Openings don't matter till Rank 2000

All Chess study helps some. Endgame study is important, as are puzzles, and to some extent opening study is useful. I thing everybody needs at least one White opening and a d4 and e4 response for black. Past these basics, it becomes less useful. 

a3 isn't easily punishable. It's not as bad as it seems. Like yeah, it's worse obviously but whatever black plays, white can just play normally afterwards and it's just like being down a tempo. It's been played with some success at master level.

That being said, yh m8 1v1 me

There's nothing wrong with 1. a3.

White is just playing a colors-reversed opening, with the extra move a3 already played.

For example, if Black replies 1. ... e5 then White could play 2. c4 with a colors-reversed Sicilian in which the move a3 is almost certain to be useful.

Similarly, if Black plays 1. ... d5 then White could play a colors-reversed Benko, or a colors-reversed Queen's Gambit Accepted; in either of which the move a3 will be useful.

It's not a great move, but it's not as worthless as it looks at first sight.

It seems that anything that fosters a deeper understanding of chess couldn't be "stupid". But I'm sure, like anything, it is a confluence of influences that helps someone improve.

This, I believe, describes the problem that lies at the heart of this debate. There is no clear definition of what it means to study an opening. In the context of GMs studying variations of the Ruy Lopez in preparation for a tournament, opening theory has a completely different meaning than it has in the context of a low rated beginner studying an opening based on YouTube tutorials.

I think players at all levels should be encouraged to study openings to the extent that fits their rating level. They should watch informative videos and look up the main lines. Learn what others have to say about the opening an hear about the ideas behind it. 

I agree that it's not recommended for lower rated players to memorize openings in depth, but that's not going to happen anyway. I know from experience that moves are much easier to remember when you understand them. 

But players have to start somewhere. I also don't understand the negativity around players that follow an opening line up to a certain point and then get lost. When you discover your move was inaccurate and there is better line available, you try it out to see where it leads even though you don't fully understand yet. 

Anyway, this will continue as long as we keep the definition of opening theory open to interpretation. You stated "If I know the first 5 moves of an opening I don't count that as "I know the theory of this opening".  You are probably right that the first five moves don't count as opening theory.  But, depending on rating, some players can benefit from learning theory up to move 5 or 6.

I know the name of a few openings, but nothing more than like 4 or 5 moves deep of the most basic and prominent mainlines. I get the sense that is probably the case with many of my ~2000 rated opponents.

Around my level, a +/- .5 pawn advantage or so in the first 10 moves (which is all the advantage one is going to be able to extract in most openings if both sides just focus on developing pieces normally, fighting for the center, and getting king to safety) is basically meaningless in determining who will win the game. Actually, one of my favorite "openings" as black gives away a central pawn with zero compensation in an effort to have both sides playing a weird position (engine give >+1) and I still score 49% with it. 

If you can't consistently make 10 consecutive moves without blundering a full piece, you have better things to focus on if you want to improve.

I was talking about players who want to improve, you don't want to improve so you are on the right path of just playing speed chess, promoting speed chess is harmful to players who want to improve so titled players combining blitz chess to sell their opening courses sets a bad example on how to improve.

You are right

Speed chess is only meant for fun. It's not serious chess. A lot of speed chess is just making dumb moves expecting that it will be too fast for the opponent to see it and they'll just blunder.

It's not about accurate calculation. Of course there is some skill involved like reflexes and quick thinking but you are not learning the proper game. You are not learning to make sound, good moves. You are just learning to play as fast as possible until opponent blunders.

No problem with enjoying it. That's cool. What I don't understand though is "I wouldn't play chess if it wasn't for speed chess". Then it's like you don't even enjoy chess and the interesting positions and strategies that are key to the true game. It's only about playing fast, random moves and depending on blunders.

Wait. Have you ever seen good players play blitz?

Going from a knowledge of zero to a knowledge of "just a little" will always have a big impact. This is true for chess openings, chess endgames, and even skills outside of chess.

But it's very common for players who know more than enough about openings to waste many more hours on opening study. The advice "openings are useless below 2000" is uncommon and odd, but the advice of "openings are probably not your weakest area, so focus on something else" is found everywhere because most people have made that mistake.

Yes, I mostly meant bullet. Blitz is a different. I've just seen bullet games where the players just do really dumb stuff like they put a piece en prise with the sole idea that opponent will not see it and blunder their queen. It's just silly chess.

Like I said, of course it takes skill to play well and it's impressive. I'm not saying it's all just dumb but it's just a different kind of skill. A lot of players who are ranked very highly in bullet are not ranked so highly in classical.

Basically, their skill in terms of reflexes and quick thinking is impressive but their understanding of the game doesn't measure up to the same standard.

Thank you! I learned basic openings and my god it makes things much nicer to play. Even if I can't use them, it gets me thinking about what belongs where and why certain setups are strong.

That's my opening mindset, as well.

A lot of players argue about "fighting for the advantage" in the opening. They squabble about move order and centipawns. And I understand the emphasis on precision.

Though, I believe most players can reach success by simply reaching a playable game out of the opening ... then striving to outplay their opponent from there.

Save the centipawn worries for when you reach a higher level.

Mind you, "playable" means different things to different players ...

Aside from the Sicilian Najdorf, which I try to play as precisely as my modest ability allows, this idea of simply trying to reach a playable middle-game is my own philosophy as well.

I add to that "(a playable middle-game)... in which I feel comfortable and confident".

But this is what new players are doing when they memorize

Memorizing 10 moves of a line they will never see is the closest they can come to feeling confident about their opening... to feel comfortable and confident on move 10 requires middlegame study (and experience) which never comes fast, so ironically, new players are following that "comfortable and confident" standard as best they can via practices you're arguing against.

The OP says they studied the opening "just a little" (their exact words). This is of course much better than knowing nothing at all.

Mobilazation,centralization ,King safety and boom playable middlegame.

The OP has been playing chess "for a year now," and thinks he is therefore qualified to put forth sweeping theories about the game. Wow...