Seirawan and Jennifer Shahade had a brief debate about the question of studying openings

I've heard this before and while it seems like a good idea I wonder how effective it truly is. Sure I suppose I would notice patterns and pick up some things. But can say a 1400 player really look at the games of 2500 players and just understand what's happening just by looking at games? How would he even know what's going on? What could a 1400 player possibly understand about the strategy of 2500 players? Will he just know that play on the dark-squares is important by looking at 100 games? What about 1000? How many games does it take for the wisdom of the ages to impart itself upon a 1400 player that he might understand the games of Kasparov?

I'm not saying that this isn't a good idea but I think the usefulness of this approach is overstated and probably more useful for stronger players that can somewhat wrap their head around these complicated ideas.

I mean you certainly wouldn't be expected to gain mastery of anything else by just watching someone else do it. You would seek out a teacher that could point out important things to you. Sure you might have some ideas from the positions you watch alone but you'd also have all kinds of misunderstandings and bad habits that you might never even notice until someone pointed it out to you.

I "know" multiple defenses to 1.e4 and 1.d4 (I'm sure we all do), but I can play one clearly better than I can play the others (my main response, of course). 

I think that's not unreasonable to briefly look at multiple responses, but to learn them in depth is too much for a 1400. 

However, it's mainly about playing skills. 

I'm playing in multiple thematic/pre-determined opening tournaments, and the one I'm doing exceptionally well in right now is the "Petrov's Defense", where I'm just winning games easily and smoothly. I've never played the 5.d4 variation of the Petroff as either color in a single game in my life until now. 

penandpaper0089 wrote:

"... you certainly wouldn't be expected to gain mastery of anything else by just watching someone else do it. You would seek out a teacher that could point out important things to you. ..."

There are books that combine opening explanation with sample games.

Mmm, I never said you should look at GM games and take that as a study. That was ChinOfQuin so I dont know why you quote me.

Shh, dont prove him wrong or he may bite you.

There is a big misunderstanding. 

Why does everyone (patzers) think that studying openings is the same as memorizing openings? Studying openings is very far from that crap, at least correctly studying openings is far away from that. Should you learn the typical plans, pawn structures, tactical motifs, defensive resources and endgames that arise from an opening? Yes you should, does not matter if you are 600 or 2600 it will benefit you. Do you need to memorize lines? No, that is what everyone thinks when someone says "studying opening theory" and is crap.

Look at Ponzetto´s "Mastering the King´s Indian", that right there is kind of the way you should study openings or opening theory, however you want to name it.

Those are just my 2 cents on the matter, whenever I talked about studying opening theory with stronger players (FM and above) that is what they think when someone tells them "studying openigs" or "studying opening theory".