Opening theories not for under 1600 players?

Some people says that we actually don't need opening theories before we climb up to at least 1600. Till then we have to master the basic tactics and positional play. But I see many opening book for beginners. Even there is a book named "CHESS OPENINGS FOR DUMMIES" And there is another awesome book on Chess "Back to basics : Tactics" by Dan Heisman where the author gives Tactics much importance than opening theories for beginners. Now, almost all chess tutors will teach you openings from the very beginning of your chess training. So, it really gets controversial. But I think we need both the tactics practice and opening ideas. Thoughts?

i think openings are underrated but tactics like pins and forks are still more important. but you need to know enough about openings to guarantee an ok middle-game.

I think some lower rated players buy e.g. a book on the Najdof. If they actually learned all it has to offer, they'd be playing it at e.g. the 2400 level. It's tedious and unnecessary... and without actually understanding the moves it will be (very) hard to remember all the various lines.

Similarly for something like Fundamental Chess Endings. If you actually mastered it, a very narrow aspect of your endgames would be at a very high level. Tedious an unnecessary.

Learn a little in all areas, then repeat: learn a little more in all areas. Sure out of necessity in the beginning opening moves need to be memorized. Instead of a book I recommend playing over a lot of games. You'll learn though repetition and at the same time you'll get to see the sorts of middlegames the moves lead to, and by that perhaps gain a better overall understanding.

Tactics and basic principles are more important than opening study, but it would be foolish to play the opening without having an idea of what the goals of your opening are.  For example, if you play the Vienna Game or Bishop's Opening, one of the goals is to get a pawn to f4 before you play your Knight to f3, and to continue with a King-side Attack.  One of the goals of the Caro-Kann Defense and it's cousin the Slav Defense is to get your Queen's Bishop outside the Pawn Chain to f5 or g4 before it gets blocked in when you play ...e6.

It doesn't mean you need to learn reams of opening variations - just learn the ideas behind the openings you play or are likely to see played against you.  Learn the patterns and, as time goes on some of the traps either side can spring on the other and those goals should guide you to a playable middlegame without following an exact set of moves.

Understanding openings without understanding fundamental tactics and strategy is pointless because the former relies on the latter. A single non-book move will completely throw you out of the water. Memorizing the Caro-Kann for example, is pointless without knowing how to turn their pawn structure into an advantage during the endgame. In the same fashion knowing "all the lines" of the sicillian dragon is pointless if you don't know how to set up basic tactical positions that commonly crop up in those games.

Note that when people talk about "studying opening theory" they usually mean going over all the different lines and variation, and putting them to memory. There is something like fundamental opening theory which is crucial knowledge for even beginners in chess.

I agree. I can play 1.a4 and my score against U1600s will change by practically nothing.

I beg to differ. Learning an opening isn't just learning lines of moves and variations. A good opening book or tutor or coach will explain what are the typical ideas, where the weaknesses and strengths are. You can apply such knowledge in similar positions too. Your rating, chess ability and results will naturally improve as your knowledge and skill in wielding the opening grows. So I don't believe a player who can play an opening well would still be under 1600. Just need to choose an opening which you can use regularly against a variety of black / white responses and learn to wield it well.

"... If you want to play chess competitively, then you must develop an opening repertoire. ..." - GM Patrick Wolff (1997)

"... I feel that the main reasons to buy an opening book are to give a good overview of the opening, and to explain general plans and ideas. ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)

"... the average player only needs to know a limited amount about the openings he plays. Providing he understands the main aims of the opening, a few typical plans and a handful of basic variations, that is enough. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2008)

Here are two books that strive to improve the reader's understanding of opening play:

Openings for Amateurs by Pete Tamburro (2014)
http://kenilworthian.blogspot.com/2014/05/review-of-pete-tamburros-openings-for.html
https://chessbookreviews.wordpress.com/tag/openings-for-amateurs/
https://www.mongoosepress.com/excerpts/OpeningsForAmateurs%20sample.pdf
Discovering Chess Openings by GM John Emms (2006)

"... For beginning players, [Discovering Chess Openings] will offer an opportunity to start out on the right foot and really get a feel for what is happening on the board. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2006)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627114655/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen91.pdf

"... For inexperienced players, I think the model that bases opening discussions on more or less complete games that are fully annotated, though with a main focus on the opening and early middlegame, is the ideal. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2010)

"... Everyman Chess has started a new series aimed at those who want to understand the basics of an opening, i.e., the not-yet-so-strong players. ... I imagine [there] will be a long series based on the premise of bringing the basic ideas of an opening to the reader through plenty of introductory text, game annotations, hints, plans and much more. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2002)

https://web.archive.org/web/20140627055734/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen38.pdf

Thanks @Kindas

I was told that the primary problem with focusing on openings for a beginner is that if you are playing another beginner (the most likely scenario), then within a couple moves your opponent will start playing out of book and all of those hours of opening prep won't help you anymore in turning the resulting advantage into a winning position. Even if you get a material advantage through a tactic, you still may not know how to exploit it. That's a lot hours of work to get help on just your first three or four moves. Even worse, if you play someone better, you will either be facing someone who knows the opening better than you, or else you hold your own against your foe, only to get crushed in the middle game because you are strategically and tactically inept.

