HEY NOOBS! Forget Openings, Study Tactics (The right way)

I agree with this and you're right,this is why "amateurs" are told not to learn Openings.  However don't you feel that amateurs would benefit more from learning Tactics and Endgames with just limited Opening studying or just knowing the principles of Openings,that should be good enough. 

I personally believe that any raw beginner should buy a move to move book like Irving Chernev's classic "Logical Chess move by move" and try and go over a few of those games just to understand the overall flow of the game,the way it should be played,general mistakes to avoid and so on.  I also personally believe that most teachers/experts etc. put maybe a bit too much of an emphasis on tactics,thus neglecting other parts of the game that are very important.   Even still though,I'd go with Tactics and Endgames,it's like Jose Raul Capablanca said, "  In order to improve your game, you must study the endgame before everything else. For whereas the endings can be studied and mastered by themselves, the middle game and opening must be studied in relation to the end game.". 

Therefore it would make sense to study the endings,Chess is best understood backwards to forwards,strange as it may seem. 

Tarrasch also followed this idea. The problem is that every game begins with opening, but not every game reaches the endgame.

Learning by heart is not the only way to learn openings. Somebody could lay correspondence chess and use a book to go through the opening. Or train in Chessable and limit the opening to 4 or 5 moves, which reduces a lot the study time. 

But yes, Chernev’s or Euwe’s books are an excellent option to somebody to get an orientation in how to play the opening, with the advantage that all phases of the game are included. I began to learn with Euwe’s books.

I guess,but I'm already going over tactics,and I know a few basic endgames,I'll have to learn more as my chess knowledge and rating grows.  I definitely love tactics,I love catching someone with something that they didn't even see,because they didn't play as hard as I did or tried to positionally, so they made a blunder and sh** now look,your Queen is OFF the board and mines is still on the board,I love it! <3 lol 

They say that 95% of amateur games are decided by a tactic,well if that's true (which I believe it is!) then it makes sense to know tons of tactics.  Torrubirubi,now you're not wrong,every Chess game has an opening and if you're not careful you'll get smoked right out of the Opening but that's why I said,if you go over some of the games in Irving Chernev's classic "Logical Chess move by move",if a person understands what they are reading and studying,they'll have a general idea of what to do to make it to a playable middle game,then like I said,if their opponent didn't play tight in the middle game,the tactics might even come to you! (Pattern recognition) and then if you can come up with a combination and "it works" then yo ........it's done.  gg (good game) and we'll set the pieces up again and this time it's alright ..........you'll learn,this time I'll be Black! .....Now obviously there is some humor in here but you see what I am meaning!. 

Capablanca also wrote: "... The game might be divided into three parts, i.e.:- 1. The opening. 2. The middle-game. 3. The end-game. There is one thing you must strive for, to be equally efficient in the three parts. Whether you are a strong or a weak player, you should try to be of equal strength in the three parts. ..."

I don't see anything wrong with using a modern book to play over some games (explained in a similar sort of spirit) featuring a particular opening.

I usually recommend my students (beginners) to buy or one of Euwe’s books or Logical Chess..., which are similar. But the next step would be to learn a basic repertoire (in Chessable).

I don't remember saying it was wrong,are we in agreement or not? I'm just saying that with limited study time,Openings shouldn't be what a junior player should focus on,instead tactics and endgames,that's all.  As far as Capablanca talking about one being efficient in all areas of the game,I agree whole-heartedly but unless you want to end up like Bobby Fischer,your study time is limited,so where should your focus be?  Nobody is born a "tactical genius",one must study and learn and develop this skill.  

I would say that with limited time to learn a junior could invest few time learning openings. But better to begin because every game will make a beginner understand better a specific opening.  

Well then we're in disagreement,and you must also disagree with most teachers and Chess professionals who have decades of experience,hmm alright then.  If you doubt what I'm saying do some research,most professionals will tell beginners to stay away from openings and with limited study time,their time is better spent on tactics and endgames,why would you argue the point?  I mean I don't get it,do you think you know better then them?,or do you just want to argue with me??,I don't get it.   

However,you're entitled to your opinion.  *sighs*

It is just my opinion buddy. In my experience most beginners will anyway not study much.  And I know from a lot of strong players and famous teachers that say that you should not ignore any part of the game.  But is completely fine to play chess only following principles. But I doubt that people can get 2000 FIDE rating without knowing concrete lines, as a lot of people assume.  This was perhaps possible 20 or 30 years ago.  But with today's training tools this is probably not realistic.

The author of a book on endgame will say that endgame is the most important part of the game. He forget to say that a lot of games are decided already in the opening or middlegame even.

The author of a book on tactics will say that every weak player will immediately blunder when he is out of he book in the opening, and will lose the game before reaching the endgame (and that therefore tactics is the most important thing to learn).  He will usually not mention that also people doing only tactics will also often blunder for several reasons, and that it is not funny to play a horrible position out of the opening.

Some authors of opening books will say that you should have a opening system for white and black, otherwise you will not be able to win the game in a bad position after a couple of moves. They often do not mention the need of extensive training on tactics and at least a basic knowledge in endgames.

Some authors will say that you have to work on all part of he game. Tactics from a superior position, defence (like where to place an attacked piece or how to defend it), basic endgames, strategy and openings.

I agree with this opinion. All phases are important. A basic opening repertoire is helpful because you get familiar with certain kind of positions, with tactics related to these positions, with concrete ideas how to explore strategic mistakes in those positions.

But it is of course okay to play chess without ever taking a single opening book in the hands, trying to develop quickly, taking care of the center, castling early but not to early, etc. 

Perhaps of interest to look at the table of contents in the book sample here:

http://www.gambitbooks.com/pdfs/A_Complete_Chess_Course.pdf

That's cool buddy,you're entitled to your opinion,just know that most people will debate you on it because most people agree with me and I agree with the experts,that's all but you are entitled to your opinion.  You're right though most beginners won't study anything at all but if they are going to study they should study tactics,as we've all said here.  Opening study won't be neglected and "knowing concrete" lines will NOT help the beginner because his opponent,probably also a patzer does not know the line and so once the beginner goes out of book he's on his own.  Whereas with a tactic he can see it and play it and have an immediate material advantage of his opponent doesn't resign instantly,so yeah but you do it your way buddy and we'll do it ours! 

Let me clarify what I meant when I said Opening study won't be neglected,it won't be neglected when one matures in Chess and at the higher levels you're right,you should learn a few concrete lines but that's not what we're talking about here now is it,you're talking like beginners should be focusing on Openings and that's simply not true,it's almost not even someone's opinion but whatever lol 

What basis do you think you have for considering yourself to be an authority on the thoughts of the experts and most people?

Can you identify a specific sentence stating that beginners should be focusing on Openings?

You don't know what you're talking about I never said I was an authority,I said I agree with the experts,dude do some RESEARCH,you guys needa leave me alone about this,do some research on it and you'll see kk? ............That's it that's all.  Are you a beginner? Keep studying Openings then,I could careless I'm just saying!

Most of the time, one faces a position with no knowledge of a specific move indicated in a book. One has to accept that as part of chess, and think of opening knowledge as a sometimes helpful aid.

"... Review each of your games, identifying opening (and other) mistakes with the goal of not repeatedly making the same mistake. ... It is especially critical not to continually fall into opening traps – or even lines that result in difficult positions ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2007)

https://web.archive.org/web/20140627062646/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman81.pdf

Sorry if I have misunderstood you. When you tell someone that most people agree with you and that you agree with the experts, can we safely conclude that you are not doing so out of a belief that you are an authority on the thoughts of the experts and most people?