I hadn't heard of him until I just read an article on him. I agree with you, opening theory is overrated but a basic knowledge is required or you are going to lose early and often. But I don't spend 6 hours a day studying variations that I'll probably never see or use. I just know a couple solid openings for white that offers equal chances, mainly queen pawn games. And for black I stick strictly to Sicilian: Najdorf or Dragon variations and Nimzo Indian Defense for d4 and I get by fine with that.
Why Opening Theory is Overrated
Sort:
A dedicated study of the openings is less useful the weaker one is. The games are full of serious errors that determine the result long after the opening (when it lasts that long).
Better to study what will get you points, and more importantly, what makes you a better player. Like Opening Principles, Middlegame Principles, some essential endgame knowledge, tactics, analytical skills, elements of positional play.
Actually, I believe Basman has defeated very highly-rated opponents with those odd openings. Try Albin Plananic vs. Michael Basman (0-1); it should say that Basman plays a Sicilian, but he plays b6 on the third move.
Also, Basman drew against Daniel King (2500+) using h6 as a reply to e4.
Opening theory is overrated. Seriously, it is possible to win with any opening, and yes the Anderssen and Clemenz Openings can help you win. If you want to say I am wrong, first go on to Game Explorer and look up Michael Basman. Then, if you choose to criticize me, site which game you looked up. Trust me, you will understand why I feel this way if you do this, though you probably won't agree with me.