Yeah, I reached 1600+ with pretty bad openings that I didn't even know well, and 1800+ with the same openings that I got a bit more experience in, but didn't really study theory on much.
The little theory I did study was useless since my opponents never played into it, funny enough.
And my level of "talent" is rather low - I just focus on tactics and strategy, which are the things that matter in chess, and lets players with completely no opening theory knowledge play at 2100+ level.
Yeah, I reached 1600+ with pretty bad openings that I didn't even know well, and 1800+ with the same openings that I got a bit more experience in, but didn't really study theory on much. ...
It was you that told us that you tried studying some lines from opening books?
... And my level of "talent" is rather low ...
Low compared to what? What talent measurement system is at work here?
I tried to, and got some theory lines, so I knew a little, but I didn't manage to apply it in my games since my opponents always deviated.
And I know some high schoolers and younger who were NMs a few years (like 2-3 years, or something) after learning how the pieces moved.
It took me about that long to go from 1200+ to 2000+, before I quit for a while. That was when schoolwork was lighter.
I tried to, and got some theory lines, so I knew a little, but I didn't manage to apply it in my games since my opponents always deviated. ...
Are you sure that it wasn't any help to see some of the ideas in the books?
... I know some high schoolers and younger who were NMs a few years (like 2-3 years, or something) after learning how the pieces moved.
It took me about that long to go from 1200+ to 2000+, before I quit for a while. That was when schoolwork was lighter.
Even if one is not as talented as those who became NMs in ~2-3 years, couldn't one still be (as one who went from 1200+ to 2000+ in ~2-3 years) more talented than a high percentage of rated players?
Not nearly as much as the help from seeing a hanging piece that someone blundered without provocation.
Not nearly as much as the help from seeing a hanging piece that someone blundered without provocation.
"... A remark like 'games are rarely decided in the opening' does not really do justice to the issue. ... even if an initial opening advantage gets spoiled by subsequent mistakes, this doesn't render it meaningless. In the long run, having the advantage out of the opening will bring you better results. Maybe this warning against the study of openings especially focuses on 'merely learning moves'. But almost all opening books and DVD's give ample attention to general plans and developing schemes, typical tactics, whole games, and so on. ..." - IM Willy Hendriks (2012)
No matter how much study time you have, studying tactics for 1 hour will be more beneficial than openings for many hours.
I've been told I give good advice in these threads, so I'll chime in, illustrating with a game I just played in an open swiss this past weekend. I was black. My opponent, rated ~2000, lost in 11 moves with white. This wasn't speed chess.
Why did he lose? Is it because he didn't know the opening lines? Well, he was out of book after 5 moves. But guess what - so was I. The real problem is, he neglected opening PRINCIPLES. You don't start attacking until you've finished developing and castled. And you should never open the center when you have an uncastled king in the center. (There are exceptions, but you have to learn to follow the rules before you can spot the exceptions.)
The point is, you do need to study openings at every level. But until you reach a very advanced level, what you need to do is master the principles, ideas, pawn structures, strategies, and tactics of the openings you play, and NOT to memorize long opening lines.
I've been told I give good advice in these threads, so I'll chime in, illustrating with a game I just played in an open swiss this past weekend. I was black. My opponent, rated ~2000, lost in 11 moves with white. This wasn't speed chess.
Why did he lose? Is it because he didn't know the opening lines? Well, he was out of book after 5 moves. But guess what - so was I. The real problem is, he neglected opening PRINCIPLES. You don't start attacking until you've finished developing and castled. And you should never open the center when you have an uncastled king in the center. (There are exceptions, but you have to learn to follow the rules before you can spot the exceptions.)
The point is, you do need to study openings at every level. But until you reach a very advanced level, what you need to do is master the principles, ideas, pawn structures, strategies, and tactics of the openings you play, and NOT to memorize long opening lines.
Thank you, great advice.
No matter how much study time you have, studying tactics for 1 hour will be more beneficial than openings for many hours.
Short and sweet! Tactics below 1500 elo will benefit a player more than any opening study.
Wow... that's a pretty incredible tactic. Reminds me of the tactic the 1200 used to beat the 2100 in the tournament some people were talking about ...Bb4+!
"... 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)
"... 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)
Sometimes it's a discussion between the two extremes "no theory at all" and "you absolutely must play mainlines to become a better chess player". For most players above absolute beginner level and below world class it's something in between. I hope everybody agrees for that.
One former teammate who prefers bizarre openings and sharp tactics played the englund gambit on a regular basis somewhere between the 1950s and 1970s. When i started in that club he was over 70 with a rating in the 1700s. Back then he was maybe something between 1900 and 2000. He had a overall good score for some years until everyone in our region knew about his opening. And he had some wins in league games against roughly equal rated opposition in less than 10 moves by the well-known trap:
Now you'll find that line or some other good setup in every one volume opening book, in any database or with a chess engine. At least once in a couple of hundreds fast blitz game any 1. d4-player will get this opening on board. I'm not sure if he got me that way in a otb blitz or if someone else got me in a online blitz game. At least i was prepared for that trap after my first loss.
But too often i just play around relaxed and don't look what went wrong. With very short time controls the games are very low quality with losses due one move tactics or time running out with a whole army against king and a single pawn. I could have done more reviews on my games!
Overall the players seem to have a better opening knowledge then somewhere before computers and internet where used for chess (engines, chess databases, online games, forums and articles) and followed by that better opening books and videos.
The problem is that some likely follow the market and the chess forums and then wonder too much about their openings. I also got into that trap and try hard to get out of that. After any tournament gone bad you give me five advices for openings that fit better to me and i would have purchased at least three of them. From something like 50 openings books i once had (half of them too far advanced!) i'm down to two, one repertoire book for white and one for black.
I started to contiue my training books and will work on my chess instead on reading about the 10th new opening in two months. 
Someone mentioned above about opening principles.. like maybe.... don't make too many pawn moves in the opening, don't move the same piece twice (unless there is a tactical reason).. but then you won't get to play games like this
tactics are certainly more important but you need to know a bit about openings otherwise this will happen a lot. worst case for about 800-1000. i'm speaking as if i'm someone who doesn't know any openings and just follows principals.
i'm here speaking as if i'm someone around my level who does not know openings.
tactics are more important but you need to know some openings because taking and defending free pawns can be terrible in this case.
^In both your examples (the second one black has ...c6 btw - white can play Rxa6, but that's a tactic, isn't it?) it wasn't because black didn't know the openings, but because black didn't know tactics or openings.
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.
And that was never, and is never, the question. Your logical fallacy is: strawman!
I was unaware that anyone had granted you the power to decide what questions may be discussed here.
"See post #1. ..." - zac_howland (post #46)
I do not see zac_howland mentioned in post #1.
You do not see the question being asked either, apparently.
My understanding is that it is acceptable for related issues to be discussed.