Openings don't matter till Rank 2000

I think they do matter and even if it doesn't really affect the game for beginners it's better to practice them

 There's no need to memorize long variations even at a strong amateur level.

I'm 1800+ USCF, and I know basically no theory. I always play as White Nf3 - c4 - g3 - Bg2 - d4, and as Black always play e6 - d5 - c5. No theory needed! 

> openings don't matter

Played someone who opened with a2-a4.  Thought he was going to throw me off my being "unconventional".

He lost.

Actually amateurs can punish mistakes... but the hard part is to take advantage of subtle inaccuracies. 

"second this is not the person's own thought, this is something they heard someone else say who heard someone else say it".

That's irrelevant. Whether someone has said a sentence before doesn't change whether that statement is true or not. When I say the Earth isn't flat that's not my original thought and I don't care that it isn't my original thought. I care about saying correct things and having correct stances, I don't care whether I am the first one to verbalize a given thought. 
To an extent I agree with you. I agree that knowing a little bit of opening theory can help you. But studying opening seriously is just pointless below, I would say, much higher than 2000 rating on this website. There are GMs which say that you should only study tactics if you are rated below 2200 FIDE (2200 FIDE is around 2500 chess.com). I am 1950 rapid and I hardly know any opening past like move 7. You don't need to memorise a lot of moves in order to get similar kind of middle games from the openings that you play. And I agree with you that it is important to get similar kind of middle games in many of your games so that you gain experience, analyse them with an engine and get better at playing them. But for that you don't need to memorise a lot of moves and seriously study opening theory. 

Where I also agree with you is that the sentence "openings don't matter below 2000" is a little bit ambiguous. What do people mean when they say that? Hikaru Nakamura can play the bongcloud and reach 3000. That doesn't mean that knowing something about openings that you play and getting experience at the kind of middle games that arise from the openings that you play won't help you get into better positions and thus increase your strength. Sure, if you are already better than everyone, like Hikaru Nakamura, then you can open the game with bongcloud Botez gambit and wipe the floor with 2000 rated players, but that doesn't mean that ordinary people like us won't benefit from knowing a little bit of theory. But learning more than "a little bit of theory" won't have much impact on your strength. Tactics and understanding what each sides wants to do in a given position is much more important than memorising opening moves. Magnus Carlsen sometimes plays non theoritecal lines that neither him nor his opponents have memorised and then he beats them. 

The misunderstanding here can be in how much of the opening theory you want to study. If I know the first 5 moves of an opening I don't count that as "I know the theory of this opening". If you count knowing first 3 moves of an opening as "knowing opening theory" then I see how the miscommunication can take place between us because we don't mean the same thing when we use the same words.

Another thing which can be relevant for this discussion is that I have made a chess engine. Making it play better moves in the opening increased its strength, despite everything else staying the same. Some people on this website say that all you need to do in order to reach 1500 is don't blunder dumb tactics, don't drop material to 2 move tactics, know the basic opening principles and chess principles. Well, I did exactly that with my engine. I coded in the basic opening principles and basic chess principles, I told it to look 2-3 moves forward and still, my engine is not playing on a 1500 level. Sure, my engine clearly plays like a 4 digit player, but it is also clear that my engine doesn't play as well as 1500 rated players.

I am not saying this is because of the lack of deep theoretical knowledge, this comment is more addressed to people saying that all you need to do to reach 1500ish level is to stop dropping pieces to simple tactics and knowing the basic chess principles. Lowering the frequency of 1-2 move blunders is neccessary but it is not enough for 1500 level. Although I can understand that people stress the blunders the most because they can be the hardest area to improve on. 

Funny thing would be if you have meant that it plays like 9999 rated player because that is still 4 digits.

Openings matter sometimes. Othertimes, they don't.

If you lose a piece in the opening, or worse (if you get checkmated in the opening) - then obviously the opening mattered.

You could even stay the same in material, but if you go into the middlegame with a terrible position (ruined pawn structure, misplaced pieces, terrible king-safety ...), then the opening certainly mattered (and you should've played it better).

But if you're able to reach a playable middlegame, where you have relatively good chances for play, then the specific opening that you used to reach that point is irrelevant - all that mattered is that you played the opening well enough to reach a decent position.

Did he lose because of a4? Or because he blundered more than you?

Surely strong players promoting speed chess on twitch is a lot more harmful than studying openings. Openings don't matter until 2000, speed chess never matters.

I do think openings and opening ideas as well are very helpful and easy to learn. 

Playing the itlaian shot me up from 800 to 1200 very quicky.

The idea that openings dont matter below 2000 is false.

Exactly just play this and it doesn't matter because they don't know how to punish

Like who tf cares? Just play anything. Openings don't matter.

It's a shame that Endgame study isn't as fashionable as Opening study.

Endgame play can be both beautiful and instructive. White to play and win:

If speed chess didn't exist I wouldn't play chess at all. I, like almost everyone else, play chess for fun, I don't play it in order to become a better player. I don't play chess in order to impress anyone either, I do it for myself. Only speed chess matters to me. Slow chess doesn't matter. How is promoting speed chess harmful and for whom? If your argument is that it takes away people from playing slow chess you are wrong, we wouldn't play chess at all if we weren't playing speed chess. 

Everyone who doesn't have small kids nor works 2 jobs have several hours each day and even more than that on weekends to spend however they like. I, and many other people on this website, choose to spend some of that time playing speed chess, because that's what we like. That's our decision. Other people will spend that time differently. If you enjoy how you spent your free time, that's time well spent. 

In order for behavior to be bad it has to have negative effect on society. If everyone plays speed chess that doesn't have negative effect on society. It doesn't have negative effect on chess either. As I have already explained, speed chess isn't taking away people from slow chess, if people like me couldn't play speed chess, we wouldn't play chess at all.

Your stance is irrational, objectively wrong and there is no argument in support of your stance. Opinions of people like you are impossible to change because your opinion isn't grounded in reason in the first place. Opinions that aren't grounded in reason can't be changed with reason.

The elegant Saavedra position. One of the most beautiful chess problems ever.

Endgame study is fascinating and will do more to develop a player's understanding of how to play chess than hours spent trying to memorize MCO. The opening is important, but knowing the first few moves of an opening and learning how to play the pawn structures that result is enough for most players to navigate the opening successfully. 

Agree