Does studying opening lines hinder your enjoyment?

I know that some of you will find this to be a stupid question, and other's might even consider it trolling, but this is something I have been considering for a while... from multiple perspectives.

One of the main reasons why I like the game of Chess is because it is a game of calculation, strategy and cunning. I like to calculate as many different moves and outcomes as possible while I am playing, which is why I gravitate more towards Online (Corrospondence) Chess instead of standard timed or blitz matches... I like to take my time and force myself to calculate "on-the-fly" and come up with the best move, even if that takes three or four days-- and I also enjoy when myself or my opponent manages to come up with an odd, never-before seen totally suprising "game-changer" of a move -- it makes the game unique and fresh and very exciting.

Now I am no expert by any means, I am actually quite average (usually slightly below) and I have studied a few openings to try and improve because that's what many people who are more skilled than myself say to do. The advice I receive most often is "study openings." That's what all the books I have read also teach.

However the more I do this, the more I find that it is sucking the fun and enjoyment out of Chess. Games go from being fun and interesting and unique, to following patterns and lines, and it becomes more of a "memory game" than a "strategy and tactics" game.

I find that I can play games purely out of habit and memory, and I don't need to think, and that's not what is fun for me.

Does anyone else feel the same?  What are your thoughts?

some view the knowledge of mainlines as a foundation of good chess (ie GMs) Club players do not usally learn them that deep. But unless chess 960 becomes the norm. Standard opening lines will still be important.

Most advice is to not study openings. It's commonly thought of as a mistake many lower rated players make (lets say under 2200 even). So I don't know what books and advice givers you've come into contact with heh.

But ok, on to the question.

It mostly represents a phase of the game before the strategy, tactics, and cunning. The players reach the beginning of the game at some point in (or after) the opening. It also makes the strategy more complex, as both players know the usual ideas, and both know that the position in front of them is not quite the same, so both try to react in the best way, and then read and react to what their opponent is doing.

Although it is annoying to lose a tournament game to an opponent's prep. Of course it's always your choice when and how to deviate. It's easy to avoid dangerous prep especially at amateur levels.

And finally I want to point out that study increases the depth of the game. Beginners mostly guess... well, even the world champion has to guess, but the better you are, the more educated your guesses are :) So as I see it, study actually introduces more strategy, tactics, and cunning.

If you like the idea of raw visualization ability winning games, or quick adaptation by novice players, then what I actually suggest is to constantly learn and play new games. Websites like itsyourturn.com have many different games for example.

Since i dont study openings, no...

If you are not an expert, you do not need to study openings.Spend that time on tactics and endgames.

Follow some basic opening rules like:

Make at most 2 pawn moves

Aim to control the center

Develop fast-Chess is war and your armies need to be on the battlefield

Develop knights before bishops because bishops have more options hence the best square for the bishop may be determined by later moves.

Don't move one piece twice in the opening.You loose tempo when you do that.

...etc.

I have never understood why some players are proud of knowing nothing about opening theory. It is obviously not the most important thing in chess, but it is nevertheless a valuable and interesting part of the game. It would be odd if you were playing entire games out of habit, as you say. You also distinguish patterns from tactics and strategy, which is odd to me, since tactical and strategic understanding is also based on patterns. I agree with you that the flash of lightning moves, the game changing moves, are the most thrilling moments in chess. But you cant be surprised without expectations and patterns, so, again, I find it hard to follow what exactly you dislike about openings. Its true that ooenings involve memorisation, but there are some openings with more theory than others - plenty of openings dont require much precise, theoretically exact play. Openings also are the most common place to see totally strange, creative ideas.

I quite enjoy opening battles - you are declaring your intentions for the game and struggling to block and disrupt your opponent from executing his plan. There are some memorised moves, but critical is always to have also memorized the purpose of those moves, the relative weaknesses and strengths of systems, so that you will know how to play against deviations and novelties. Also, if you have memorized the opening and dont need to think, then presumably you are running through it and getting to the fresh play quite quickly.

In short: openings are much maligned, especially by beginners and some coaches, but they can be a way for you to express your chess style and to discuss first-order strategic ideas over the board against your opponent.

Well it was mostly people I have played against here... I lose and then they will say something in the chat like "study more openings." and I have a book Fundemental Chess Openings by Paul Van Der Sterren.

My main issue though is that the more memorization I do, (and the more my opponent does) the game becomes predictable and almost automatic at times -- I almost feel as if it kills the creativity aspect of the game.

Maybe I'm alone in thinking this way. I want to get better, but not at the cost of playing best lines like a machine. Perhaps the two are mutualiy exclusive.

Obviously openings are important, but beginners, and low rated players place wayyyy to much importance on openings.  It does you no good to be able to say you know an opening 20 moves deep when you are still dropping pieces, and missing simple tactics.  

Secondly...begnners have no chess style.  Unless dropping pieces is a style.

More the opposite. Memorizing lines is about the last thing you should do to improve... and makes the game a lot less fun.

