Why lower rated players should learn openings

I made it to USCF Class A on Opening Principles alone.  I have 2 friends that are USCF Experts, and they made it on Opening Principles, and tactics. Obviously everyone has there own idea of how best to improve, and im just pointing out a few examples.

15 openings, 15 moves deep, including possible transpositions that may have an impact on how the opening turns out? I think I have a pretty decent memory but it would take me a long time to develop that kind of memory/recall

Almost all my games are out of book by move 6-8 and out of the database I have by 12 (or close to it).

The time spent on trying to learn and recall all the variations will likely pay better dividends if spent in other study and learning the ideas/principles behind opening choices. Now, for those with phenomenal memories and recall, opening study might be worth it, especially if they are a fast learner.

Yasser seirewan says to beginner "do not memorise opening only learn logical think. In opening phase you should check control center, put your piece effective square and pawn structure." 

I agree with Martin and s_ozden.  I forget where I put my glasses. 

Didn't you tell us about using FCO? Anyway, what works for one person does not necessarily work for another. Perhaps two sentences are noteworthy from Winning Chess Openings by GM Yasser Seirawan:

"I hope I've provided you with food for thought and that you now have a better understanding of the reasons behind most chess openings."

"I hope that this book will stimulate you into buying further books that are more specific about the openings and defenses that you might enjoy."

If you play the opening badly but don't blunder, worst case scenario is that you're just worse and not lost. The game will be playable. But low rated players do blunder and miss tactics and that's where the real issue comes in. It's not really about not knowing openings well.

People too often don't understand what a more advanced player means when they say not to "memorize" openings. This is specifically meant in the sense of "academic regurgitation." No decent author, coach, or instructor ever meant that you shouldn't analyze, learn, or question the logic and purpose behind any move; whether it was made in the opening, middle game, or endgame.

People can be so overzealous and ridiculous.

Yes, a beginner should LEARN openings. Just don't delve too deep into reams of analysis that you don't understand.

Usually in chess if you stick to the approach of "why did this guy make that move," you're going to improve.

Bump, but I can see why Justs' post ended the thread. I couldn't say it any better myself.

Beginners should question the logic behind and variations of any move, regardless of whether it was played in the opening, middlegame, or endgame. If a 600 player wants to know why a particular sideline of the sicillian on move 12 works, then he should analyze that position. It doesn't matter that it will never coming up in a game. There are so many chess positions that any particular position you analyze will never come up in a game you play ever again unless it is early in the opening. Any time spent questioning any move made in any stage of the game is valuable.

That is one of the reasons that opening study really isn't recommended for many players. They are likely to forget the lines, forget some move orders, or confuse lines. That and the fact that your opponent will deviate from your book knowledge within the first 5-7 moves anyway, unless they happen to also be booked up.

If you play a particular opening, being familiar with common themes and traps, is certainly worthwhile. Knowing the ideas and plans is too. Memorizing lines, which in some openings can add up to hundreds of options, over many vartiations/lines, depending on how deep you go, is likely not worth the effort at sub-master or maybe expert level, unless you have a phenomenal memory and recall.

Unless most of your games are getting lost out of the opening, which is likely not the case, then opening principles, ideas/themes in the openings you like and tactics, positional play and endgames are likely to give you more results for your study time.

Of course, not everyone is the same and some people can focus on openings and do well.

I think learning openings is really good but then, you also have to learn to play chess and make openings fit with the type of chess you're happiest with. BronsteinPawn thinks that having a style is a weakness but all style is, is a recognition of the types of games you play best.

I still think experience is the best teacher. I don't have anything against looking at different opening ideas and the goals behind them. But to just memorize the first three moves to 10 different openings is pointless. And the original post claims that most lower-rated games don't make it to the end game. That's not true at all. If the players are evenly matched then why wouldn't it reach the end game? But learning the basic principles of opening strategy is more than enough to advance a beginner into understanding chess as a whole. And that's the entire point really. Memorizing openings doesn't really teach you anything other than some moves to play. Tactics, endgames, pawn structure, etc. all advance your overall skill level and can come in handy at any point in the game. They also help to develop your vision of the board. For me, I think memorizing openings only helps you in the opening. And if you're a beginner - amateur, really not all that much. It's better to find your own way that works for your style of play rather than copy someone else and have your own creativity suffer.

I think relying on opening principles is way overrated. You can't play middle game if you don't know the opening. You won't re-create the wheel and is not necessary. If you just develop pieces on "normal" good looking positions it may work sometimes or many times against low rated opponents but you will hit a wall very quick if you win those games. I was like that. I was so called "wood pusher" as many are. I just make a move, natural, developening with no reason or plan behind it. Just to pass the turn and see what happens. Ofcourse i was looking if it is safe. Most players are like that. Then after we developed most of the pieces and castle and connected rooks etc... we don't know what to do and we start blundering. If we had trained tactics, ok , we don't hang pieces anymore but still we are making some moves we don't understand and thats about 1700 level - Win's the one with less tactical mistakes, not the one with better ideas and understanding of chess, but it could very well be like that.  Perhaps the reason why many players don't improve anymore.

