I hate opening theory!!!

Here is my problem - I have rather poor memory. And opening is where you need to memorize the most. I love all the aspects of chess except for opening theory which I find boring and uninspiring.

Yesterday I made just another attempt to refine my d4 repertoire for an OTB game I have to play tomorrow and after 15 minutes I was fed up and bored to death. I feel like abandoning any further attempts. I was just wondering what will it mean in terms of future progress. I know like 3-5 moves in most of the openings and the rest I play by general principles. In OTB game it does cost me some extra time to find the reasonable moves but till now it never led to big disadvantage in the opening.

I am 1644 OTB, study tactics, endgames, strategy, master games (which gives some indirect exposure to various openings by the way). Do you think it's reasonable not to learn opening at all and only do what I really enjoy?

Yes, your approach is certainly reasonable, provided you don't play ultra-sharp openings.

There are two good ways to learn opening theory without cramming material in your head :

1. Play over master games who play the same openings than you do (this way you'll learn typical patterns and piece positions, which will help you find moves quicker in your games)
2. Check your OTB games against a database, and look at the moment where you or you opponent deviated : try then to understand why the main move in the database is the main move (this method, a master friend of mine called it - 'learning opening theory one move at a time', and it's way more efficient than you would think...)

Thanks hicetnunc. I always liked your posts and this one is no exception.

Actually I did use both methods in the past although not very systematically. I especially like the 2nd one: right after the game is finished and you still remember what was in your head and why certain moves were made go and compare it to database. And it takes minimum of time.

Yes, of course. Unless you intend to make your living by playing chess do not do anything you do not enjoy. On the other hand, maybe you just need to find right way to tudy openings. My way is the following:

(1) I chose basic opening plan. I played this 10 moves against Ruy Lopez, this 10 moves against Sicilian and so on. I sticked to it.

(2) After every game I play I look up a master game in the same opening variation I just played (preferably annotated) and go over it.

If you do not like memorizing opening variations, this is maybe the way to go. Also, stay away from Poisoned-Pawn Najdorf, Meran end the like because you will keep losing to better prepared opposition.

I did in the past. That's an option of course but finding opponents is more difficult, especially OTB.

If I want to learn a particular opening/variation, I find out which GM's specialise in that particular opening/variation. I collect all the games (in pgn format) and go over and over them until I get a good idea of where the pieces go and the general strategy. This is the only way I can learn the openings without being bored to death with variation after variation after variation with a += at the end. You can often supplement this with information freely available on the internet.

The problem with not studying opening 'theory' is that you are always going to come across a move from your opponent that you have to work out what the point of it is and what a good (not necessarily best) reply is while they presumably know how the next few moves should go. Its hard to avoid, I started learning the Caro Kann recently and assumed there wasn't a huge load of stuff to learn if I stuck to the Karpov 4..Nd7 variation..unfortunately if someone hits you with 5.Ng5 or 5.Bc4 then 6.Ng5 theres a lot of tactics flying about that you have to watch out for as Black, so much for the Caro as the 'safe' positional choice!

Your best option is to play something that really doesn't take up 3 pages of sub variations in ECO, the 'Exchange' variation of anything is usually good for this (not the Gruenfeld though!)

That's exactly what happens - usually I am on my own from move 4, and not from move 9 or 12,  like somebody who knows the theory. I guess that's the price I am ready to pay for not learning the openings.

play e4

play colle system or just go 1. g3. If you go wrong, its not because of bad opening reportiare, its because of lack of general chess understanding. Btw i really like GM Roman movies which you can find on Youtube. They are really good if you want very strong but still simple openings. I would recommend them to anyone.

 "Learning" opening theory isnt important until you reach 2000

I agree. For instance, if I feel adventurous, I play 1.e4, and my opponent hits me with 1...c5. I don't mind, because in the end, I stick to general opening principles, and think what the pawn structure demands. Similarly, I normally play d4 and c4 openings, and I don't know the main lines to Reti, Slav or Semi-slav. I don't mind that too - I see it well. The only theory I know is the French and KID...and to be honest, as long as you have a sound base, and can create a long-term plan from move 2 or 3, you'll be fine. May end in a slight disadvantage, but if you can't memorize theory, this is prob the second best thing to rely on.

