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.
against the hippo and similar, I play with three advanced central pawns against stronger players but often against weaker players, four abreast and try to smash through by playing both e5 and d5. It's still opening knowledge, except that development is obvious and white isn't challenged.
I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts. I know it depends on the level. But what level have you found it important?
This is discussed constantly, and is one of those subjects that will never go away. So i am merely adding my .02 on this and what i was told by my former IM coach.
As a USCF Expert. Openings did not decide my games. Mistakes, Blunders, and tactics did. My opening study consisted of a few openings i enjoyed and gave me middle games i was comfortable with. So what do i mean by that?
I spent time learning and understanding the "why" behind where the pieces and pawns went. What did i do when i was confronted with a non-book move? I looked for a move that did the following: Improved the activity of my pieces, created a weakness in the opponents position, a move that gained space. Simple? Yep, but it worked.
I fully understand that this is not going to settle this opening study debate. There will always be those that barely know how the pieces move and think opening study is the key to success. I know there will always be those that think just memorizing moves is the way to go. I know there will always be those that think playing highly theoretical openings makes them look knowledgeable.
In the end. Chess is just a game for the 99.9% of us. Its not our profession. We don't make money from it. Its a game we play because we enjoy it. And that is what matters. Its a game that brings enjoyment. So if studying openings makes the game fun? Then carry on.
That's a great point, thanks for sharing. I find opening study enjoyable and fun, but definitely think tactics hold most of the water for my level right now.
One thing I did find helpful was *changing* what I was playing. My coach asked me to change from e4 to d4 and my black openings to d5 and Sicilian. I have found that this has encouraged my mind to think about the game entirely differently. Different openings seem to have different "ethos" and characters about them. Still yet, most of my losses and wins have been completely due to decisive tactical blunders