How Important Is Opening Study?

Its usefulness should not be underestimated. There are very few players who are so talented that they can play naturally and yet win at a level above, say, 1600.

"Having preferences means having weakness" Magnus Carlsen>>

Taken in the general sense, that's absolutely wrong and sounds like the idea of a weak person, and yet we know he's a phenomenally strong player. I don't think he can have thought it through. You can have preferences and yet remain adaptable. 

I honestly almost only study openings now

know the basic ideas behind them, but haven't ever really studied openings:

prefer having a 'no style' style... if I don't know what i'm doing, then YOU can't know what i'm doing.  🙂

still reached a 1700 average rating (so far):

took 1,000 lessons;

got a 3600 puzzles pb;

completed most of the endgame challenges.

most games i seem to reach a playable middlegame & proceed to either mate or mop up in the endgame.

when i reach a 2000 average i'll probably start memorizing lines to work on my perceived biggest weakness, but until then ignorance is bliss:

i'm proof you can do just fine with superior tactical ability while initially focusing more on strategic ideas & endgame technique than opening theory.

I didn’t used to do that, but after getting clapped by two masters in my otb tournament right out of the opening I realized that it didn’t matter how good I can play chess, I can’t beat masters if I’m just losing out of the opening lol

#28
"but after getting clapped by two masters in my otb tournament right out of the opening I realized that it didn’t matter how good I can play chess, I can’t beat masters if I’m just losing out of the opening "
++ That is completely wrong. I have played opening sidelines against grandmasters and lost in the endgame. Playing into main lines against grandmasters is the way for an easy loss: they either know more about it, or they sidestep what you know.

Your problem doesn’t necessarily mean it is my problem. And I never said I was going to play into mainlines. However, considering that the openings I play usually give a +1 advantage to the opponent, I think that doing a bit of work wouldn’t hurt.

you probably can't win a chess match with your opening but you can lose it with a poor one

The game consists of a number of parts. Against a GM, I'm going to lose in the opening if my opening theory is no good. If I'm not really on form, I'm going to lose in the middle game. If I'm playing really well, there's a good chance I'll survive the middle game against a GM. The transition to an ending is another matter. I probably won't survive that. If I'm playing really, really well, I'll lose to a GM in the ending. Otherwise I'll be lost in 25 moves in any case.

Opening preparation increases the chances you will last longer even when you're completely outclassed and against players whom I might beat on a good day, which, I suppose, is anything up to 2350 FIDE, it increases those chances of a win, simply because I'm going to be still in the game for longer.

I actually haven’t been focusing on openings as much as I make it out to be. That’s why my theory mostly consists of offbeat lines such as the alekhine and czech benoni- to give me time to study the chess part of chess. Again, I think I’ve been studying middlegame and endgames for a while now and it’s time to focus on openings.

Against the two masters who busted me out of the opening, against a weaker player I could have won- maybe 2000 and below- but not against them.

I just feel like studying some openings is currently the best use of my time.

no idea i am just kinda lazy but theory is very important especially in elite or high levels

I let my Daily games run out and I'm playing 5/5 blitz when I'm in the mood, which doesn't mean when I'm playing well because if I'm feeling sharp, I'm doing non-chess stuff, trying to make money. Since January I've played a couple of hundred blitz games, I suppose, and at first it felt really weird, because I was so used to playing Daily and I felt really out of my depth. Once upon a time I was a good blitz player, otb. But in the last session, a couple of days ago, it felt like my old fluency was starting to come back and I was finally enjoying it. Before that it had seemed pretty horrible .... like something I had to do. Yesterday I spent an hour washing dishes and that was much more fun. Today I've been doing a bit of weight-lifting, which I normally hate, and that felt better than chess .... but I'm still enjoying my chess more than I was a week ago. I want to play about another 500 blitz games before I start with Daily again. Maybe then I'll be ready to play for a club otb once more.

#35
"If you are good enough to play GMs, then you should already know your openings and endgames. It's the middlegame that the GM will chew you up and spit out your bones for maracas and donate them to the next mariachi band."
++ That is not true. Go to any large Swiss open tournament. At the top boards the weaker players usually hold themselves quite well against the grandmasters in the middle game, but they get destroyed in the endgame, particularly in rook endings.
As for the opening, the best way to open against a grandmaster is to deviate as early as possible. You do not want to play into his preparation, which is either deeper than yours, or he may sidestep what you know entirely.

