Opening theories not for under 1600 players?

For analyzing games, I see nothing in the Dan Heisman material to rule out help from some sample games in a book on an opening. Also, I see nothing to rule out help from sample games (in a book on an opening) for other Dan Heisman suggestions:

enabling oneself to reach a playable middlegame where one's forces have good things to do;

enabling oneself to develope one's pieces quickly and efficiently;

enabling oneself to play sharp openings;

learning the traps in an opening; and

learning the ideas in an opening: where the pieces usually go, where the pawn breaks are, where to attack in the middlegame, etc.

Lets say you should start out with one very short opening line:

1. e4 (occupies one centre square, attacks one other, d5, opens diagonals for the bishop on f1 and the queen) e5 (same as 1.e4) 2. Nf3 (attacks e5) Nc6 (defends e5) 3. Bc4 (develops the bishop, targets the weak point f7 and prepares castling). Against all other Openings you should try to occupy the centre with e4 and d4 if possible, develop your pieces and castle your king. Same for black!

Then you check your games and look, where you could have played better opening moves.  For that you need at least a one volume book. Lets say you started 1. e4 and the opponent answered c6 (What's that?) 2. d4 (occupies the centre) d5 (also occupies the centre) 3. Nf3 ? (develops a piece, but at least temporary loses a pawn) dxe4. Then you will read something about the so-called caro-kann defence and that the main lines are 3. Nc3, 3. e5 and 3. exd5, after that you choose one of them for your next game against the caro-kann. This way you learn game after game and only opening which your opponents play. Online you can play hundreds of games in a short time and get games in every main opening.

Well, I'm pretty bad at tactics (hang a lot of stuff, miss tactical tricks often), and I have like a 80+% score against 1800-1900 OTB.

I'd say that tactics are your primary weakness under 2200. 

"... I paraphrased (hence the lack of quotes) his last sentence using a specific example. I realize reading comprehension is difficult for someone who does not like to read, but when there is a lack of quotes around a statement, it means it is not a direct quote." - zac_howland (post #29)

Here is the Heisman sentence that referred to 1800:

"Once you are rated over 1300 USCF/FIDE, then specific opening study should be expanded, but my personal belief – and that of many experienced instructors – is that spending a large amount of time studying specific opening lines is not a really efficient use of your chess study time until you approach a rating of at least 1800-2000"
Now everyone can easily decide for themselves whether or not post #23 appropriately described what Heisman stated in his sentence that referred to 1800.

"... I did say, as Dan does, that it is a waste of time to memorize lines when your primary weakness is tactics (as it is when you are under 1800ish). ..." - zac_howland (post #29)

Dan Heisman did say:

"... 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 indicated in my post #21, as far as we can 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. Indeed, in the 2001 article, Dan Heisman subsequently wrote:
"... 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. ..." - Dan Heisman (2001)

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

In this thread, is it claimed anywhere that studying the opening is at the top of his (or anyone's) list?

In this thread, is there anywhere where it is advocated to spend a lot of time studying openings? Surely, you were not advocating that when you wrote (in post #13), "In fact, you may want to have the first 5-6 moves of 3-4 openings you like to play memorized (as long as you play thrm consistently so you can continuously improve on them)."

As far as I can tell, Dan Heisman was open to the idea of picking up a book on a particular opening even if one is under 1800ish. Indeed, in the 2001 article, Dan Heisman wrote:
"... 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. ..." - Dan Heisman (2001)

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

Dan Heisman was mentioned in this thread in zac_howland's post #17. Subsequently, I have been discussing Dan Heisman quotes primarily in order to indicate that, as far as we can 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. I see nothing wrong with indicating that.

"... 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. ..." - Dan Heisman (2001)

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

Dan Heisman wrote:

"Once you are rated over 1300 USCF/FIDE, then specific opening study should be expanded, but my personal belief – and that of many experienced instructors – is that spending a large amount of time studying specific opening lines is not a really efficient use of your chess study time until you approach a rating of at least 1800-2000",

https://web.archive.org/web/20140627023735/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman15.pdf

but, as far as I can tell, Dan Heisman was open to the idea of picking up a book on a particular opening even if one is not approaching at least 1800-2000. Indeed, in the 2001 article, Dan Heisman wrote:
"... 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. ..." - Dan Heisman (2001)

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

In post #13, we saw, "In fact, you may want to have the first 5-6 moves of 3-4 openings you like to play memorized (as long as you play thrm consistently so you can continuously improve on them)."

It seems to me that, in connection with this, it might be helpful to look at some games in a book on an opening.

I was unaware that anyone had granted you the power to decide what questions may be discussed here.

I always felt playing a safe move is one way to play your opening, trying to memorize all the most pop openings can become boring, or tedious. If you do not play the expected move to a particular opening, things become original very fast. Its like taking some one out of their game plan. Playing on line here is a very good example of this, using the "game explorer",  the game does not really begin until you exhaust all the expected, best moves!

"See post #1. ..." - zac_howland (post #46)

I do not see zac_howland mentioned in post #1.

"... And per your assertion that you see nothing to indicate Heisman (or any other well known teacher) would have a problem with a beginner picking up an opening book ..." - zac_howland (post #46)

Not what I asserted. See above.

"... he does not recommend studying opening theory, but rather picking up an opening encyclopedia (FCO, MCO, and NCO are the 3 he mentions often) to be used when analyzing your games. ..." - zac_howland (post #46)

In the 2001 article, Dan Heisman wrote: "... 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. ..."

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

"... Nowhere in the Novice Nook series does he recommend picking up something like 'The Ruy Lopez: Move by Move' (for example), ..." - zac_howland (post #46)

The 2001 article refers to starting with books that explain the opening variations and are not just meant for advanced players.

If something works for one person, does it necessarily work for another? In any event, the following is not an along-the-lines description:

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

I wonder what he means by competitively, because I reached 1800+ with garbage openings I didn't even know much theory in. He probably means if you want to be 2200+ or something, because it's blatantly false that you need half-decent openings to get 1800+. 

In fact, this 2100+ I played has absolutely no opening repertoire, just plays stuff like e4 d3 Be2 Bd2 etc. every game as an "opening" (or some other random stuff) and gets good results. He has good tactical vision and positional understanding. 

We are talking about a book that also explains how the rook moves.

Where did someone write about needing "half-decent openings to get 1800+"? About 14 days, ago were you the one who told us, about reaching "1600+ without having opening repertoires past move like 6 or something"? Anyway, if something works for one person, will it necessarily work for another?