going to win the fight. The ability to block, dodge, absorb and throw punches (aka technique) will.

Well, I've read a nice article somewhere, which mains point was:

1: While endgame and middlegame training will be best in the long run, it's difficult to see immediate progress. If you learn a new variation in an opening, you can immediatly use this line.

2: A french player is not someone who comes from France. It's a player who plays 1. e4 e6 with black. We are known for what openings we play, not for how precisely we play the rook endgames.

It made some sense for me, so now I never mention my friend as a french player. He might then think it's very important for him to play the french better, not to lose his personality.

baapre.........tumi sun essay likhi dila Nitish 

Well... I stand corrected!

I personally think it's beneficial to all chess players to study openings, and learn different types of openings and the types of positions that can arise.  I think there's a misunderstanding when stronger players say not to study openings.  Simply memorizing moves when you're not competent enough to play for yourself, or "improvise" as Fiveofswords noted is bad for developing chess players.  Trying out different openings/defenses and knowing enough moves to get into the opening/defense itself and then learning more and more about it by playing it and studying it is healthy.  I'm sure there are many chess players out there (myself included) who played certain openings because we knew so-and-so played it.  It wasn't until I started trying out a bunch of different openings that I realized I am a French Defense player as opposed to a Sicilian player, and that I was a 1.d4 player instead of a 1.e4 player.  Turns out I prefer Nimzo positions more than KID positions.  The plus side about playing different openings at different stages, is you have a little more familiarity w/ positions.  That's why I still goof off with/study openings.

I almost agree.

Developing players should try to get experience in many different types of positions. But that doesn't necessarily mean learning a variety of openings. The Black side of the Ruy Lopez (or for that matter, the Italian Game) can lead to closed maneuvering games, open tactical games, gambits...

Well, it seems that nobody has gone to my extreme. With Fritz 11 and 5 days of study, I've proved the Dragon a draw, and I haven't lost with it yet!

Not known for how precisely we play rook endgames?!  Carlsen and Korchnoi would like a word with you. 

Carlsen is known for how precisely he does anything.

You haven't proved anything.  Fritz did the work.  If this was 30 years ago somebody would be impressed.

Actually, I played non-recommended moves. For example, my 10th move was not Fritz's Ne5, Qa5 or Rc8.

Fritz did the work

I dont know who "we" are, but if youre talking about GM's, then its because they are required to, to stay up to date on opening theory, and to stay competitive.  If youre talking about the average player here? 

Some do it because it sounds cook to say you know an opening 20 moves deep, other just like to explore openings.  Me? I rarely study openings, because the opening is the least interesting part of the game.

Sometimes castling early brings in a pawn storm. We also have to make sure a salvo in case the opponent castles the other way.

In blitz games this is very important because we don't have much time to think.