Help i cant improve anymore... - Whats your level? - 1600 - Then tactics tactics... But i studued tactics.. Then study more - Thats wrong. 

I can show you players profiles here with 10 000 - 20 000 tactical puzzles attempted. And they are still same old patzers. 

Perfect example of that is to watch IM John on youtube where he plays 15+2 / 15+10 min rapid games. He pointed exactly that and demonstrated it.

Or GM Dzindzichashvili videos on member analyzis. Love it when he says : Are you out of your mind.. That move will put you in prison in russia.. or.. i looked at that move for 10 min and i could not say why he did it.. 

 You might go high enough in rating ladder if you face simular opponents or you are extremely good at tactics or endgame and they are not and somehow outplay them. But thats not really how it should be. You gamble with lack of opening knowledge and to hope you outplay them in middle game where you don't really understand whats going on... John demolish them not by tactics, but with ideas and knowledge. It's importhant for a one to play completely okay and comfortable out of the opening and to know ideas and plan.

Later like me if you start playing real openings, you will start losing a lot to book up players (or those who played from beginning sound openings) and to those who make some rare line and again you are on bottom. And you might have another problem which i have. Which opening to choose? You played so much, you reached that far, without a style. Just making developening moves. You don't know what do you like or not, or just very limited way... You have to start all over again and to learn A B C from all openings and then choose one to learn it deep.

Most games are not won or lost out of the opening. The outcomes are usually due to later issues in the game that are likely to happen no matter how many lines of X opening you know. That is true below expert level for sure and likely below master.

I'm 1550-1600 OTB and have had winning games against 1950-2000 players (certainly from a computer and stronger player evaluation). Sure, I will get poor positions sometimes out of the opening but it is the mid to late middlegame and endgames where I'm losing. I'm either making positional mistakes, missing tactics, or playing the endgame incorrectly. I can not discount that knowing my openings better might assist with some of that but I don't have a photographic memory and trying to recall lines and move orders isn't going to help me play better.

Knowing standard ideas will and most of the time, there are multiple lines that are perfectly playable, even very early on, that aren't really in book any more. Most of the games I have played are out of my databases before move 12 anyway.

At the point the opening starts making a big difference in your games, that is the point where deeper study is needed.

This is very true for me. I have no trouble with the opening. And the opening principles are incredibly easy to learn. It's the middle game and "what now?" And I think that's the most common problem with beginners like myself. I've done a little reading on how to solve that problem, what you should be looking for, etc. And that helps. But as far as organizing my pieces into a coordinated attack and to see real weaknesses, that's where most of my growth will come from, not memorizing openings.

It will atually. You will say, oh i know this, this is (insert name of opening and variation) now i have to go here, because i attack this. Then your opponent makes some weird move. Hey that' can't be right, it does not protect his center and you punish him for that and you already have better game and confidence. Many games are lost in middle because both players simply don't know ideas behind the moves they made, or worse, they made random moves just to pass turn. Thats bad habbit from blitz and i got it.

No need to know many openings very deep. Just pick one line on every major reply against e4 and know the ideas moves. for example. Vs caro can i will play this, vs french advanced  variation, vs sicilian c3 line and might go into french advanced, oh i already know that so perfect., vs e5 lets go italian and so on... You will know ideas and moves and you will improve your chess overall - because you will be playing a lot of different positions with specific structure, not just random developening moves on every possible opening and variation.. you will be lost very quick that way against players who knows what they are doing and your chess will be hurt a lot.

Again this is perfectly fine if you are around or below 1400-1500. But is about time to learn those openings if you want more of your chess.

Playing with principles like, put a pawn or two in center, knights out, bishop above pawn chain, castle and connect rooks is only good if you just want to play fun,normal chess without further improving - typical online average blitz player (1100-1600) or you are very much beginner who is still excited to deliver checkmate with Q and K.

The number of potential permutations in any opening will quickly lead one down a a rabbit hole. For a player with limited time, there are much better uses of their time than trying to commit too much opening theory to memory.

I had a recent OTB game where my opponent thought he saw something and dropped a couple of pawns out of the opening. I thought I saw a forced mating combination later and blunder back to at best equality, 10 moves or so later. My problem had absolutely nothing to do with the opening, though my opponent's blunder could have been mitigated by that but also would have been solved by deeper calculation, as could mine

There is wrong and there is a right way. You don't memorize moves like a machine. And not all of them. Just the most frequent ones. You memorize patterns and ideas of those openings. Sometimes move order is not that importhant. You will be able to instantly call just from pawn structure what was the opening. You will know what to do. Chess will become so much easier and you will win games just by having better position.
I have many wins in blitz and rapid games vs better opponents - me being worse out of opening. Thanks to my speed, intuition and skill to complicate matters, but not much players can say that for themself. But boy i lost so many games, just because i did not knew opening. 

When i started to learn and study openings, life become so much easier. I get psyhological lead over my opponents by playing faster and strong moves. They imidiately fell in position where they know they don't know and i know and this is just pressure on them on both position and clock.