Ideally you learn the ideas behind the openings, and ideas behind certain pawn structures. Also basic strategy and tactics of course. Then the opening is you and your opponent negotiating what kind of themes the game will have, not playing out some string of memorized moves.

Also, if you only memorize moves, when your opponent plays a different move you'll be totally lost.

Learn and understand the ideas behind the moves.  Learn and understand the pawn structures associated with the openings.  But also due me a favor, and keep on memorizing moves.  You make my job at tournaments much easier.

For someone of my current mediocre level I probably have above average opening preparation (in openings I play regularly). A lot of my games that I've analyzed, I'm almost always better after the opening. Unfortunately it only takes one bad move and that advantage fades. Positional understanding, tactics and knowing the correct pawn breaks to play for and other similar aspects of the game are more important than opening theory imo.

no

I usually try to avoid playing the rating card. But damn that's a lot of authoritative opinion for a 1000! Do you also tell your pilot how to fly a 747 because you can fly your quadcopter in your back yard?

I find studying certain openings liberating.  I get to learn more about various strategies.  When I studied the King's Indian, for instance, I was never that impressed with the dark-square Bishop.  When I then looked at lines from the Benoni, though, I saw lots of common thematic maneuvers, some of which could be used in the King's Indian.  This helped refine my ideas in the King's Indian, but not just that, it helps with any opening that has a Kingside fianchetto.

That said, a certain level of opening knowledge goes from liberating to condemning.  I would love to play the Sicilian Dragon as Black, but I don't have the time to fully learn the main line.  At my level, if I play the Dragon against someone booked up, I'll lose, simple as that.  At this point, opening knowledge is a roadblock.

For that reason, I play openings where I can get by on general principles.  I can't play the Dragon, but I can still play the Scandiavian, the Open Spanish, the Nimzo, etc etc.  It seems a fair trade off.

I actually really enjoy studying chess openings.

Especially odd, I enjoy most reading about the trully ludicrous and unorthodox openings that neither I nor virtually anyone else plays.  (So -- practically -- my time spent "studying" these obsure openings is worthless).

I do agree -- with what I believe is your original sentiment -- that studying the "main lines" can be tedious and laborous.  (I have forgotten the circumstances and I would not be surprised if I butcher some facts, but I was in bookstore the other day and I recall they had a book (a fairly lengthy one!) about one -- and only one -- particular line of the French opening a good 10-12 moves in!!!

Talk about "snooze fest"!!!

I find studying some openings enjoyable. The Sicilian English Attack is probably the deepest and most complicated. After spending dozens of hours, it still remains a mystery to me. That makes me wanting to study it more.

Good opening study is about understanding the ideas behind the moves, rather than simply memorizing lines.

If thinking about opening moves bores you, it might be because you're thinking of it as a memorization exercise. Instead, try asking yourself why each move is played.

Why does black place his bishop on b4 in the Nimzo-Indian Defence?

How about this position?

Every good opening move has a reason behind it. For me, at least, the fun part about opening study isn't memorization, but figuring out why the moves are played.

Openings aren't just rote moves—they're moves budding with strategy, tactics, and positional aims.

Find the why behind the moves, and hopefully you'll find the enjoyment in them, too. :)

you read "study more opening" in a book that teach chess?

What book?  Almost all the ones I have read stress; tactics, endgames, and careful deliberation/calculation.

I've NEVER seen a book that said a low rated player should memorize tons of chess Opening variations.  

You sound quite eloquent. If you don't mind my asking, may I ask why your rating is so low?

Please don't get me wrong. I don't mean to condenscend or trivialize what you said because of your rating. In fact I think you're spot on, and I complete agree with what you said. It reflects the understanding of someone with pretty decent understanding of chess (I know I didn't have even 1/10 of that understanding when I was at 1200). So I was quite surprised that your current rating doesn't seem to reflect the deep knowledge you seem to possess.

I think understanding opening lines and being able to memorize some common openings is important, regardless of the level you are at, although for it's a lot more crucial/important when you're average & above (1500+)

The reason is that as much as you like to calculate, there's not much you can calculate at the beginning. The tree of possibilities is so vast that most people (except those at IM level and up) will just give up after 2-3 moves ahead. Knowing opening lines will then allow you to confidently and quickly make the first few moves without worrying about losing an advantage too quickly. If you don't know lines but your opponent does, you can easily get into a disadvantage situation after the first 5-6 moves (-0.5 or more in evaluation). Why would you want to start a game at a disadvantage?

That's what opening lines mean to me: know them so you can at least keep on par with your opponent. Once you're out of book then you can calculate all you want. At least you know it'll be fair fight instead of one where you're always inferior (it's no fun playing an inferior positions all the time, I can tell you that).

That's for regular chess. If you truly love calculation at all stages and abhor opening lines, then play 960. There it's a calculation battle from the start, and it's quite fun. It's like you're inventing new opening lines as you go along, and it's an intriguing mental battle from the very first move.