I think opening knowlege is very inportant agaisnt cirtain openings such as:
Pononzi-Stiniez gambit ( can't spell that), Stafford gambit ( I have won a good amount of games for learning the refutaion), Scotch gambit / Italian open (You gotta know d5).
Knowing even the basic mainline is very helpful in these openings.
Nowdays, whenever I face the stafford, im happy becuse my opponent gave me a +2 advantage.
Knowing the lines of some trap openings saves you and punishes those who play it.
Openings do matter in chess at all levels, including below 2000 ELO. However, the impact of openings may be less pronounced at lower levels of play, as players at this level may not have the same level of understanding and experience with specific openings and their related strategies. At lower ELO ratings, players may make more mistakes in their openings, and the impact of these mistakes can be magnified as the game progresses. As such, a solid understanding of basic opening principles, such as controlling the center, developing your pieces, and maintaining king safety, is still important for players at all levels, including those below 2000 ELO. However, it's also important to keep in mind that a player's skill in the middlegame and endgame is often more critical to their success than their opening choice. At lower ELO ratings, players may have a tendency to make positional and tactical errors in the middlegame and endgame, which can be more decisive in determining the outcome of a game. In conclusion, while openings do matter in chess at all levels, including below 2000 ELO, the impact of opening choice may be less pronounced at lower levels of play. It's important to have a solid understanding of basic opening principles, but it's also important to focus on improving your middlegame and endgame skills
In beginning You need to understand that still you dont have enough tactical and strategy understaning to studay openings in good way . studing opening is not remembering it .
The more important is tactical and end game
For opening that you see it in courses ist just headlins and not complet opening
Studing opening means you nedd to understand opening with most lins incloding maed game and this is impossible with week tactic, strategy and end game.
Thanks 👍
So reading the responses again I see no reasoning why openings don't matter. I hear this.
1. Memorizing long lines is stupid for novice players.
2. You don't lose games in the opening.
3. Novice players don't need to learn a ton of theory,
4. People don't play the lines that you learn.
All these are somewhat incorrect, and somewhat true, but openings matter. Here is my rebuttal to these common arguments.
1. Memorizing long lines is not important for novice players.
You don't memorize everything on day 1. You learn as you go. As a struggling 400 when I got my first course Caro Kahn, and 1e4. I certainly didn't memorize all the theory on day 1 I had to memorize the first 2 moves, then 3, then 4 out of my course until they sank in. This helped because it gave me a base to study the correct moves from. So depending on your rank you memorize a little at first and keep adding on as you progress.
2. You don't lose games in the opening.
This is just false. I play people that lose in the opening constantly. The checkmate may not come until move 16 or 30, but making long term weaknesses in the openings happen all the time. If you are ranked under 1000, how many times have people chased your bishop out with pawns in the corner weakening their king side? All the time. Pawn structure gets destroyed often in the opening. Every part of the game matters from opening, middle, end game. If you review your games as I'm sure most do, you will see that a lot of the time the game is decided many moves ahead of the finish. A bad move can lead to a cascade of issues. Even though the finish doesn't come until later.
3. Novice players don't need to learn a ton of theory. I agree with this I have a caro course which is the opening I know the best. It's the only opening I would say I "KNOW". I haven't studied more then 3 chapters. I study what I face 90 percent of the time. Exchange, Advance, Tartakower. I rarely get anything but those 3, and almost every caro game I get positions and play straight out of my courses for at least the first 5 to 10 moves, after that the ideas of the position are there from my course even though the moves may not be exact. As you go up the rank in elo and start facing people playing different variations you go back to your course and study that. So you don't need to learn everything in your course.
4. People don't play the lines that you learn.
They absolutely do everything in my 1d4 course, Caro course, and 1e4 course, and e6B6 course gets played in almost every game. People absolutely for these openings play exactly what is in the courses I have to a degree. It's very very close, and more importantly I understand my general ideas of what I"m supposed to be doing depending on how my opponent plays.
I somehow expect that the OP will turn out to be a commercial spambot for some online opening course. The setup is just perfect.
Not a bot I just have a pet peeve when people parrot stuff and don't think it through and can't explain their stance on something. A lot of people just parrot openings don't matter. Which just isn't true, they matter, they aren't a necessity, but they matter and help you progress much faster, and prevent mistake and plateauing too early.
So reading the responses again I see no reasoning why openings don't matter. I hear this.
1. Memorizing long lines is stupid for novice players.
2. You don't lose games in the opening.
3. Novice players don't need to learn a ton of theory,
4. People don't play the lines that you learn.
All these are somewhat incorrect, and somewhat true, but openings matter. Here is my rebuttal to these common arguments.
1. Memorizing long lines is not important for novice players.
You don't memorize everything on day 1. You learn as you go. As a struggling 400 when I got my first course Caro Kahn, and 1e4. I certainly didn't memorize all the theory on day 1 I had to memorize the first 2 moves, then 3, then 4 out of my course until they sank in. This helped because it gave me a base to study the correct moves from. So depending on your rank you memorize a little at first and keep adding on as you progress.
.
There is a difference between memorising and understanding a sequence of moves and memorising a sequence of moves only without understanding. What I bolded in the text was your ability to understand the moves. In other words, you are able to understand why a move is played in a certain opening line.
.
The issue arises when a player simply memorises a line "just because he has seen it somewhere".
Yeah, openings matter, but their importance is so tiny that it can't be underestimated.
When you write about "weakened pawn structure", that's just ridiculous. 400-rated players don't lose because of the pawn structure. They hang 5 or 6 pieces in every game, their opponent also hangs 5 or 6, and whichever player spots half of those hanging pieces just wins easily.
If a 400-rated player wants to improve, he should improve stuff like board vision, time management, concentration, calculation, and tactics. Openings are just as irrelevant as pawn structure.
1. Memorizing long lines is not important for novice players.
You don't memorize everything on day 1. You learn as you go. As a struggling 400 when I got my first course Caro Kahn, and 1e4. I certainly didn't memorize all the theory on day 1 I had to memorize the first 2 moves, then 3, then 4 out of my course until they sank in. This helped because it gave me a base to study the correct moves from. So depending on your rank you memorize a little at first and keep adding on as you progress.
I think people have different notions of what "memorizing openings" mean. There is nothing wrong with learning the first 3 or 4 moves as a novice, and expanding later on that. The issue is when beginners study "theory", that is lines that are 15 or 20 moves deep, thinking it will help winning games. Been there myself...
As a 1600 with no opening repertoire, I would say that they don't matter.
I got rid of my vienna/blackmar-diemer/wing gambit/alapin/fantasy/150 attack repertoire when I was a 1400 and I didn't lose a singe rating point. They don't matter
As a 1600 with no opening repertoire, I would say that they don't matter.
I got rid of my vienna/blackmar-diemer/wing gambit/alapin/fantasy/150 attack repertoire when I was a 1400 and I didn't lose a singe rating point. They don't matter
Right because you are a 1600 and know the basics, and know how to find the best or decent moves. Imagine though not having your vienna and other stuff you used when you were knew. If you have nothing to learn from when new what happens is people make the same mistakes over, and over, and over, and don't actually learn in an efficient way. All I'm saying is having a course or something to study from while you are learning is the most efficient way to get better the fastest. Without that you will get better, but it will take a lot longer because you will make the same mistakes over and over, and it's hard to have a roadmap to improve.
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...
He didnt say it was definate.
He was asking for other people's opinions.