Opening theory, however is very useful, and certainly it isn't a bad idea to build strength in an opening, but tactics and strategy should be given a stronger emphasis. Tactics and strategy have the added benefit of being universally applicable to

 

"... For new players, I cannot recommend books that use [an encyclopedic] type of presentation [of opening theory], because the explanatory prose that elaborates typical plans and ideas is usually absent, thus leaving the student without any clear idea why certain moves are played or even preferred over other apparently equivalent moves. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2010)
"... [Modern Chess Openings (15th ed.)] pretends to be everything for everybody, but it isn’t; it pretends to be up-to-date and relevant in all chapters, but it isn’t; it should be a good book, but it isn’t. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2008)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140626165820/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen110.pdf

I do not think NCO has been revised since 1999. It should perhaps be mentioned that FCO is not really like MCO and NCO.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140626173432/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen128.pdf

Nevertheless: "... [Fundamental Chess Openings by Paul van der Sterren] is not particularly suited for players who are just starting out. I would imagine players rated at least 1400-1500 would get the most benefit from this volume. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2009)

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

"... For inexperienced players, I think the model that bases opening discussions on more or less complete games that are fully annotated, though with a main focus on the opening and early middlegame, is the ideal. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2010)
"... Everyman Chess has started a new series aimed at those who want to understand the basics of an opening, i.e., the not-yet-so-strong players. ... I imagine [there] will be a long series based on the premise of bringing the basic ideas of an opening to the reader through plenty of introductory text, game annotations, hints, plans and much more. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2002)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627055734/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen38.pdf

"The way I suggest you study this book is to play through the main games once, relatively quickly, and then start playing the variation in actual games. Playing an opening in real games is of vital importance - without this kind of live practice it is impossible to get a 'feel' for the kind of game it leads to. There is time enough later for involvement with the details, after playing your games it is good to look up the line." - GM Nigel Davies (2005)

I wish some strong players would personally comment on these topics. 

Putting quotes from GMs and FMs whose ideas of "inexperienced" could be anyone under 1800 OTB doesn't really help in context. 

 

The one advice that was from an FM (Chuddog) in a similar thread was one of the only ones that seemed sane to me there.

FM Carsten Hansen was writing a book for a series about basics. One reviewer described it as "ostensibly intended for players not far past the beginner stage."

"Thanks for getting this book. You have probably started playing chess quite recently and ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2010)

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20140626180930/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman06.pdf

I think it is well to keep in mind some pitfalls that a strong player might fail to avoid. There are some who make the unfortunate assumption that, if something worked for one person, it will work for others. Another dangerous assumption is that the reader has the same ambitions as the writer. With these things in mind, I think it is wise to be wary of a writer who is dogmatic with unqualified assertions about what is to be done. There are other things that seem to me to be warning signals. One big one is a tendency to talk about ideas as if they are absolute instead of a matter of degree. Things like:

whether or not a person has mastered tactics

whether or not a person is serious

whether or not a person is memorizing lines

First of all, I provided a link to the entire article, so that anyone could judge for themselves whether or not I was misleading anyone. Second, lets take this sentence:

"... The first thing to learn about openings are general opening principles. It is of no use to purchase 'The XYZ variation of the Caro-Kann' and try to learn it if you can’t follow a guideline like 'Try to move every piece once before you move any piece twice, unless moving a piecetwice is necessary for safety (good for your safety or bad for his!).' ..."

As anyone can see, he wrote, "... if you can't follow a guideline like ..."

The passage does not say, "... if you haven't mastered opening principles ...".

We do see a reference to mastering opening principles above, but it is in the writing of zac_howland.

Also, note that the sentence begins, "It is of no use to purchase 'The XYZ variation of the Caro-Kann' and try to learn it if ..."

The sentence does not begin, "It is of no use to look at any book on an opening if ..."

Indeed, right after the portion quoted by zac-howland, Dan Heisman went on to write, "Once you identify an opening you really like and wish to learn in more depth, then should you pick up a book on a particular opening or variation. Start with ones that explain the opening variations and are not just meant for advanced players." I see nothing to indicate that the pick-up-a-book passage was intended only for those who have "mastered opening principles". Here, once again, is a link to the whole thing.

https://web.archive.org/web/20140626180930/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman06.pdf

Well, to be fair, I'm quite doubtful that anyone really clicks on those links. 

Is there any reason to suppose that this advice is intended for everyone who has not "mastered opening principles"?

I do not see a contradiction of my observation. Perhaps some logical notation will help. Suppose we use ~M for not mastering opening principles,

~F for being unable to follow a guideline like 'Try to move every piece once before you move any piece twice, unless moving a piece twice is necessary for safety (good for your safety or bad for his!)',

and ~U for not being of use to purchase 'The XYZ variation of the Caro-Kann' and try to learn it.

As I read it, Dan Heisman wrote, ~F -> ~U.

If zac-howland now argues, ~F -> ~M,

that still doesn't make it appropriate to attribute ~M -> whatever

to anyone other than zac_howland.

I did not claim that you did say that. I was merely indicating that, as far as we could tell, Dan Heisman was open to the idea of picking up a book on a particular opening even if one has not mastered opening principles.