How to have a wider range in chess?

I feel like I'm not "comfortable" enough in certain positions (mainy openings). How can I be a strong chess player without learning all this theory?

You can start by watching the St Louis Chess Club Openings Explained series by Johnathon Schrantz. I think he does a good job of explaining the ideas in the positions that arise from the opening he's covering. Perfect for broadening your knowledge of positions you don't play/see often.

Follow Opening Principles:

Control the center.

Develop minor pieces toward the center.

Castle.

Connect your rooks.

To address your first problem with being "comfortable", I personally find that the best thing to do is to try and avoid playing openings that you don't like, and try to transpose the game into comfortable positions that you do like.

As for your second problem, there are two kinds of openings in chess - variations and systems. If you don't want to memorise tons of variations, try playing a system instead. There are many to choose from that you can look up online.

Seek play in the area (queenside, center, kingside) where you have more pieces, space, or ideally both.

By this measure some positions are nearly equal in every area. In that case players often improve pieces. Improving pieces involves giving them more scope or bringing them closer to targets. Getting pawns out of their way, bringing pieces closer to the center, or closer to the enemy king are some common examples.

In either case often a main strategic idea involves a pawn break. Informal definition of a pawn break would be something like when your pawn attacks one of theirs, and their pawn can't advance to avoid a capture. When pawn takes pawn is unavoidable (doesn't matter who initiates the capture) lines (ranks, files, diagonals) will be opened for the pieces. 

This is an extremely brief review of course. You're essentially asking how to play a middlegame. A proper answer would be hundreds (if not thousands) of pages  

Perhaps consider one of these:

http://www.amazon.com/Logical-Chess-Every-Explained-Algebraic/dp/0713484640

http://www.amazon.com/Winning-Chess-Strategies-Everyman/dp/1857443853

this is all good, but what the OP said is that he wants to play great chess Without learning all the fine points of positional chess (if i understood the OP).

its a really simple answer actually.

DON'T blunder- Ever!- computer engines live and die by this rule and spend considerable calculations to make sure that no conceivable variation allows material to be lost. (only won).

I suppose you could work on just being very immune to blunders.  and while that seems like a really good idea (shortcut)...

IMHO. there is NO shortcuts in chess.

if you play Very safe, boring chess your just forcing your opponent towards the endgame- where they may have some very decisive knowledge.

"not blundering" usually fails in the opening- becauase a lot of maneuvers take quite a long time to play out- so without and understanding of the concept- its simply beyond anyone's board vision to imagine all the possible variations and find the decisive move.

if you consider poker an anaology to chess, you might be attracted with the idea of attacking as soon as possible- with the thought that you can bluff your way through any defense.

that will work with some people and not others.

it won't work for strong players at all.  if you are playing a guy who has worked hard to see a lot more than you.   You are betting against a guy- who sees the card

is that a good bet?

and just generally, NOT studying gets you to a certain place.

then you get stuck and stagnate.

good I suppose if you have no ambition.

Good advice which some players may think is easier to follow than it really is. For example when you see your opponent has a threat, you should look for the defense that follows the most opening principals.

Here's an example where black avoids a fairly common type of error many moves in a row:

Is it better then to allow my major pieces to breathe by eliminating pawns in equal exchanges? I'm not the best at endgame I've realized and so isn't it best to keep as many of my pieces as possible to increase my probability of promoting a pawn to queen?

You only need to exchange pawns 1 or 2 times to open enough lines.

In any case it's almost impossible to win if no pawns are exchanged at all through the course of a game.

If you're still trying to improve, then don't try to optimize your play by avoiding types of positions where you think you're weak. Welcome endgames as a learning opportunity.

A superior position will give you queening opportunities. Pawn majorities are also important elements in that regard. The number of pawns on the board is not so relevant. You may each have 7 pawns, but if they're all blocking each other and not far advanced then maybe none of the 14 can hope to queen.

A pawn majority is having a greater number of pawns than the opponent's on a side. E.g. 4 queenside pawns vs 3 queenside pawns. By advancing your 4 vs their 3 in an endgame you can often create a passed pawn.

What do you mean by poker lingo?

This is the comment that you respond to? You've had lots of people trying to post helpful suggestions but this is the only comment you'll respond to? WTF is wrong with you? I've played a lot of poker in my time and the first thing this thread made me think of was also poker. I'll be damned if I'm going to tell you though.

Respond to other comments first! Even Gamifast, the idiot who blocks people for calling him on his BS and retarded logic has tried to make a useful suggestion. Respond to these people! Not the troll! Asshole.

Its quite ironic when you call me an asshole

In chess always know that nothing goes for nothing, compare ur position with that of ur oponent and examine ur loss and gain before positioning.#be a fast thinker

Exactly. ChessOath is definitely one of the biggest, rudest assholes on this site, and not only does he get offended when I block him for very good reasons, he can't even spell my name right and gives horrible advice.

You don't have to respond to every comment, but of course he doesn't realise that. And my logic is retarded? I know for a fact that I have very good logic most of the time, but at least I can admit when I'm wrong. I wish chess.com would just delete his account - no one wants to see his comments, yet he is too stubborn and egotistical to care.

learn theory