I neglect opening theory in favor of endings and middlegames. Even so, I spend a few hours per week honing my openings.
This advice should suffice most players, for the remainder of their life, and probably the next 100 years.
Just Live With It.
Agreed...openings are what i put the least amount of time into.
For me its not about theory or engines.
For me its about playing a guy that has been playing the same thing for more than 10 years.
For example:
As white he only ever plays 1. Nf3 or 1. c4
As black he plays Scilian for open games, Slav for closed games and reversed Scilian against c4.
Over and over again, year after year, has all the books, engines, databases.
He loves to copy grandmaster moves, the longer the lines the better 
I react to the ever more complex opening theory by not learning it.
Only "theory" I know is the lines that have developed themselves by my own play, which means they are probably none too solid, but my opponents aren't computers, so it doesn't matter.
Yeah, I'll never be a 2000 player like this, but who cares ?
As long as you're not a professional try to remember games were being created to spend spare time in a fun way.
If learning theory does that for you, fine.
For me playing and finding my own moves is more fun, and every game I play is kinda new instead of starting only at move 20.
Well said Becky!
You would be amazed at how often i hear young players bragging how they know certain openings 10-20 moves deep, and recite chess engine analysis. But they have no clue why they lost a game?
It's actually a lot more often that those same young players are pretty much lost right out of the opening because they didn't even bother to do a basic review of the common setups they play.
Not getting murdered in the opening is especially important for juniors. This doesn't at all mean they should neglect studying the other parts of the game at cost of learning detailed opening sublines, but they should at least be familiar with common traps and mistakes in the first 8 moves of the game.
I react to the ever more complex opening theory by not learning it.
Only "theory" I know is the lines that have developed themselves by my own play, which means they are probably none too solid, but my opponents aren't computers, so it doesn't matter.
Yeah, I'll never be a 2000 player like this, but who cares ?
As long as you're not a professional try to remember games were being created to spend spare time in a fun way.
If learning theory does that for you, fine.
For me playing and finding my own moves is more fun, and every game I play is kinda new instead of starting only at move 20.
Well said Becky!
You would be amazed at how often i hear young players bragging how they know certain openings 10-20 moves deep, and recite chess engine analysis. But they have no clue why they lost a game?
It's actually a lot more often that those same young players are pretty much lost right out of the opening because they didn't even bother to do a basic review of the common setups they play.
Not getting murdered in the opening is especially important for juniors. This doesn't at all mean they should neglect studying the other parts of the game at cost of learning detailed opening sublines, but they should at least be familiar with common traps and mistakes in the first 8 moves of the game.
To be fair, i need to split "young players" into 2 groups:
1. The young players that get good teaching, good coaching, have good study habits, and apply what they learn.
2. The young players that memorize an opening 10-20 moves deep and call themselves "tactical"/"agressive" players, that hang pices, and dont undertand why they lose.
For me its not about theory or engines.
For me its about playing a guy that has been playing the same thing for more than 10 years.
For example:
As white he only ever plays 1. Nf3 or 1. c4
As black he plays Scilian for open games, Slav for closed games and reversed Scilian against c4.
Over and over again, year after year, has all the books, engines, databases.
He loves to copy grandmaster moves, the longer the lines the better
Exaclty the point I was trying to convey. Variety is suppose to be the spice of life. Chess with its all it richness in possibilities is why I find it so appealing.
I try almost all the openings. Right now I am having decent results with white 1. b4 Sokolsky. I don't care what people say about it, it can be effective. It's surprize value alone has bagged me plenty of blitz wins.
The rules of chess have changed over the centuries. Modern chess, called classical, is the result of the last modification of rules. They were first settled in Spain, five centuries ago. The Queen could only move one diagonal square until then, pawns one square ahead also from the initial position, there was no crowning of pawns in the eighth line and I'm not sure if en-passant was introduced as well. Since then, back in 1489, no single alteration has been allowed.
Chess 960, or a limited version thereof which would eliminate absurd disposition of pieces, might well help bringing out the real talented, deeper thinking players, as well as fighting the current Mafiosi status quo of certain chess organisations and their rulers.
Current out of the book lines, like Carlsen's, are rather home brewed innovations cooked by teams of second board players. Carlsen has ten of them working for him and see the result in his last game against Topalov at Sinquefield.
One good thing about Opening Theory is that it's so easy to side-step your opponents' preparation, and put them on (your) familiar ground.
Squeezing the last molecule of advantage out of the first move is great for the Gods and the GMs. Mere mortals need not apply. Indeed, why bother?
I think that studying some basic opening theory is incredibly important to the novice. They have to understand how to develop pieces to good squares, control the center, castle early (usually) and otherwise not get caught up in basic opening traps to make it to the middle and end game. This doesn't mean they need to go twenty moves deep into each opening, it just means they need to decide which openings they are using and understand the basic principles related to those.
Then they can forget about studying opening theory and focus 99% of their time on tactics and endgames.
I get that people say beginners should worry more about tactics than opening theory, and while that is true to some degree, they need to be able to make it out of the beginning to actually play a decent middle game.
When I see two top GM's playing today, it feels like watching two computers. The opening lines can go on for 20 moves and more. Who wins or loses seems to be based more on who has the better home preparation and memory then who is the better player.
Capablanca, Fischer and many others have warned about this problem. It seems to me that the top players today are young and play very antiseptic chess. Technically proficient no doubt, but hardly appealing. Those that try and deviate and play more creatively ie; Morozevich, Shirov etc, don't stay among the the top for very long.