There were a lot of dishes. We normally try to do it every day and for various reasons it hadn't been done for a month and it was getting nasty. We have a lot of dishes. I got halfway through it. It looks better now.

I was playing at a national tournament last weekend. With such a large rating gap, most games in the first two or three rounds were usually decided in the opening and middlegame. Winning four pawns allows you to play until move 40 or so, but the result was decided on move 20 when he got those pawns. Of course, as the opposition got stronger, the games lasted longer, but every time I walked by first board the game was a middlegame with plenty of pieces.

Theres also a case against deviating against stronger players- they’re stronger precisely because they play good CHESS, meaning they will likely outplay the lower rated player in original positions. When in theory, though, the lower rated player tends to be somewhat “protected” by book.

Youll notice that most of the time burned in a chess game is in the middlegame phase.

Theres also a case against deviating against stronger players- they’re stronger precisely because they play good CHESS, meaning they will likely outplay the lower rated player in original positions. When in theory, though, the lower rated player tends to be somewhat “protected” by book.>>

That's quite correct. Deviate only when you know you're playing very well.

#42

"Winning four pawns allows you to play until move 40 or so, but the result was decided on move 20 when he got those pawns."
++ Losing 1 pawn is enough to lose the game. You should care not to lose any pawn without compensation

"as the opposition got stronger, the games lasted longer, but every time I walked by first board the game was a middlegame with plenty of pieces."
++ In large Swiss open tournaments the top boards in early rounds typically match grandmasters with 2000 rated players. The 2000 rated players usually hold themselves until the endgame.

"Theres also a case against deviating against stronger players- they’re stronger precisely because they play good CHESS, meaning they will likely outplay the lower rated player in original positions."
++ They are better, so they are likely to win anyway, but by playing theory you often hand them a free, effortless win. "Yes I know this move, as fellow grandmaster X played it against me last week." "I saw this idea in a game of GM A vs. GM B and I analysed it a bit, so I wanted to try it today"

"When in theory, though, the lower rated player tends to be somewhat “protected” by book."
++ No, you can only postpone the moment when you have to think of your own. It is no better to play 15 theory moves and lose on move 17, than to deviate on move 3 and lose on move 20.

"Youll notice that most of the time burned in a chess game is in the middlegame phase."
++ Most is burned in the opening, much is burned in the middle game, the remainder is burned in the endgame. Chess is most complex with 26 men, i.e. after 2 trades, so that is where most time should be burned. Grandmasters never hurry. They think carefully, even when still in an opening they know. In a large Swiss open tournament the grandmasters at the top boards are usually pondering move 10, while the weaker players in the rear of the hall already are at move 30. The weaker players feel in time trouble when they have half an hour for 20 moves. The grandmasters confidently go down to 1 minute on move 20.
At Budapest 1950 Keres against Szabo thought for 2 hours over his 5th move.

You miss most of my main point, which is that the games between really strong and really weak players are usually decided in the middlegame. You can lose in the endgame, but that's because you were already losing earlier.

The tournament I played in was k-12 nationals. There were no GMs, but the IMs were playing people rated about 1900. It's similiar enough.

There's no difference between deviating from theory from move 17 and deviating on move 7, true. But you last longer if you stay in theory. You can't really prove that by playing theory, they will be getting a free win. More often than not, the stronger player will deviate.

I am 900 rated in bullet, and i have played over 3500 games.  I love playing the Hippo defense because it is fairly opponent independent and newbies have a problem seeing long diagonals.  The correct theory response to the hippo is the three pawn attack.  Out of all of the people who managed to know the correct response, not a single one has been able to use that to their advantage.  

I am absolutely convinced that opening theory is trash for beginners or even intermediate. Knowing the meta game for what each opening is about is very useful, but actual memorization of moves?  Bah. What's the point if you can't convert it to a win?

The only time I think someone won due to opening knowledge was when I played the hyper-accelerated dragon and they knew the Maroczy Bind. Even then, it is equal parts knowing the opening theory + me being terrible at the positional game.