       There are some easy 1.d4 openings/systems you can learn by learning only the basic plans, like Rubinstein Attack or Colle.You can do the same as black.Choose  defenses that are based more on understanding than in memorisation.

        In my chess club I have a student that hates openings, he knows no lines at all , only the basic plans and ideas I  showed  him.He is also around 1600 FIDE rating only after a year playing and no one can get more than an equal position from the opening when playing with him , even the most prepared, and he always plays the same(meaning they have the chance to prepare against him).

Its good to think for yourself, some famous players were notoriously weak in the openings, Lasker, Reshevsky - even the mighty Capablanca relied mainly on his judgement rather than memorised variations to see him through the early stages. Having said that, there weren't the plethora of complex systems around back then that there are now. Hardly anybody played the Sicilian in any form for instance.

When you say you don't know the theory of the semi-slav do you play the 5.e3 line? If you play 5.Bg5 and get the Botvinnik or Moscow variations its a total minefield unless you know precise move orders to get to a playable position.

I also find that in closed and semi-closed systems especially, the pawn structure often dictates what plans to implement. The old 'Mastering the...' series are excellent for explaining plans based on pawn structure. It's a shame they didn't carry on with that series, as they are the only opening books I have found the most interesting and useful.

If you are a chess player, you cannot escape opening theories. Whether you like it or not you must.

The importance of theories cannot be underestimated. Remember that 90% or more in top level chess is theory.

yeah but 90% in low level chess is middlegame and endgame.

You can avoid opening theory if you are clever.You can play openings that are based on understanding and not on lines.If you know the plans and the basic traps you can find the moves by yourself.It is better than memorising lines and play moves you don't understand like most do in "low level chess".

 I play the e3 line, so play normally seems to go 1.d4 Nf6 2.e3 ... 3.c4 ... 4.Nc6 ... for quite a lot of times. When they go into KID, I smile, nod, know what to do, lock centre, and launch a massive attack on the queenside, castling late queenside in case their kingside attack (if it even existed) is too fast, and castle kingside if I broke through the queenside before the kingside attack even started (which usually happens, telling me they have no idea how the damn opening works. Shame, I like both sides of KID.)

I once played a strong opponent in my chess club OTB, and he plays 1.d4 frequently, so I played KID. Needless to say, I did lose, but after I put up a good fight, and made a positional mistake. He asked me, "Why didn't you play the Nimzo (Or Nimzo-Indian, don't know the correct name - 1...Nf6 2...e6)?! It's harder to deal with! Much harder!" And I just replied, "Because I'm more comfortable with King's Indian Defence."

Yes, one opening might be better than another against your opponent, but if you have little to no idea what the ideas are behind the opening, you're better off taking an inferior opening that you know what to do. Because in the end, if you're just mindlessly developing pieces without knowing your own position, you will not only lose the opening, you've got a good chance of losing the middlegame, the one thing you're counting on to excel in.

And that just won't do, would it?

As someone suggested earlier, chess960 (a.k.a., Fischer-Random) is a way around having to absorb so much  of the tedious minutiae of opening theory.  Yeah, I agree that it's harder to find opponents for chess960, and so it's tempting to disregard it as a viable solution to the problem you're describing.  But the problem with that reasoning is that when many people follow it, well, it actually perpetuates the problem of finding opponents in the first place.  In other words, the logic of "there aren't enough opponents" ensures that there will never be enough opponents.

My own response to this problem is to play chess960 when I can, and to make attempts to introduce other people to it, too -- to act as a kind of embassador for chess960.  I find that there are two main benefit to this.  First, I get to play more chess960 (which I enjoy).  Second, I get the additional satisfaction to giving to others a gift that was given to me a few months ago (viz., being introduced to chess960).  I'm not sure if any of this appeals to you, but at least it's an alternative to wishing that there were less emphasis on tedious opening theory in chess. 

Oops... make that "ambassador" in my last ms.... first blunder of the day.  Sorry.