I was reminded by this when playing over the recent Nakamura - Eljanov game where the former deviated from theory and was roundly criticized and went on to lose the game. His opponent joined in on the critcism in a later interview. I guess Nakamura should have stuck with theory to God knows what move, before the two finally got around to actually making moves on their own. That or sprung some novelty prepared by a computer.
I had really hoped that Chess960 would have replaced the old game by now. Kill the opening, and we would truly see who is the most talented player around. It may very well be Nakamura. To his credit, he does go against convention. Very few top GM's these days even try. This means however, that he may never be World Champion. This style doesn't lend itself so well for match play. He might have to temper his play, and play the more dry, technical, colorless chess that most of his top competitors play.
Your complaint is a variation on that against the "grandmaster draw," which has existed since MCO and before. Theory has been strangling chess for 300 years, yet we have a long way to go. Players who want to attack and win will attack and win.
Ever wonder why the real machines are 500 points stronger than these "computers?" Why is Carlsen 2880 and Fritz 3300? That's not a minor difference, that's a 99 percent winning probability. The simple solution is to shorten the time controls to where perfect theory doesn't matter, much like in basketball.
I love the age bias btw. When I was 20-24 years old and training I was told I was "too old" (I had made expert by age 21 and not put a ton of time into the game). Well now I'm 48 and "too old" is still the only real knock on my play.
I think these younger players could easily be crushed by someone who knows how to deviate soundly in the openings, and outplay them on instinact. Chess, of course, is 99 percent tactics anyway, and we can learn those from computers.
Chess is 100% calculation. And unless youre a world class player, trying to play like an engine is completely unecessary. I do agree that class players that commit the bulk of there studying to openings are the easiest to beat.
Top level players don't merely memorize opening lines. They understand the lines and the game on a deeper level than most of us could fathom. If it were merely a matter of memorization than any fool would be able to do it with a little time and a little effort.
People who proudly declare that they don't need to study openings (much) are just saying they aren't professional players and do not aspire to be.
EVERY chessgame has an opening. It's literally your first impression.
In 1990, I coached a high school team of four beginners and a top board rated 1360. I drilled them for three hours a day, five days a week, on almost nothing but openings, including the Pelikan, but also the four basic principles of opening play.
They were 0-3 when I got them, finished the year 5-5, and won their last two matches by 9-1 against the former #3 school in the city (they finished third). The teacher who drove them to the tournament said the other kids looked beaten, and kept asking their coach if they could resign. I had turned a group of kids who had barely played the game into the third-strongest high school in the city league, all with three months of opening drills.
Kids who memorize are just on the way to full understanding. You only see them at the lower levels because once the next phase kicks in they're off to the 2600 races while the "creative" players stay at 1700 for life.
"In 1990, I coached a high school team of four beginners and a top board rated 1360."
At that level, opeings will work. No surpise there.
Kids who memorize are just on the way to full understanding. You only see them at the lower levels because once the next phase kicks in they're off to the 2600 races while the "creative" players stay at 1700 for life.
Yeah there are tens of thousands of 2600 players
Difficult question for everyone...
You have been tasked with "coaching" highschool a chess team of 3 unrated players, and 1 1300 player. You have part of 1 school year to work with them. What do you teach them?
A. Rook and Pawn endings
B. Basic Mates
C. Openings
D. History of chess
E. Basic Tactics
Basic tactics. But even more basic than that, simple calculation.
Actually, I think any of those would be fine, as long as you secretly use it to motivate them to do a lot of analysis / calculation in their head. True beginners (not unrated players at 2000 strength) lose and win games based on who is paying more attention.
I think it's harder to beat someone rated 400 points higher than you in 60 moves than it is to beat them in 20 moves 
Here's his interest (@BetterOS) in this thread, with text from his profile --
"I am the author of "The Fine Art Of The Miniature: Win Your Chessgames In Twenty-Five Moves Or Less," available through the link in this profile."
The first 20 moves of a chess game are closer to choreography than to actual chess knowledge. On balance, it allows you to experience the great romantic period of 19th century gambit chess and the "open games."
After that (black hole) most players largely give up the game. This we all know.
So what is opening theory's enduring value ?? Not much.
Instead, learn just what you need to know about openings, and move onto other phases of the game.
Return to openings (sparingly) after you have reached USCF 1900, or even Expert level. Only 3 percent or tournament players ever reach that level in the USCF.
Openings are largely a matter of taste. Just Live With It.
The first 20 moves of a chess game are closer to choreography than to actual chess knowledge. On balance, it allows you to experience the great romantic period of 19th century gambit chess and the "open games."
After that (black hole) most players largely give up the game. This we all know.
So what is opening theory's enduring value ?? Not much.
Instead, learn just what you need to know about openings, and move onto other phases of the game.
Return to openings (sparingly) after you have reached USCF 1900, or even Expert level. Only 3 percent or tournament players ever reach that level in the USCF.
Openings are largely a matter of taste. Just Live With It.
Well said! I find studying openings boring, and generally uninteresting. But to each his own right? As long as you are having fun playing this great game, that is what matters. Last week during a moment of boredom i checked out the wikipedia page on the Colle System. Read up on it, and promptly beat an 1900 player.
I neglect opening theory in favor of endings and middlegames. Even so, I spend a few hours per week honing my openings.
This excellent advice should suffice most players for the remainder of their life, and probably the next 100 years.
Just Live With It.